Skip to main content

Cosplaying Fast and Loose: Intellectual Property Theft or Innovation




In light of the ongoing pandemic effects, Japan has decided to take on the real issues and has announced the reform of how copyright is looked at concerning cosplaying. Cosplaying is a way of dressing up in costume as some of the characters from your favorite tv show/anime and while dressing up in costume isn't likely to cause you to receive a copyright notice, being paid to do so most likely will. This kind of thing can definitely spoil a children's birthday party when one of the six-year-olds turns out to be an undercover police officer working in the intellectual property squad, but nevertheless, copyright protections are genuine and are what gives a company incentive to come up with a new character in the first place. 


So, the Japanese government have come out and said that they would undertake a review of the situation and release a brochure of approved ways to Cosplay without infringing copyright moving forward. But as history is always doomed to repeat itself, let's look at how one of the most important cases in the United States, concerning costumed heroes went. 


In Disney Enterprises v Sarelli, the company sued a large distributor of costumes for copyright and trademark infringement alleging that Sarelli and Characters for Hire (the company's name) deliberately marketing and operated services providing costumed characters to the party/entertainment/hospitality industry. Characters for Hire provided several costumed performers based on Disney's intellectual property. 


So how did Characters for Hire try to get around the allegations of infringement; initially they tried the descriptive fair use defense which allows someone to use registered trademarks in a descriptive sense, to describe an aspect of the services. However, this ultimately failed as the court found that merely saying something is 'Darth Vader-like' doesn't get around copyright or trademark infringement. To be successful with that defense, they would need to have established that the trademark was used:


  1. Other than as a mark;
  2. In a descriptive sense and
  3. In good faith. 


In this case, Characters for Hire's defense didn't establish the first element.


Characters for Hire then attempted to use the nominative fair use defense as well, which states that a defense to trademark infringement is it the use does not imply any affiliation or endorsement of the trademark owner, however this then also failed since they had been using the trademark in connection with their own services. Hence, the court found that they were establishing a link. Further, the court found that the company's target audience, unsophisticated children would be likely to believe that genuine Disney characters are entertaining them, which is a worrying trait if all court cases use children as the measuring stick of believability. If that's the case, uncles that enjoy stealing their nieces' and nephews' noses best watch out. 


To determine whether it was trademark infringement, the judge used the Polaroid test to determine if the infringement is likely to confuse customers. The Polaroid test has eight factors. 


While Plaintiffs' marks are strong (first factor), the similarity of the marks (second factor), weighed only slightly in Plaintiffs' favor because Defendants used different names for their characters than Plaintiffs' trademarked character names, e.g., "Big Green Guy," "Indian Princess," and "The Dark Lord" instead of Hulk, Pocahontas and Darth Vader.


The third and fourth factors, the proximity of goods/services and possibility that Disney would enter the Characters for Hire market were decided in favor of Characters for Hire as Disney had no plans to expand into the same market.


The fifth and sixth factors, evidence of actual confusion and evidence of bad faith were also decided in favor of Characters for Hire as there was no evidence (in reviews etc.) that someone had confused the Disney trademarks with the hire characters and Characters for Hire had undertaken steps to alert the customers that Disney did not endorse them.


Finally, the seventh and eighth factors were also decided in favor of Characters for Hire. The lesser quality of Character for Hire costumers and the consumer level of satisfaction makes it unlikely that consumers would be confused. 


The court also rejects the assertion of Copyright Infringement because Disney had used poor-quality evidence that had not been properly authenticated. 


So what is the takeaway? When it comes to proving intellectual property breaches from costumed performers, proving an infringement is a long litigious battle which in the USA has resulted in a (at the moment) stalemate between copyright owners and the infringers. In the event that circumstances between the two change at all, the lawyer-shaped battle axes will be picked up again, and this is almost certain. Hopefully, Japan finds a better way, where these two parties can work together, but first, they will need to find a judge that isn't just someone cosplaying as a character from Boston Legal. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OFF-BRAND - How a high-fashion brand and a local ice cream shop have come to blows over intellectual property

OFF-BRAND  How a high-fashion brand and an ice cream shop have come to blows over intellectual property In the various industries that are out there, not too many are as different as fashion and ice cream. One is involved in providing happiness, comfort and everything nice in this world and that other provides a sharp reminder that maybe that extra scoop of ice cream was too much. But suffice to say, a rift between the two industries is not something that you would expect to find.  But as hype culture and the obsessive fandom on the internet have grown, the industries have been growing closer and closer together. But sadly, not in the way you think, we are still a few years off wearable ice cream. Instead, there is now a good chance that your local ice creamery sells merchandise. Less impressive, for sure. But this has become a staple for restaurants with even just a modicum of goodwill attached to their name and why not? If customers are willing to pay an extra $50 so that people will

Green Eggs and Hamm

  Green Eggs and Hamm How a crotch shot of John Hamm and Dr Seuss have sparked the most intense debate on fair use dealing in copyright in the last ten years.  In 2013, John Hamm was in full swing, sipping cocktails and filming the wildly successful  Mad Men  however in years to come he may be remembered for something much more different. One uneventful day, John Hamm was photographed going commando and, thus changed how we see intellectual property rights on the internet forever.  Like all paparazzi photos, it was promptly uploaded to the internet and licenced for use. Unbeknownst to the photographer, the image was then used in an article by the Huffington Post, titled "25 Things You Wish You Hadn't Learned In 2013 And Must Forget In 2014." The writer of the piece turned the photo into a humourous GIF with the intention of mocking people who would want to see the picture and satirising the idea that it was news at all.  The photographer later registered the photo's

Woman Wins Copyright Case Against Adult Film Studio Who Recorded Videos In Her House.

A recent case in the United States District Court of Massachusetts has seen a woman whose house was used as a film set for adult videos without her knowledge be awarded damages… but not for what you think. In  Bassett v Jensen,  Ms Bassett, the owner of the property, signed an agreement with a renter to lease her Martha's Vineyard property for seven months for the sole use of Mr Spafford and his family. Spafford had moved to Martha's Vineyard to work as a photographer and cameraman for an adult film director. Throughout the lease, Ms Bassett claims that 21 different videos were filmed at her property. Following the end of the Lease, Ms Bassett had to stop renting out the property as there was significant damage caused to the building and later due to the publicity that the property was used in filming the videos. Ms Bassett then argued that not only did the video showcase her property but they had infringed her copyright on numerous of her self-made artworks which were hanging