Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Real Monsters Behind Godzilla

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the radioactively-enhanced-cash-cow dept.

Sci-Fi 243

eldavojohn writes "A Wired blog looks at the real monsters behind Godzilla: his lawyers. Do you think Godzilla is basically a glorified T. Rex? Guess again, as his lawyers have tirelessly argued: 'He's erect-standing. He's got muscular arms, scaly skin and spines on back and tail and he breathes fire and has a furrowed brow, he's got an anthropomorphic torso. The T. rex has emaciated bird-like arms and stands at a 45-degree angle.' Read on to find out why they targeted the site davezilla.com but not mozilla.org. Another abuse of the American trademark & copyright system? You decide — just don't make a float of him or you'll find yourself paying an undisclosed sum to Toho Co. Ltd."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fast pest (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892401)

sorry

Helpless people on subway trains... (5, Funny)

Count Fenring (669457) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892403)

Helpless people on subway trains
Scream to God, as he puts liens on their assets to cover the cost of legal proceedings!
GODZILLA!

Re:Helpless people on subway trains... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892475)

History shows again and again,
how slashdot points out he folly of riaa!

GODZILLA!

Re:Helpless people on subway trains... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893043)

Helpless people on subway trains

Scream to God, as he puts liens on their assets to cover the cost of legal proceedings!

GODZILLA!

Funniest /. post ever

ip law is so bankrupt (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892411)

1. godzilla is decades old. ip law should time out after a decade, at worst

2. this is corporate takeover of our culture. its our culture. not their ip. we need to hammer this point home

3. ip law exists to serve us. but it has been pervered to extort money for decades, even way after the artist is long gone. ip law doesn't even serve the artist, it serves the distributor

the story of the 21st century will be the story of the death of ip law. it is simply morally unsound

Re:ip law is so bankrupt (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892495)

There ias nothing lorally unsound about ip law.
It's unethical for it to be stretched and abused against it's intent.

There is a place for IP law. Anything going beyond 20 years(a generation) is wrong and damages the culture.

Pepsi (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892647)

godzilla is decades old. ip law should time out after a decade, at worst

"Godzilla" is a trademark, and exclusive rights in trademarks are perpetual by design. Should Coca-Cola be allowed to pass its own products off as Pepsi, just because Pepsi has been around since 1903?

allow me to rephrase (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892727)

ip law between corporate entities is still sound, and always will be sound

ip law as applied to civilians, civic organizations, parody, hobbyist websites, etc.: dead

Re:allow me to rephrase (1, Redundant)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893463)

So should I be allowed to bottle my urine and sell it branded Mt. Dew?
I am a civilian after all.
You're still over-generalizing.

Re:allow me to rephrase (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893581)

That would make you a business entity. The parent said "corporate entity", but I'm sure they meant "business". Regardless, there are important differences between trademark, copyrights, and patents; there should be separate laws for each. For instance, as long as a company is producing a product, it should have exclusive use of its trademark (i.e. product name, company name, product logo, etc).

Re:allow me to rephrase (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893623)

I've heard the argument that you can't use a name or a derivative thereof in many situations because it would devalue the brand name.

Would having a site with -zilla in it really ruin Godzilla's building smashing, fire breathing reputation? I doubt it. Now if someone made a shammy called the Shamzilla and it was a piece of junk, then it is certainly undermining the Godzilla name.

Even so, I think there should be a point where a trademark is recognized to be a part of the popular lexicon, like Xerox.

household names (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892935)

Should Coca-Cola be allowed to pass its own products off as Pepsi, just because Pepsi has been around since 1903?

Since coke has been marketed so extensively that it's become a household name for cola, coke's trademark use should be revoked (by the society that granted it to them) now, when society needs to use the mark more widely. Especially since, in this case, there's a very similar (and arguably better) product struggling against a larger monopoly, because of that issue.

Re:household names (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893155)

Since coke has been marketed so extensively that it's become a household name for cola,

No it's pop

Re:household names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893183)

Are you guys talking about soda?

Re:household names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893199)

No it's soda.

Re:household names (2, Interesting)

Silicon Jedi (878120) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893313)

Dude, are you some kind of hick or something? No blue states use "coke" as a generic for cola. It's *sniff* used for other things.

Re:household names (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893467)

The irony being that historically, [url=http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp]coca-cola was named after cocaine[/url], because it contained (allegedly non-addictive) parts of the cocaine plant.

