PDA

View Full Version : [Dixonary] why DIXONary?


Toni Savage
June 13th, 2009, 12:11 PM
For a little more information, Compuserve was almost sued by the maker of the board game -- it turns out "Fictionary" is copyrighted or trademarked (or both)

-- Toni Savage


--- On Sat, 6/13/09, Daniel B. Widdis <widdis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

> From: Daniel B. Widdis <widdis (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
> Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Round 2012 - ELUCUBRATE definitions
> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> Date: Saturday, June 13, 2009, 12:01 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PK> I think the
> earliest occurrence of Dixonary is in
> Thackeray's Vanity Fair, 1847
>
> Â*
>
> But this citation is not
> associated with our etymology.Â*
> Our game here started out as Fictionary for the
> first several rounds,
> and IIRC was later changed in honor (?) of one of the
> player’s
> names.Â* Fictionary, of course, derives from
> dictionary, which makes
> the remainder of your argument sound for the third
> syllable.Â* However, the
> first two syllables ought to be accented the same way as
> Mr. Dixon’s
> name.Â* Which is also, coincidentally, with the accent
> on the first
> syllable (at least for Jeremiah, the surveyor.)
>
> Â*
>
> Totally unrelated, I expect
> this message will be sent in HTML,
> but I also expect that Dodi will be able to read it in
> T’bird without
> having to fetch a second attachment!
>
> Â*
>
>
>
> Â*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Chuck
June 13th, 2009, 03:53 PM
I would have thought that suit would have quickly fallen to a "prior
art" argument. The game was a popular parlor game in Canada years
before the board game came out. Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary was a necessary
ingredient, defs were hand written and read aloud by the dealer and the
players all sat in a single room, frequently with refreshments. I
remember playing this in Vancouver at least 2 years prior to the board
game being released. The name Fictionary could be protected, but not
the game.

- Chuck


Toni Savage wrote:
> For a little more information, Compuserve was almost sued by the maker of the board game -- it turns out "Fictionary" is copyrighted or trademarked (or both)
>
> -- Toni Savage
>
>
> --- On Sat, 6/13/09, Daniel B. Widdis <widdis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
>
>
>> From: Daniel B. Widdis <widdis (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
>> Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Round 2012 - ELUCUBRATE definitions
>> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
>> Date: Saturday, June 13, 2009, 12:01 PM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> PK> I think the
>> earliest occurrence of Dixonary is in
>> Thackeray's Vanity Fair, 1847
>>
>>
>>
>> But this citation is not
>> associated with our etymology.
>> Our game here started out as Fictionary for the
>> first several rounds,
>> and IIRC was later changed in honor (?) of one of the
>> player’s
>> names. Fictionary, of course, derives from
>> dictionary, which makes
>> the remainder of your argument sound for the third
>> syllable. However, the
>> first two syllables ought to be accented the same way as
>> Mr. Dixon’s
>> name. Which is also, coincidentally, with the accent
>> on the first
>> syllable (at least for Jeremiah, the surveyor.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Totally unrelated, I expect
>> this message will be sent in HTML,
>> but I also expect that Dodi will be able to read it in
>> T’bird without
>> having to fetch a second attachment!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Dodi Schultz
June 13th, 2009, 04:27 PM
Chuck wrote:

> The game was a popular parlor game in Canada years
> before the board game came out. Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary was a
> necessary ingredient, defs were hand written and read aloud by the
> dealer and the players all sat in a single room, frequently with
> refreshments.

Not just Canada, Chuck. We played it in the NY-NJ area back in the '70s
and '80s, just the way you describe (we scored it a bit differently; the
dealer, e.g., got points, not just prestige, for wrong guesses), except
we didn't use Mrs. Byrne's; the dictionary was the largest (regular) one
in the possession of the host. We called it, simply, "Dictionary."

--Dodi

Daniel B. Widdis
June 13th, 2009, 10:26 PM
TS> it turns out "Fictionary" is copyrighted or trademarked (or both)

Perhaps it reflects on the fact that many in the TAPCIS forum were lawyers that this particular version of the game respected the claim and changed name. (I wasn't there, but seem to recall stories that Mr. Dixon was a frequent crown-earner in the early days?) The MPGAMES forum version of the game kept the original Fictionary title, which it has kept through its migration to the Gamers forum and its current incarnation on Dreamlyrics.

IANAL, but isn't copyright/trademark infringement limited to a suit for monies earned using the trademark? And since nobody is making any sort of profit off the game, how would it be in danger?

Dan

Dodi Schultz
June 13th, 2009, 11:15 PM
> IANAL, but isn't copyright/trademark infringement limited to a suit
> for monies earned using the trademark? And since nobody is making
> any sort of profit off the game, how would it be in danger?

Dan, I don't know about trademark--which would apply in this case,
because there's a product involved--but copyright infringement *doesn't*
rely on whether or not the infringer's making money from lifting the
material in question. If the alleged infringer claims "fair use"
(certain uses of copyrighted materials, among them use in reviews and in
parodies, are permitted under that concept), then that can be one among
several considerations in determining if the defense is valid.

