Quoted By:
>ALSO, you have to remember that they want to keep a good working relationship with the license holders. How pissed would they be if Mezco bootlegged Dick Tracy? Rights denied and we'd have nothing.
While I see the logic in your example you also have to keep in mind similar situations have already occured. For instance Mezco and Neca have both made Phantom of the Opera figures based off the Universal silent film while also having released Universal Monster toys. In these cases, even if theres a chance of the rights holder being a petty bitch, the opportunity for rights holders to still make money by licensing their brands usually wins out in the end. They rather make some money over no money. Now that I think about it I think Neca and Mezco both also made Nosferatu figures based off the 1922 classic and advertised them as part of their Universal Monsters line despite Nosferatu having no relation to the Universal films.
> also also, trademarks can be renewed infinitely. Being that I'm lazy, i'm not going to look up what that actually entails, but it's stopped various PD characters to be used. I forget if this is just a name/logo thing or whatever, but I'm not looking that shit up
offensive/defensive trademarking is a relatively new phenomenon in the world of copyrighting. the thing is that unlike copyright, trademarking cant prohibit others from using a character or making derivative works. At worst you cant use a character's name on your derivative work. The Tarzan example is pertinent since the Burroughs estate is only trying it in the hopes of securing some advantage over the unwashed masses. A similar example would, again, be Captain Marvel. You cant use the name "Captain Marvel" because marvel trademarked AND copyrighted it and you cant go the shazam route because DC owns those trademarks and copyrights.
cont.