The name being a portmanteau of the two main ingredients, it's funny that they managed to trademark the street name of the same drug it got it's name from.

Re:Pepsi (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893109)

So it would be allowable for a corporation to trademark peter pan and prevent works containing him long after the copyright expires?

Re:Pepsi (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893449)

Actually Peter Pan's copyright is owned by a hospital in England. As the wiki describes, it's complicated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ormond_Street_Hospital#Peter_Pan_copyright

Re:Pepsi (2, Informative)

gilgongo (57446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893563)

So it would be allowable for a corporation to trademark peter pan and prevent works containing him long after the copyright expires?

Ah, bad example. Peter Pan is a special case [gosh.org] .

Re:Pepsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893129)

Why would they even want to?

Re:Pepsi (1)

gilgongo (57446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893515)

"Godzilla" is a trademark, and exclusive rights in trademarks are perpetual by design. Should Coca-Cola be allowed to pass its own products off as Pepsi, just because Pepsi has been around since 1903?

Oh, that's easy: the answer is "no" if they are selling the product for money (that would indeed be a clear case of "passing off"), but "yes" if they are not. That's why they're called TRADE marks, because they exist to protect interests in commerce. There are three exceptions under which trademarks can be used: fair use in comparative advertising, in noncommercial use, and in news reporting or commentary.

So, if I want to make a brown fizzy drink to give away to the kids at my school's fair one Saturday, and I want to call it "Coke," I can and should be allowed to do so as long as I don't make a business out of it. I should also probably make it clear that it's not a product made by Coca-Cola Inc. just to be on the safe side! Needless to say, a lot of lawyers want to say that noncommercial use is a grey area - but they would because they want to justify their fees.

Of course, I CAN trade using somebody else's mark if I'm in an industry they have not registered their mark in. For example, if you have a furnace, you might like to buy some of my "super coke" to fuel it. No confusion there, no infringement. Drug dealers are also off the hook for the same reason.

Equally stupid (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893673)

Equally stupid is the following "argument":

If you want to get a rise out of the soft-spoken Moss, ask him something like, "Isn't Godzilla just an overgrown Tyrannosaurus rex?"

"He's erect-standing. He's got muscular arms, scaly skin and spines on back and tail and he breathes fire and has a furrowed brow," Moss says, repeating arguments Toho often makes in its lawsuits. "He's got an anthropomorphic torso. The T. rex has emaciated bird-like arms and stands at a 45-degree angle."

Actually, at the time he was conceived, about every image on the planet including a T-Rex showed it:
- Standing erect (they had to break the tailbone structure to do this, but they were convinced they were right because "it's a lizard, it has to drag its tail."
- With significantly larger arms (though not quite as big as Gojira's).

Take a look and compare Gojira to the T-Rex from the 1933 version of King Kong [youtube.com] , or to any other movie featuring dinosaurs up until the late '80s. What do you get? You get a "Rex" standing upright on its hind legs, walking forward, dragging its tail.

The only reason Gojira has human-ish arms is that they were putting a rubber suit on a fucking human to get the effects.

This is a joke. Gojira is, in fact, just a mutated oversized Rex. They gave him fire breath because the Japanese, like most Asian cultures, have a dragon obsession and fire breath is cool.

Re:ip law is so bankrupt (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892671)

godzilla is decades old. ip law should time out after a decade, at worst

You are confusing copyright with trademark. Should I be able to call my product "Coke"? After all, Coca-cola is even older than Godzilla! Yes, copyright should expire after a reasonable time, but since they are still making Godzilla movies (last one was in 2004) this is still a valuable trademark. Yes, "copyright" IP should become a public domain part of our culture the death of the original creator. (The simplest solution is to make copyright non-transferable to a corporation, so that it dies with the creator instead of going on forever owned by an immortal corporation.) But this is trademark, and you have no more right to call your product "Godzilla" than you have to sell stories about a wizard named "Harry Potter".

Re:ip law is so bankrupt (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892773)

Except if Harry Potter goes out of copyright, you do have the right to call your wizard Harry Potter. Trademark can't be used to artificially extend the life of a copyright. If I can distribute copies of The Count of Monte Cristo, but the estate of Alexandre Dumas still holds a trademark, I'd have to call it, That Book About the Guy Who Got Revenge After Being Unjustly Imprisoned in the Bastille. Not quite as catchy.

