Orwell's heirs go Orewellian dictator!

[hinduwoman]

The estate tried to copyright '1984'.

T

he descendants of Orwell, whose name has become synonymous with mechanisms used to enforce power, are trying to force an Internet radio host to stop using the iconic “1984” on merchandise, claiming copyright infringement, leaving one to wonder whether they ever read Orwell’s work.
...
“First off is the irony of the estate of George Orwell being all Orwellian but second is that you can’t copyright a number,” Hadley told TF. “The U.S. Copyright office has long since established this.” Hadley added he didn’t use any of the author’s quotes on the T-shirt even though the estate had accused him of doing so.
But Bill Hamilton, executor of the estate, said the merchandise Hadley was selling does breach copyright laws.
“The estate has never licensed merchandising, nor have the licensees of the relevant film rights, under which merchandising usually comes. Some of the merchandising I asked to be taken down was in clear breach of copyright,” Hamilton told TF.
Hadley said he still plans to sell the shirt with “1984” on it because it’s something he believes George Orwell himself would approve of, noting the “Big Brother-like” manner the estate watched his website for transgressions.

SO ultimately this is where copyright monopoly is heading towards in USA?
I am patenting 2016.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm patenting the idea of people patenting stuff. Everytime someone files or discusses a patent, they owe me $5.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I'm patenting the idea of people patenting stuff. Everytime someone files or discusses a patent, they owe me $5.

nm

 

[Playball40]

Need more details. But if someone were selling shirts with "Brave New World" would that be acceptable?

 

[Jayjay]

I don't think copyright applies. If the estate wanted to control the name, they should attempt to trademark it.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm patenting the idea of people patenting stuff. Everytime someone files or discusses a patent, they owe me $5.

Only if they pronounce it "pay tent".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think copyright applies. If the estate wanted to control the name, they should attempt to trademark it.

Agreed.

I do think this is an infringing use because it's clearly referring to the novel. Copyright isn't the right tool, though.

 

[Juma]

I don't think copyright applies. If the estate wanted to control the name, they should attempt to trademark it.

Agreed.

I do think this is an infringing use because it's clearly referring to the novel. Copyright isn't the right tool, though.

? That is exactly what copyright is for: securing the right to regulate in what context the work is used.

 

[Metaphor]

You generally cannot copyright a book (or song, or whatever) title. This makes sense as to do so would be too injurious to the creation of new material.

I think the rule is too important to be bent, even for cases where someone's book title has achieved widespread popularity and fame, like 'Brave New World' or even 'He's Just Not That Into You'.

 

[Deepak]

I'm left wondering what Orwell would think of the term 'Orwellian' - both in broad usage and also in this specific case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Agreed.

I do think this is an infringing use because it's clearly referring to the novel. Copyright isn't the right tool, though.

? That is exactly what copyright is for: securing the right to regulate in what context the work is used.

Should they have sued all calendar makers 31 years ago?

"1984" isn't the problem, "1984" in the context of the novel is. Trademark, not copyright.

 

[Nexus]

Yes trademarks are for words and phrases. And they need to be vigorously defended in order to maintain legal status. If they had wanted exclusive use of "1984" they needed to register a trademark for it and use the ® and ™ symbols. That still wouldn't give them 100% exclusive use since 1984 was a year and people needed to use those numerals for calendars, documents or contracts etc.

Even if you register a trademark you can still lose protection if the word becomes to widely spread in the language. Google is in danger of losing the exclusive use of "google" since its widely accepted as a synonym for search. They also don't bother putting the ® and ™ symbols on the homepage.

Here's a list of lost trademarks due to widespread usage.

Aspirin
Cellophane
Dry ice
Escalator
Heroin
Kerosene
Laundromat
Trampoline
Videotape
Yo-Yo
Zipper

 

[dystopian]

"1984" isn't the problem, "1984" in the context of the novel is.

Nonsense. When a work of fiction becomes so culturally widespread that you can literally use the title alone as a descriptive term in a political conversation and have people understand exactly what you mean without elaborating, it can no longer be subjected to claims of commercial ownership to such an extent that you can sue people just for using the name. Unless someone was printing the entirety of the novel on a t-shirt, I don't see how the estate could possibly hope to legally enforce their claims.