Someone stole my name

[Badrang the Tyrant]

 Here are the list of names that I have copyrighted:  
Urran Voh
Ungatt Trunn
Bloodwrath (Please note the "w" in "wrath" and don't mistake me for Bloodrath)

I know it's not much, but someone took Ungatt Trunn from me. :angry:  

[Stormclaw]

 1. You can't copyright names. Copyright protection doesn't work like that. You're thinking of trademarking, which costs money.

2. Brian Jacques came up with those names; if anyone deserves to have them protected, it's him.

3. You're only supposed to have one horde anyway.

[RazorClaw]

 Yes, and a LOT of money at that.  

[wolf bite]

 An idea may be copyrighted by the proof that it was used first.  A formal declaration is not required.  An idea may be as simple as a few words for a particular reason.  However the same words may be used for a different thought posses and not violate the copyright.  I have used a few names and have listed them as copyrighted.  I could enforce my names, assuming I really wanted to waste my time doing so.

?Blue Eyes? being used in a Redwall game would be against the copyright law.  But then the use of Redwall without the permission of the writer (or owner of the rights) in the content of fighting rodents would also be against the law.  On the other hand, if we were all fighting with gold fish to get over a red wall, then there would be no violation.

But then this forum does a lot of libel (defamation) that is also overlooked.


Wolf Bite esq.

[Ashyra Nightwing]

 My horde name was stolen too. Just mash the person you stole it from!
Or make up a name no-one else would even think of using, like Pentephraxis Legion...

[Stormclaw]

 *blink* Where are you getting your information, Wolf Bite?

As I read it, copyright protects works. If I write a story about a butterfly that gets bathed in radiation and goes on a killing spree through a mall, that story- the creative work- is copyrighted as soon as I write it.

If I name my butterfly Kawfsogiggle, that means absolutely nothing; you can't copyright a name. Anyone else can name whatever they want Kawfsogiggle.

Ideas, on the other hand, cannot be copyrighted or trademarked. Ideas are totally free for anyone to use. If you want to write a story about a butterfly that gets bathed in radiation and goes on a killing spree through a mall, there's no way I can stop you- as long as your story is different from mine.

If, on the other hand, you write a story about said butterfly, name him Kawfsogiggle, and your story is noticeably similar to mine, I could sue you for copyright infringement. If you name a butterfly Kawfsogiggle and your butterfly is recognizable as the same as or similar to mine- I.E. if people can look at yours and think "Gee, that's just like the one Stormclaw made"- then I have legal grounds against you.

But other than those cases? Names and ideas cannot be copyrighted. Ideas cannot be trademarked.

[wolf bite]

 Stromclaw, you are somewhat correct.  And I admit my post may have been misleading.  

Per the Federal copyright law, it outright stats that an ?idea? itself may not be copyrighted Per Se (?by law? in Latin).  The word ?idea? was perhaps the wrong choice for me to use because legal definitions of the word ?idea? is different then the sociable use I took liberty to use.  

The ?idea? of jumping off a cliff with a bungee cord attached to one?s feet is only a legal idea and may not be protected.  The ?idea? of calling jumping off a cliff ?Bonko Billy Bungee Bongo? is copyrightable. The idea of painting one?s face is only and idea.  The idea of panting your face to look like the musical group Kiss is copyrightable.

Writing a book was an idea someone had.  An idea in a particular content may be copyrighted.  

So the use of the word ?idea? is misleading.  The value to copyright falls on a much higher standard.

Mickey Mouse was and is a character of Walt Disney.  The Disney Company has sued many times successfully for the use of any mouse named ?Mickey.?  On the other hand, they have no right against a rat named ?Mickey.?

The rightful owners of Casper the friendly ghost came close to receiving damages from Ghost Busters because of the similarity of the Ghost Buster?s logo.  But the court found there was only so many ways to draw a ghost.

How many wizards have you seen written about named ?Gandalf??

Your butterfly example would fall into the same classification.  Anyone can use the name ?Kawfsogiggle,? unless it is a radio active butterfly that that kills in the mall.

So by the same definitions, if I was to create a character named, uh? ?Wolf Bite? and create a personality of that character, and that character fights rodents, then state my desire to copyright him in ?[a] necessary notice in the form required by law which placed in each published copy of the work copyrighted? then I would comply with the Copyright act?, 17 U.S.Ca 401.  The copyright law of 1976 allows protection as soon as the work is in a concrete form.  I could thus recover damages under 17 U.S.C.A 2319.

However, my protection of my work would only be protected by my heirs for 50 years after my death per 17 U.S.C.A. 302(a).

But in the real world, my argument for the copyright protection of ?Wolf Bite? would likely fail because of the court made law of the Fair Use Doctrine because of the value (or lack there of) of my use of the character.

{Fair Use Doctrine: A privilege in others then the owner of a copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the owner?s consent, notwithstanding the monopoly granted to the owner. To determine whether fair use has been made of copyrighted material, the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of material used and extent to which the use may diminish the value of the original work must be considered.

Fair use involves a balancing process by which a complex of variables determine whether other interests should override the rights of creators. The copyright Act explicitly indemnifies four interests: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including its commercial mature; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the proportion that was ?taken?; and (4) the economic impact of the ?taken? work.}   Black?s Law Dictionary sixth edition.

In conclusion, I could have a weak argument that my idea in the content used was indeed copyrighted.  However, for the lack of any real literary or economic value, I could unlikely recover any damages for its use by others.


Wolf Bite esq.

[Badrang the Tyrant]

 These are all horde names that I have used before, not all at the same time.  Jacques did not copyright the name "Bloodwrath".  True, it is a term used in his books, it is not a name though.  And Wolf Bite, I got lost about halfway in your first post! :D