Also, I wouldn't tie copyright immediately to the life of the author. Otherwise, expect to see a covertly-Disney-funded hit out on J.K. Rowling in the near future.

Re:ip law is so bankrupt (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893033)

Just a pointer, Edmund Dantes was imprisoned in the Chateau d'If, not in the Bastille...

Now, back to topic, we should probably go back to a copyright of "author's life plus 20 years" or something like that.

After all, it is not an unreasonable expectation to want to leave some inheritance for our children...

Re:ip law is so bankrupt (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893505)

How about 20 years?

After all, it is not an unreasonable expectation to leave money you earned during your own lifetime as an inheritance to your children. I mean, everyone else does.

Re:ip law is so bankrupt (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892865)

Our culture?

Who is this "our" you speak of? [wikipedia.org]

Re:ip law is so bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893093)

The GP very well means the colloquial "our". You can crudely swap any occurrence of "Godzilla" with "Gojira", rewrite the rest in Japanese, and easily have a culture article about Japan. Or whatever other names the big guy takes on in whatever other language.

"Our" culture means just that: The generic, all-encompassing "our culture". Godzilla's a bit globally known, you understand.

Re:ip law is so bankrupt (1)

TehDuffman (987864) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893611)

I live on Okinawa Japan and I would love to see the Japanese IP police actually go after their own people. There are so many rip-offs of American IP like bars called "American Idol" with the American Idol symbol on the bar (they are most definitely not paying royalties). There are fake DVD stores everywhere, the only IP they respect is God's by blurring out porn.

Oh No!!!!! (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892439)

There goes Tokyo!

Re:Oh No!!!!! (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892683)

Go Go Godzilla!!!

Re:Oh No!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893415)

yee-ahhh!!

Luckily... (5, Funny)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892443)

We have ethical machines to deal with lawyers like these.

Who are the imaginary monsters 'behind Godzilla'? (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892445)

Doesn't the headline imply that there were ficticious monsters behind Godzilla?

Your worthless U.S. $ (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892461)

For asserting the collapse of the U.S.A. and that your
criminals-in-Congress had simply decided NOT to announce it for fear the revolution WOULD be televised.

The news is : the revolution IS televised.

Enjoy!!

Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout

You know they are right... (3, Informative)

Lostlander (1219708) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892485)

He looks more like an allosaurus [wikimedia.org] or perhaps a Dryptosaurus [wikipedia.org]

Re:You know they are right... (2, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892867)

Actually he sounds more like a T. Rex costume with the inevitable compromises necessary to put a human actor inside it. Add some modified spines from a stegosaurus, and fire-breathing from mythology and you're there.

Re:You know they are right... (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893039)

I'm not sure. As the article points out, Godzilla stands erect while these beasties do not.

Re:You know they are right... (1)

interploy (1387145) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893409)

I'm more concerned with the claim that the T-Rex had "bird-like arms". Did I miss something in the evolutionary charts? I know the latest theory is dinosaurs may be related to birds, but I'm not seeing how an Archaeopterix could have flown with to-scale T-Rex arms.

Re:You know they are right... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893597)

I know the latest theory is dinosaurs may be related to birds

Actually, that birds are dinosaurs.

but I'm not seeing how an Archaeopterix could have flown with to-scale T-Rex arms.

Yeah, that's kind of odd. Wings aren't much like a Tyrannosaur's arms. I suppose they could be trying (very badly) to say that Big-T had arms that are like a bird's legs.

TROGDOR! (5, Funny)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892501)

He's got an S, a more different S, consummate Vs, spinities, wings, a beefy arm for good measure, angry eyebrows floating above his head and he comes IN THE NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!

Re:TROGDOR! (4, Funny)

Mr. Beatdown (1221940) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892707)

Don't forget the majesty.
Those guys wouldn't know majesty if it bit them in the face.

Re:TROGDOR! (0)

ailnlv (1291644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892953)

maybe we can convince him that the lawyers are peasants who live in the country side in their thatched-roof COTTAGES!

AIIIEEEEE!!!! (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892503)

The lawyers have failed to stop Godzirra!! Run! Run for your lives!

Re:AIIIEEEEE!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893353)

The rawyers have fared to stop Godzirra!! Run! Run for your rives!

Fixed that for ya.

