Copyright If Terms or Public Domain or CR/TM

[thesedaiv]

Jurisdiction

Pennsylvania

I'm writing a comic. I was wondering, if there's a website or where I'd go to find out if certain names are copyrighted like Urza, Moonfolk, etc. I'd like to be able to use these names, however, I have different ideas for the characters I'm based on. I'm not trying to step on "Plagiarism" toes here.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I'm writing a comic. I was wondering, if there's a website or where I'd go to find out if certain names are copyrighted like Urza, Moonfolk, etc. I'd like to be able to use these names, however, I have different ideas for the characters I'm based on. I'm not trying to step on "Plagiarism" toes here.

Names are not protected by copyright. What you worry with names is whether the name is a trademark. If the trademark is registered the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will have a record of it that you can search. Note that registration is not required to get trademark protection. That means you'd have to conduct an exhaustive search to try to uncover if the name is protected as a trademark.

The content of the comic (the text, art, etc) is protected by copyright law. If the copyright is registered with the US Copyright Office you can search to see if any of those names are registered. Again, though t he problem is that a creator doesn't have to register the work for it to have copyright protection.

So if you are going to seriously get into the comic business you'll want to get an trademark and copyright lawyer on board who can help you with the searches that are needed to see if the material is protected and who can assist you in making sure your work is protected as best as possible. Or see if one of the big comic publishers would be interested in taking on your comic, in which case they have lawyers who would check that stuff. Note that if you hook up with a comic publisher it very likely insist that you transfer your rights in the comic to the publisher

 

[adjusterjack]

I was wondering, if there's a website or where I'd go to find out if certain names are copyrighted like Urza, Moonfolk, etc

Well, an internet search can give you a head start in answering your question.

It should be rather obvious from these links that Urza and Moonfolk are off limits to you unless you get consent from the owners.

Urza block - Wikipedia

Moonfolk - MTG Wiki (fandom.com)

. I'd like to be able to use these names, however, I have different ideas for the characters I'm based on.

I have read that creators of this type of literature sometimes encourage fan fiction. Might or might not be the case with these but it costs you nothing to contact the creators and ask.

 

[thesedaiv]

The character "Urza" doesn't have a surname. Would giving him a surname be actionable or legal? I already researched his brother "Mishra" is an older Russian name that's more currently written as "Misha".

 

[adjusterjack]

The character "Urza" doesn't have a surname. Would giving him a surname be actionable or legal?

Depends on the content. Remember, you have to contend with both trademark and copyright issues.

If you write a comic book about a Certified Public Accountant named Urza McDonald, you are less likely to get sued.

I already researched his brother "Mishra" is an older Russian name that's more currently written as "Misha".

Again, depends on content. Mishra and Misha are common names and can probably be used without issue, unless you creating content similar to this Mishra.

Mishra, Eminent One (The Brothers' War Commander) - Gatherer - Magic: The Gathering (wizards.com)

Why are you resisting the concept of consent?

 

[zddoodah]

I was wondering, if there's a website or where I'd go to find out if certain names are copyrighted

This question doesn't make sense for a couple reasons. First, "copyright" isn't properly used as a verb. Second, names are not subject to copyright protection. Copyright law protects works of authorship, and a copyright exists from the moment a qualifying work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Note that, while it's not expressly mention in the linked statute, copyright law may protect characters.

It think what you're asking is whether there's a database of names that have been previously used in comic books. That's not a legal matter, and I have no idea.

Note that trademark law may protect names, but it would be generally unlikely that any but the most famous characters would have trademark protection.

The character "Urza" doesn't have a surname. Would giving him a surname be actionable or legal? I already researched his brother "Mishra" is an older Russian name that's more currently written as "Misha".

It is impossible to evaluate these questions out of context. For example, there's nothing inherently unlawful about having a pirate character named Jack, but if you call him Jack Swallow, you might be treading on dangerous ground.

Before publishing anything, you should have what you've created reviewed by an attorney.

 

[adjusterjack]

First, "copyright" isn't properly used as a verb.

Yes, it is.

