There were two incidents of companies contacting the Scratch Team to complain about copyright or trademark.

The Animation Hall of Fame was a studio for animations (by StarWarsFan02 and X_Cell333). When you googled it, it came up with the famous museum (The one with the same name as the studio) as the first option, but the studio as the second one. The company said it was “Breaking their trademark”. Seriously? At the time, the studio only had a few followers. It's not about to be confused with a giant company. But some people are just plain silly. Anyway, the Scratch Team changed the name to Scratch Hall of Fame - Animations. The other example was NAMCO demanding a takedown of a Pac-Man replica.

They said: “I have a good faith belief that the ”PAC-MAN Arcade" Scratch game by user 124Scratch found at: http://scratch.mit.edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/projects/124scratch/1174868 infringes Namco's rights by offering visitors the unauthorized use of infringing copies of the “PAC-MAN” game product which is protected by copyright and trademark law.“ They also said, (and this is more outrageous) ”While we appreciate the educational nature of your enterprise and look forward to the contributions of the future programmers you are training, part of their education should include concern for the intellectual property of others."

It is only protected by trademark and not copyright, as you can not copyright an idea. You can only copright content. It is not making any profits, so it is not harming the company. However, they want us to beleive that you cannot copy anything, even if it's not harming them. They also want us to think that copyright is more important than learning. Anyway, the Scratch Team removed it. It's just plain mean for these giant companies to go and bully kids. If they want to complain about copies they should pick on someone their own size. There are hundreds of projects of Pac-Man on Scratch, let alone the internet. I suppose they do it on kids because they aren't usually able to organise a legal challenge in court, so they can get what they want without having to have to have any legal stability. You know, it angers me just typing it. Although on both occasions there was a large amount of opposition (from both users and Scratch Team) they did as requsted to avoid a legal battle. I disagree to that, (and probably loads of others do too) because in my opinion, if something is wrong, you should not accept to it. And presumably put it right. I know that these cases are too old to bring back, but if something like this happens again, I would hope that they fight for it. If they did, I would show my wholehearted support to the Scratch Team, the author of the complained about content and all the other protestors and source comments, evidence, proof, and all other stuff that would help us win. I would try and be at the centre of the protesting and work until the matter is resolved. I'm sure more people agree with me. Who thinks the same? Also, I'm sure there is a good reason for them not fighting the previous two times, and I hope I'll be able to find out. Thanks for reading!

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

Zro716 wrote:

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

Zro716…I love this post

I am certain that, if they could, ST would certainly fight these battles. The thing is, a legal battle is costly- VERY costly, even though I'm sure it would be in our favor due to ‘Fair Use’. ST doesn't have the time, money and resources to devote to legal battles like those, so it's just easier for everyone to fix the ‘problem’ as seen fit.

I see what you're getting at, but it simply is not plausible, or worth it, really.

StarscreamClone wrote:

I am certain that, if they could, ST would certainly fight these battles. The thing is, a legal battle is costly- VERY costly, even though I'm sure it would be in our favor due to ‘Fair Use’. ST doesn't have the time, money and resources to devote to legal battles like those, so it's just easier for everyone to fix the ‘problem’ as seen fit.

I see what you're getting at, but it simply is not plausible, or worth it, really.

I do see your point, but there was something that I forgot to say: My grandpa is a lawyer, and my dad said that if we needed it he could probably do a case for us without us having to pay.

Zro716 wrote:

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

As I just said to StarscreamClone, I should be able to get a lawyer if needed, because my grandpa is one!

I don't think that this problem is nearly big enough to waste that much time and effort.

Yeah, fighting a legal battle is costly, and the ST will have to take time away from the site. Also, the Pac-man incident happened in 2010, so it's not exactly recent.

Yeah, I wish it was possible. Forcing someone to remove their project because the original's by someone else… what if my fan-made thing that took MONTHS got removed because Disney's scared I'm threatening their company? A ridiculous notion, but it's the type of message it gives. Pretty sad how they can't do much unless they have enough money.

Support

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

StarscreamClone wrote:

I am certain that, if they could, ST would certainly fight these battles. The thing is, a legal battle is costly- VERY costly, even though I'm sure it would be in our favor due to ‘Fair Use’. ST doesn't have the time, money and resources to devote to legal battles like those, so it's just easier for everyone to fix the ‘problem’ as seen fit.

I see what you're getting at, but it simply is not plausible, or worth it, really.

I do see your point, but there was something that I forgot to say: My grandpa is a lawyer, and my dad said that if we needed it he could probably do a case for us without us having to pay.

If that's the case, why not tell ST? They could be interested in future cases.

Zro716 wrote:

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

I believe the scratch team have a lawyer or they acted like they had one in my email.

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

{snipped for brevity}
Also, I'm sure there is a good reason for them not fighting the previous two times, and I hope I'll be able to find out. Thanks for reading!

In most cases, though, the person isn't sending a formal notice; rather they send an e-mail simply asking for the project/studio in question to be taken down. In those cases, the ST does reply back. For the most part, we're usually successful in talking with the person trying to explain to them about Scratch. Most usually back off once they find that the person of the project or studio is a young kid, but the “Animation Hall of Fame” studio was unfortunately one of the unsuccessful cases, where the museum owner was not budging one bit at all despite the ST's explanation.

