Bah; copyright cannot apply to a name that predates modern society, AFAIK.
Copyright doesn’t apply to names, anyway. Trademark, yes. But not copyright. A name by itself does not qualify for copyright protection, even if it were a wholly original, brand spankin’ new name never before uttered by humankind.
Also, you can’t copyright names - which makes this a trademark issue, and thus any claim under the DMCA is inherently bogus. So there’s layers of disingenuous fuckery going on with these claims here.
(One could, in theory, trademark any name or word at all, except it would be specific for a particular type of business, would be blocked by pre-existing trademarks or similar usage, and of course one would actually have to trademark it in the first place before making any sort of infringement claims. Which obviously hasn’t happened here, and wouldn’t be applicable to any of the supposed infringing uses.)
I’ll take a diet orange soda, if you have one.
Oh, you can try, even if just to make a point…
Metallica want naming rights to [E F] chord sequence (narkive.com)
Fair point; I was just stuck on the sheer audacity.
Yes @danimagoo already beat you to correcting me.
Give the lady her fizzy beverage of choice…
The company was incorporated 2020-08-07, and might be run out of someone’s basement. The software is probably a basic scrape and spray operation.
I didn’t intend that as a correction, but as supplemental info. In other words, not only is the very idea of copyrighting a name that’s been around forever inherently ridiculous, as you said, but also…copyright doesn’t even apply here. Sorry for not making that clear.
I’m hip; no harm, no foul.
Just making a slightly snarky point about how some folks practically trip over themselves in their eagerness to share what they know.
It happens so frequently on BB, that I can’t help but poke fun at it.
I have been guilty before. I think I had to give someone a coke yesterday or the day before.
Fizzy beverages for everyone!
The complaint says that the copyright violation is for unspecified images and videos, not the name.
Yeah, I can’t get over the completely disingenuous nature of the takedown service here - they have to know what they’re doing isn’t legal (or even make any sort of sense), doesn’t help their “client” (scam victim) any, and is doing nothing but sowing chaos on the web. (Also, as the whole process is so clearly fully automated, these are lazy scammers.)
Sorry, didn’t mean it as a correction or even explanation, but just trying to plumb the many layers of dishonesty in action in the story - and I’m sure I’m missing some.
Still frivolous; NASA isn’t infringing on their “IP,” whatever it may be.
The complaint says that because copyright violations can’t be just for copying a name. However, these takedown notices seem to be targeting everyone who has used the name Artemis, rather than actually infringing content. Whether that’s because the complainant doesn’t understand what copyright covers, or because they do but are being overly aggressive, or because they’ve just used a very badly designed algorithm to identify infringing content, who knows? At best, they’re acting negligently. At worst, they’re intentionally abusing the DMCA process.
Perhaps to highlight this absurdity even more, someone performing under the name Jesus needs to file copyright takedowns against the Vatican website and basically every church website out there. Too bad Christmas is just past, but imagine if such a takedown happened on Good Friday, taking the sites down just before Easter Sunday? Think that might draw some attention to the DMCA?