--Dodi

Toni Savage
June 14th, 2009, 06:53 AM
I *THINK* that you can lose the rights to the trademark of you (knowingly) don't require that users put the circle-r after it every time.

IOW, If you as the trademark owner know of a usage that you do not complain about (or make an agreement about) then you can lose the trademark rights.

I can't remember who, but some famous trademark like Kleenex or Scotch tape (neither of those, though) lost its trademark rights that way, causing everybody else to sit up and take notice.

-- Toni Savage


--- On Sat, 6/13/09, Daniel B. Widdis <widdis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

> From: Daniel B. Widdis <widdis (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
> Subject: [Dixonary] Re: why DIXONary?
> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> Date: Saturday, June 13, 2009, 11:26 PM
>
> TS> it turns out "Fictionary" is copyrighted or
> trademarked (or both)
>
> Perhaps it reflects on the fact that many in the TAPCIS
> forum were lawyers that this particular version of the game
> respected the claim and changed name.* (I wasn't there,
> but seem to recall stories that Mr. Dixon was a frequent
> crown-earner in the early days?)* The MPGAMES forum
> version of the game kept the original Fictionary title,
> which it has kept through its migration to the Gamers forum
> and its current incarnation on Dreamlyrics.
>
> IANAL, but isn't copyright/trademark infringement limited
> to a suit for monies earned using the trademark?* And
> since nobody is making any sort of profit off the game, how
> would it be in danger?
>
> Dan
>
>
>

Toni Savage
June 14th, 2009, 07:03 AM
I think you can trademark a NAME even if it is the name of a product. Kleenex, for example, cannot copyright the product of tissues, but the name is a trademark.

This is the situation with Fictionary (tm) where the game itself is a common one, but it is called various names when it is played without whatever "product" the game publisher produces.


-- Toni Savage


--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Dodi Schultz <schultz (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:

> From: Dodi Schultz <schultz (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
> Subject: [Dixonary] Re: why DIXONary?
> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 12:15 AM
>
>
> > IANAL, but isn't copyright/trademark infringement
> limited to a suit
> > for monies earned using the trademark?* And since
> nobody is making
> > any sort of profit off the game, how would it be in
> danger?
>
> Dan, I don't know about trademark--which would apply in
> this case, because there's a product involved--but copyright
> infringement *doesn't* rely on whether or not the
> infringer's making money from lifting the material in
> question. If the alleged infringer claims "fair use"
> (certain uses of copyrighted materials, among them use in
> reviews and in parodies, are permitted under that concept),
> then that can be one among several considerations in
> determining if the defense is valid.
>
> --Dodi
>
>

collect
June 14th, 2009, 06:59 PM
Problem is the game is ancient -- even been on TV as "Call My Bluff"
etc. All they really "own" is a name -- so we changed it. As the
rules here are substantially different, any lawsuit would be futile.

Dave


On Jun 14, 8:03*am, Toni Savage <tonicsav... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
> I think you can trademark a NAME even if it is the name of a product. *Kleenex, for example, cannot copyright the product of tissues, but the name is a trademark.
>
> This is the situation with Fictionary (tm) where the game itself is a common one, but it is called various names when it is played without whatever "product" the game publisher produces.
>
> -- Toni Savage
>
> --- On Sun, 6/14/09, Dodi Schultz <schu... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: Dodi Schultz <schu... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
> > Subject: [Dixonary] Re: why DIXONary?
> > To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> > Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 12:15 AM
>
> > > IANAL, but isn't copyright/trademark infringement
> > limited to a suit
> > > for monies earned using the trademark?* And since
> > nobody is making
> > > any sort of profit off the game, how would it be in
> > danger?
>
> > Dan, I don't know about trademark--which would apply in
> > this case, because there's a product involved--but copyright
> > infringement *doesn't* rely on whether or not the
> > infringer's making money from lifting the material in
> > question. If the alleged infringer claims "fair use"
> > (certain uses of copyrighted materials, among them use in
> > reviews and in parodies, are permitted under that concept),
> > then that can be one among several considerations in
> > determining if the defense is valid.
>
> > --Dodi- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jim Hart
June 14th, 2009, 10:42 PM
(Coming late into the discussion...)

There are numerous examples of former trade names that degenerated
into common words through usage. Escalator is the first that comes to
mind. Which is why trade mark owners can appear to be so merciless -
their lawyers have warned them that not protesting any perceived
misuse will be used as evidence of acceptance of general usage.

I recall some time back Xerox took out ads directed at writers,
editors etc to politely inform them of this situation, and to advise
them never to use the word xerox (and especially not lowercase) to
mean any photocopier and never as a verb. And yet google is now widely
used as a verb which I suspect only enhances the owner's reputation.

As for copyright, it's my understanding that copyright cannot apply to
a title of a single word, nor for that matter to a plot or idea, but
only to the original expression of that story. This is as distinct
from plagiarism which is more of an ethical rather than legal
transgression.