Note that they have a trademark not copyright (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892521)

Note that the article implies that they have not just copyrights but trademarks. Trademarks do not have any maximal duration as long as one can defend them. So there's nothing here that is an argument for limited copyrights.

Re:Note that they have a trademark not copyright (1)

Count Fenring (669457) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892637)

There is an argument for deciding more sensibly what is covered by trademarks and what is covered by copyright, and for limited trademarks in certain situations.

Re:Note that they have a trademark not copyright (2, Informative)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893589)

There is an argument for deciding more sensibly what is covered by trademarks and what is covered by copyright, and for limited trademarks in certain situations.

The Godzilla likeness, name and roar are distinctive and used in commerce; trademark protection seems reasonable to me.

Prtotecting it is important to keep it form becoming generic, resulting in their loss of the trademark.

Just because something has become well known and popular doesn't mean it should loss protection; in fact popularity and recognition is a goal of most trademark owners.

For MT fanboys (2, Funny)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892525)

They don't sue rent-a-zilla.com ?

Tempest in a teapot (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892537)

They do own the trademark "Godzilla" and they need to protect it. "Cabzilla" shouldn't be regarded as infringing, but the picture certainly is, and re-labeling wine bottles is trivial. I would be predisposed to conclude that "Godzilla" is trademarked, but use of the "zilla" suffix for monsters is pretty much public domain by now, so I wouldn't have gone after Davezilla or Mozilla. They do have a clear-cut cause of action against anybody using the Godzilla image or the full name.

How would slashdotters feel if somebody started selling a Linux branded cabernet with a picture of Tux on it without permission?

Re:Tempest in a teapot (5, Funny)

Lostlander (1219708) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892567)

How would slashdotters feel if somebody started selling a Linux branded cabernet with a picture of Tux on it without permission?

Most likely? Drunk.

Re:Tempest in a teapot (4, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892631)

How would slashdotters feel if somebody started selling a Linux branded cabernet with a picture of Tux on it without permission?

Most likely? Drunk.

What's so unpleasant about being drunk?

Re:Tempest in a teapot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892835)

Just ask a glass of water...

Re:Tempest in a teapot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893099)

Ask a glass of water.

Re:Tempest in a teapot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893261)

How would slashdotters feel if somebody started selling a Linux branded cabernet with a picture of Tux on it without permission?

Most likely? Drunk.

What's so unpleasant about being drunk?

Go ask a glass of water.

Re:Tempest in a teapot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893405)

You ask a glass of water.

Re:Tempest in a teapot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893461)

Ask a glass of water!

Re:Tempest in a teapot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893561)

Who said it was unpleasant?

Re:Tempest in a teapot (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893595)

Sigh... if you're going to quote Douglas Adams, at least quote him correctly:
Ford: "It's unpleasantly like being drunk."
Arthur: "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
Ford: "You ask a glass of water."
--Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Chapter 6

Re:Tempest in a teapot (1)

Count Fenring (669457) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892675)

I guess I'd feel drunk?

More seriously, Linux itself uses the blank-x format for its name, but it would be stupid and specious to claim that it infringes on the Unix trademark. And that's what Davezilla and co. are actually doing.

Re:Tempest in a teapot (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892719)

Which is exactly my argument -- a wine called "Winix" is ok, but a wine called "Linux" is not.

Re:Tempest in a teapot (1)

Count Fenring (669457) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892833)

But the blog and the wine in the article aren't called "Godzilla," they're respectively called "Davezilla" and "Cabzilla."

Basically, the problem here is a studio using trademark to, essentially, hold on to a copyrighted property for longer than copyright would normally allow. Characters and fiction should be covered under copyright, not trademark.

Re:Tempest in a teapot (2, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893145)

If you use a picture of Godzilla on your product "Cabzilla", then you most definitely are attempting to use the well-known trademark of Godzilla in your marketing. A specific work is copyright... the character is trademark. It actually works out quite well, because it allows you to make future works that are definitely yours without confusion in the market.

Re:Tempest in a teapot (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893075)

Someone capitalizing off of Linux by selling WINE?! Preposterous [codeweavers.com] !!

DISCLAIMER: I have nothing but love for these guys since getting mine free [slashdot.org]

Re:Tempest in a teapot (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893207)

How would slashdotters feel if somebody started selling a Linux branded cabernet with a picture of Tux on it without permission?