For the Namco case, we were sent a legal takedown notice, which is a different and more complicated situation. These things are harder to deal with legally on our end, as such legal battles usually require the Scratcher to be involved in as well - and there probably aren't that many 8 to 16 year olds who are capable of getting a lawyer and sending a counter-notice.

In our DCMA info page, we note that any takedown notices may be sent to clearinghouse like chillingeffects.org (which makes the case public and transparent for everyone to see) and that any resulting costs where the takedown notice is faulty may result in the party sending the notice to pay up legal costs and fees. We also note the Fair Use Clause as well. These two things is what backs most legal notices off (most companies would prefer not to risk an expensive legal battle with a kid over the Fair Use clause), but Namco pushed the takedown notice anyway. We did post the notice on chillingeffects.org like we said we would in our DCMA info page, it made the case more public and spread to other sites with some e-mailing Namco over this. That's the best we could do on the state of the Namco case as it stands right now.

Zro716 wrote:

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

Zro, I love how all of your posts are so cynical and that you don't care about offending the ST at all.

cheddargirl wrote:

In our DCMA info page, we note that any takedown notices may be sent to clearinghouse like chillingeffects.org (which makes the case public and transparent for everyone to see) and that any resulting costs where the takedown notice is faulty may result in the party sending the notice to pay up legal costs and fees. We also note the Fair Use Clause as well. These two things is what backs most legal notices off (most companies would prefer not to risk an expensive legal battle with a kid over the Fair Use clause), but Namco pushed the takedown notice anyway. We did post the notice on chillingeffects.org like we said we would in our DCMA info page, it made the case more public and spread to other sites with some e-mailing Namco over this. That's the best we could do on the state of the Namco case as it stands right now.

+1; very informative post. Why did Namco want to fight an expensive legal battle with a kid? I don't think they have the grounds to prove that a Scratch project made by a kid infringes their copyright, especially because of “educational use” under the Fair Use clause, but also because a Scratch project isn't similar to an actual game in any way. I mean sure, if someone steals their specific code, they can go sue them, but I think they have no right to complain about a Scratch port of pac-man. Pac-man is such a classic game at this point that everyone is making clones of it, so why doesn't Namco go fight legal battles with whoever programmed the pac-man clone for the TI-84 Plus C Silver Edition calculator, for instance? (That model happens to have a color screen that supports pac-man, that's why I mention it.) I just think that maybe Namco should relinquish their copyright at this point, seeing what pac-man has become.

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Zro716 wrote:

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

Zro, I love how all of your posts are so cynical and that you don't care about offending the ST at all.

I'm just speculating. I don't know for sure if the ST can afford a legal defense if they don't have one already.

Notice: This post made made using information from the first three paragraphs of the main topic and nothing else. Just in case I missed anything important around here.

Some people don't like people copying their ideas.
Just like what's been going on in the Scratch community.
So stuff like this was going to happen eventually.
It's just two minor things. It's not like Scratch is being taken down. Don't worry about it.

Zro716 wrote:

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

I love cynical people.

Scratchifier wrote:

I don't think that this problem is nearly big enough to waste that much time and effort.

^

StarscreamClone wrote:

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

StarscreamClone wrote:

I am certain that, if they could, ST would certainly fight these battles. The thing is, a legal battle is costly- VERY costly, even though I'm sure it would be in our favor due to ‘Fair Use’. ST doesn't have the time, money and resources to devote to legal battles like those, so it's just easier for everyone to fix the ‘problem’ as seen fit.

I see what you're getting at, but it simply is not plausible, or worth it, really.

I do see your point, but there was something that I forgot to say: My grandpa is a lawyer, and my dad said that if we needed it he could probably do a case for us without us having to pay.

If that's the case, why not tell ST? They could be interested in future cases.

Ok!

Alberknyis wrote:

Notice: This post made made using information from the first three paragraphs of the main topic and nothing else. Just in case I missed anything important around here.

Some people don't like people copying their ideas.
Just like what's been going on in the Scratch community.
So stuff like this was going to happen eventually.
It's just two minor things. It's not like Scratch is being taken down. Don't worry about it.

Zro716 wrote:

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

I love cynical people.

I know Scratch isn't going down because of that, but bullying behavior from these companies upsets people and frightens them from being creative. Children learn by copying. They copy their favorite writer's styles. They copy their favorite games. They copy their parent's and older sibling's behavior. They copy their… well you get the idea. Children learn by copying until they can start doing things for themselves.

It is possible, but extrememly unlikely, if enough companies get silly like this, Scratch could be taken down. But it's unlikely.

Zro716 wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Zro716 wrote:

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

Zro, I love how all of your posts are so cynical and that you don't care about offending the ST at all.

I'm just speculating. I don't know for sure if the ST can afford a legal defense if they don't have one already.

Well I can actually get a legal defense, (my grandpa is a lawyer) and as I said in my first post, because the ST nor the kids can usually afford a legal defense, these companies can get away without any legal stability. So we'd only need an about-average defense for us to win.