AT the risk of thread drift, there's the recent issue of the possible
sequel to Catcher in the Rye, and whether Salinger or his publishers
can stop anyone else from using Holden Caulfield as a character in a
new novel. It seems you can't own fictional characters. OTOH if you
try to use Donald Duck as a character in a story I think you could
count the minutes on one hand before the Disney lawyers descend on
you.

Jim


On Jun 14, 9:53*pm, Toni Savage <tonicsav... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
> I *THINK* that you can lose the rights to the trademark of you (knowingly) don't require that users put the circle-r after it every time.

Dodi Schultz
June 15th, 2009, 12:31 AM
> I recall some time back Xerox took out ads directed at writers,
> editors etc to politely inform them of this situation, and to advise
> them never to use the word xerox (and especially not lowercase) to
> mean any photocopier and never as a verb.

Or a noun, Jim, which is how Kleenex, Frigidaire, Hoover, Band-Aid, and
a host of other products slid into near-generic status. INTA (the
International Trademark Ass'n) is still running ads in the journalism
journals, and offering literature, in a probably futile attempt to stop
writers and others from "misusing" the trademarks of popular products,
let alone failing to adhere slavishly to the INTA "usage guidelines."

The latter include, e.g., "Trademarks are proper adjectives and should
be capitalized and followed by a generic noun or phrase." As (from a
lengthy list of examples that ran last fall) "Ajax household cleanser,"
"Band-Aid adhesive bandage," "Frisbee toy flying saucer," "iTunes audio
data computer software," "Netflix video rental," "Outlook computer
program," "TiVo subscription television broadcasting service." Of course
the TM owners themselves don't follow these sillinesses. When did you
last see an ad urging you to buy a "Honda automobile"?

> As for copyright, it's my understanding that copyright cannot apply
> to a title of a single word, nor for that matter to a plot or idea,
> but only to the original expression of that story.

Generally true, although there have been successful (as in hefty
settlements) lawsuits involving films (usually very successful films)
where folks have claimed that the filmmakers saw, and drew liberally
from, detailed (written) proposals that they'd rejected.

--Dodi

collect
June 15th, 2009, 06:32 AM
Years ago, a student publication used "plexiglass" and got a firm
letter from Rohm & Haas' attorneys saying it was "Plexiglas (tm)" and
that not only was the word a trademark, we misspelled it <g>. The
misspelling is now lower case on wordnet.


Re: "Donald Duck" see NCIS for "Donald 'Ducky' Mallard" which seems
not to have gotten Disney's notice.

Dave


On Jun 15, 1:31*am, Dodi Schultz <schu... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> > I recall some time back Xerox took out ads directed at writers,
> > editors etc to politely inform them of this situation, and to advise
> > them never to use the word xerox (and especially not lowercase) to
> > mean any photocopier and never as a verb.
>
> Or a noun, Jim, which is how Kleenex, Frigidaire, Hoover, Band-Aid, and
> a host of other products slid into near-generic status. INTA (the
> International Trademark Ass'n) is still running ads in the journalism
> journals, and offering literature, in a probably futile attempt to stop
> writers and others from "misusing" the trademarks of popular products,
> let alone failing to adhere slavishly to the INTA "usage guidelines."
>
> The latter include, e.g., "Trademarks are proper adjectives and should
> be capitalized and followed by a generic noun or phrase." As (from a
> lengthy list of examples that ran last fall) "Ajax household cleanser,"
> "Band-Aid adhesive bandage," "Frisbee toy flying saucer," "iTunes audio
> data computer software," "Netflix video rental," "Outlook computer
> program," "TiVo subscription television broadcasting service." Of course
> the TM owners themselves don't follow these sillinesses. When did you
> last see an ad urging you to buy a "Honda automobile"?
>
> > As for copyright, it's my understanding that copyright cannot apply
> > to a title of a single word, nor for that matter to a plot or idea,
> > but only to the original expression of that story.
>
> Generally true, although there have been successful (as in hefty
> settlements) lawsuits involving films (usually very successful films)
> where folks have claimed that the filmmakers saw, and drew liberally
> from, detailed (written) proposals that they'd rejected.
>
> --Dodi

Paul Keating
June 15th, 2009, 12:02 PM
What's always intrigued me about those silly guidelines, besides being cumbersome and totally unrelated to the way people actually talk, is that they are focussed entirely on English. They can become nonsense when transferred to other languages. For example, in Dutch the normal way to express "play (a game)" is to use the game's name as a verb. Chess is schaak; to play chess is schaken; and I don't need to explain what bridgen means. Now what do I do about Scrabble? The Van Dale dictionary says scrabbelen.

Of course, INTA is not alone in this: the European Central Bank insisted, equally crassly, that the word euro was not to be pluralized and must be used in the nominative in the phrase "€3"; which in Irish requires the genitive and in Finnish the partitive and in English the plural (who says three pound or three dollar?)

This is what happens when lawyers or bankers with a tin ear for their own language (and no notion of anyone else's) think they can tell people how to talk.


--
Paul Keating
The Hague

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dodi Schultz" <schultz (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>


> >to mean any photocopier and never as a verb.

> Of course the TM owners themselves don't follow these sillinesses. When did you
> last see an ad urging you to buy a "Honda automobile"?