Oh, no, no, no, WINE is something else entirely. It doesn't require Linux; it even runs on the BSDs and Solaris, if I'm not mistaken. Easy mistake. :-)

*** Captain Spam runs and hides

Re:Tempest in a teapot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893223)

Ah so! 'zilla' is in pubric domain, so we sclewed. But we stirr hord tlademalk on 'God'. BANZAII!! NOW WE HAVE THOSE CLISTIAN BASTALDS BY THE BARRS!!!.

Re:Tempest in a teapot (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893363)

Well, as I was walking through the wine aisle of my local liquour store, I saw a bottle of Ubuntu wine [kwv.co.za] . No Tux logo though.

Now the bands name is just.... (1)

bigtoy (170668) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892557)

...Asshole

Pronounciation (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892585)

and god help you if you pronounce the name wrong....it's GOJIRA you moron!!

Re:Pronounciation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892629)

But Copyrighted in the USA as Godzilla; which is what this article is about.

crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892589)

This guys' site is crap.

I hope Godzilla eats him alive.

Are we surprised? (4, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892625)

Just because it's foreign (and maybe a little silly) doesn't mean it's not a high-powered brand. Middle-class American white folks might not realize it, but Ultraman is the third most merchandised character in the world, right after Mickey Mouse and Charlie Brown (and before Superman). And the people who command that kind of market share have lawyers? Color me shocked.

Re:Are we surprised? (0)

Like2Byte (542992) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892957)

Just because it's foreign (and maybe a little silly) doesn't mean it's not a high-powered brand. Middle-class American white folks might not realize it, but Ultraman is the third most merchandised character in the world, right after Mickey Mouse and Charlie Brown (and before Superman). And the people who command that kind of market share have lawyers?

Color me shocked.

Color you shocked? How about color you racist?

Re:Are we surprised? (1)

Experiment 626 (698257) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892971)

I'm shocked too... that the most merchandised Japanese character isn't Hello Kitty.

Minds me of the time... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893053)

...Dexter got hauled off by Major Glory to see his lawyers for IP infringement.

Re:Are we surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893175)

Middle-class American white folks might not realize it,

As opposed to the middle-class American black, hispanic and asian folk who obviously realize it.

Gives you one excuse .. (1)

deego (587575) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892641)

Gives you one excuse .. .. to get out of an engagement to a bridezilla.

Running low on clozapine. (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892659)

From TFA:

Godzilla, U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian wrote, is "a fanciful, arbitrary word used to describe a fire-breathing, prehistoric, often-schizophrenic dinosaur."

Perhaps he's just off his meds.

Re:Running low on clozapine. (1)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893005)

Reminds me of the ending of Godzilla: 2000. A few of the actors are on a rooftop and the little child asks, "Why does Godzilla always save our city?"
And the Scientist type replies, "Maybe there's a little Godzilla...in all of us"
Cue the triumphant music and then cut to Godzilla absolutely wrecking everything as he leaves the city. I may be a little fuzzy on the details, but I will always treasure the absolute absurdity of that ending.

Godzilla is a registered trademark of Toho Co. Ltd and is used here without consent...please don't sue me.

vs Megalon (4, Interesting)

opencity (582224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892741)

The weird thing is some of the Godzilla movies have entered the public domain. We used a piece in a TV commercial (years and years ago - think Morris worm) and Toho showed up and said no (or face the wrath of our suitcase baring legions). So we took the actual image of Godzilla out but still used the rays destroying tanks, people running, smoldering buildings and there was no problem. Used it again on MTV a couple of times.

Someone should do a bootleg Kiss Vs Godzilla for the asshole IP Olympics.

in other words (1)

prozaker (1261190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892771)

from the article it seems that popular culture has made godzilla widespread, so people actually believe it's public domain.

all of the cases listed on the article had either the name godzilla or the picture of godzilla except davezilla and subway

the guy with the blog prob didn't want to take it to court because he doesn't want to battle it out, all thought I think he would have won, from the looks of the logo, which were a) a shadow of a monster in a similar fashion to dinosaurs and b) the name 'davezilla' and subway was bad too... ok so now, they are just a)paranoid, b)greedy, c)both

what do ppl think when they hear zilla? and who created the 'zilla'? toho...

from wikipedia

Popular Culture

* The suffix "-zilla", now appended to many words. The enduring popularity of the Godzilla creature has led to "-zilla"'s contemporary usage in neologisms that describe something which is considered to be monstrous, extreme, or out of control, as in: "bridezilla" (for misbehaving brides) or "browzilla" (for large, overgrown eyebrows).

