Oh hey, that's interesting. George R.R. Martin was just ranting about fanfic in his blog, in part because (according to him) you could lose control of the copyright if you didn't police it. I was thinking that meant merchandising and sequels and other derivative works, rather than the original. GRRM is in a position to know, since he does license merchandise and TV shows and stuff, on the one hand. On the other, just because it's in his interest to know this stuff doesn't mean he'd necessarily have it right. >:)
But if a copyright protects your interest against derivative works, why does Disney trademark all their characters? If it doesn't, why don't people ripoff those who don't trademark them all? Maybe it's a matter of "trademark provides a stronger legal defense but copyright is still sufficient in most cases?" Just like you don't need to register a copyright to have one, but it still helps to do so? Law is weird.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-05-18 07:29 pm (UTC)GRRM is in a position to know, since he does license merchandise and TV shows and stuff, on the one hand. On the other, just because it's in his interest to know this stuff doesn't mean he'd necessarily have it right. >:)
But if a copyright protects your interest against derivative works, why does Disney trademark all their characters? If it doesn't, why don't people ripoff those who don't trademark them all? Maybe it's a matter of "trademark provides a stronger legal defense but copyright is still sufficient in most cases?" Just like you don't need to register a copyright to have one, but it still helps to do so? Law is weird.