Re:in other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892819)

and toho invented the dinosaur too err well so long as it's not purple they're ok.....

Just make a float of him... (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892899)

float f = (float) godzilla;

Am I safe now?

Re:Just make a float of him... (1)

Is0m0rph (819726) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893067)

No. Godzilla does not float. Everyone knows that.

The other kind of Toho... (0)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892931)

"A Wired blog looks at the real monsters behind Godzilla: his lawyers. Do you think Godzilla is basically a glorified T. Rex? Guess again, as his lawyers have tirelessly argued:

You decide -- just don't make a float of him or you'll find yourself paying an undisclosed sum to Toho Co. Ltd."

At least they aren't defending the trademark with curtain fire.

No, Slashdot, No!!! (1, Offtopic)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892939)

First you brought out tags which don't want to work properly on my work system (ie 6 forever, I'm afraid). Then you brought out that idle garbage. I even would view it from time to time when I was feeling brave enough to venture into that coding travesty. But now you have decided to change my personal info page into a similar css nightmare of green and green! WTF!?! Have you grown tired of pleasing your users? Are you hoping less people will look at someones journal? This is the lamest thing I have seen in a long time...

Re:No, Slashdot, No!!! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893115)

Agreed! I'm beginning to think that plane-jane HTML is better than CSS. Less weird overlaps and ghosty panels.

Fight on, bro! Mod this b8stard up to godzillion!
         

Re:No, Slashdot, No!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893159)

(ie 6 forever, I'm afraid)

For the good of the Web this piece of junk needs to be dropped.

Sorry if that offends your IT weasels and their PHB, but they need to get with the times, tell them to roll out Firefox or Opera, even IE7 would be an improvement.

Slashdot isn't the first site to drop support for IE6, plus most Web developers I know are delighting at the thought of dumping support for it. You need to get your IT weasels to wake up to that fact, it's not Slashdot's fault: it's yours for being so far behind the times.

Re:No, Slashdot, No!!! (1)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893427)

Unfortunately I work in finance, notoriously slow moving in the tech dept, and since we just blew millions of dollars on "new" software designed to be integrated around ie 6 and java I don't see us updating anything anytime soon. Besides it isn't the IT's priority to make sure I can correctly view the web. It's just not a battle that anyone is willing to fight.

None of this changes the fact that the new css is ugly hard to read uselessly over managed and buggy.

Re:No, Slashdot, No!!! (1)

ShinmaWa (449201) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893447)

don't want to work properly on my work system (ie 6 forever, I'm afraid)

It's all part of The Master Plan(tm). The tags don't work properly at your job, so that maybe you will.

Unvelievable (1)

home-electro.com (1284676) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892965)

I can't believe people spend their lives doing this stuff, i.e. searching and fighting "abuse of character".

It is sad, get a life people. Do something productive.

Do it real (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893063)

Simple, just change your monster to a T-Rex that fits a textbook on dinos. (However, you may get sued by Spielberg instead :-P

WB didn't know? (1)

CaptainCarrot (84625) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893269)

From TFA:

Warner Bros., for example, didn't know it needed Toho's permission to use Godzilla in a 1985 chase scene in Tim Burton's Pee Wee's Big Adventure. The Hollywood studio paid an undisclosed amount to Toho after it was sued.

They may have been able to convince a judge of this and so been able to merely pay out some cash and still release the film, but I don't believe it for a second. No MPAA member, particularly not one that owns the rights to Bugs Bunny, can be ignorant of IP rights associated with a fictional character. Lying sacks of shit.

Godzilla Has Lawyers? (1)

Skeetskeetskeet (906997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893279)

Better change his name to JEWZILLA.

Just plain wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893325)

"And the court set aside Morrow's assertions that the name Godzilla, which is a combination of two Japanese words for gorilla and whale, didn't deserve protection because it did not have any real meaning."

No. No it is not. The Japanese cannot even pronounce l, more or less use it in a word. I'm surprised no one has called BS on this.

Irony (1)

PatTheGreat (956344) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893591)

This is kinda funny, because Godzilla was at first a warning against big ole' American things like nukes. So now we need a monster movie warning against big ole' American things like oppressive IP law.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?