So say the Oxford English Dictionary, the Britannica Dictionary, the Cambridge Dictionary, and Mirriam-Webster. None of those sources refer to the use as a verb as improper.

copyright - Quick search results | Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com)

Copyright Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

COPYRIGHT | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

Copyright Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Objecting to its use as a verb is like trying to stop the tide from coming in.

It is impossible to evaluate these questions out of context. For example, there's nothing inherently unlawful about having a pirate character named Jack, but if you call him Jack Swallow, you might be treading on dangerous ground.

It's Jack Sparrow.

 

[zddoodah]

Yes, it is.

So say the Oxford English Dictionary, the Britannica Dictionary, the Cambridge Dictionary, and Mirriam-Webster. None of those sources refer to the use as a verb as improper.

And those are all non-legal dictionaries.

The point is that "copyright" has no meaning as a verb. Most of the time, people use it to refer to the registration process, but registering a copyright is not a prerequisite to creating a copyright. The simple fact is that there are no formalities to the creation of a copyright. Fix a work in a tangible medium of expression and it is protected by copyright. A verb implies action, but there is no action needed (other than the act of creating the work itself).

 

[Tax Counsel]

First, "copyright" isn't properly used as a verb.

You've often said that, but I don't know what your source for authority is for it. Even Black's Law Dictionary recognizes its use as a verb and recognizes the term copyrighted as an adjective.

And those are all non-legal dictionaries.

But Black's Law Dictionary is a legal dictionary, the most cited and authoritative legal dictionary for American law.

 

[zddoodah]

Black's Law Dictionary

I already explained my rationale, but I'll point out that the copy of Black's that I have in my office (abridged 5th ed.) only has "copyright" as a noun, and the same is true of the online version. If you've got a version of Black's that has a definition of the word as a verb, I'd be curious what that definition is.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I already explained my rationale, but I'll point out that the copy of Black's that I have in my office (abridged 5th ed.) only has "copyright" as a noun, and the same is true of the online version. If you've got a version of Black's that has a definition of the word as a verb, I'd be curious what that definition is.

Black's free online version you get with a Google search, which the one you linked, is very old — second edition. And actually, your abridged sixth edition dictionary is old too. I have a 6th ed. from 1990 that has a definition similar to yours. That's more than 30 years ago, thus your edition must be even older. But since then Blacks has changed the principal editors of the dictionary and they have substantially modernized the dictionary to reflect current usuage rather than the more archaic terms and use of prior editions. My last print edition is the eighth and that was after the change in editors and editorial policy. I now subscribe to West's online version of the most currrent version, the 11th edition. That 11th edition definition (which is also exactly the same as the eighth, so it's not exactly new) provides as follows:

copyright n. (18c) 1. The right to copy; specifically, a property right in an original work of authorship (including literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, and architectural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; and sound recordings) fixed in any tangible medium of expression, giving the holder the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, distribute, perform, and display the work. 2. The body of law relating to such works. • Copyright law is governed by the Copyright Act of 1976. 17 USCA §§ 101 et seq. — Abbr. c. Cf. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976. — copyright, vb. — copyrighted, adj. — copyrightable, adj.
​

COPYRIGHT, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)(Bolding in the original). As you can see from the bolded terms the Black's put at the end of the definition that copyright is now also treated as a verb, and copyrighted and copyrightable as an adjective.

I don't work for West and have no stake in this, but I would suggest you might want to update your old version of the dictionary, at least to something from the 8th edition or later. Language and its use is, as you know, is not static but evolves over time. In American English, including in the law, language has seen some considerable change since 30+ years ago. Black's changes reflect that.

 

[zddoodah]

FWIW, I look at Black's maybe once every other year, so I don't really feel the need to get a new copy.

Black's Law Dictionary

Those references to a verbal form don't explain what the definition is. In other words, what does it mean to "copyright" something? As explained, people seem to use it to refer to registration, but that use implies that registration is a necessary prerequisite to obtaining a copyright. That's usually why I make this point.

 

[flyingron]

The OED lists copyright as a verb with history of that use going back to the 1878, meaning "To secure copyright for; to protect by copyright." The noun definitely came first, going back more than a century earlier.

Copywrite however is right out, unless you're talking about someone writing filler for a newspaper.

 

[zddoodah]

The OED lists copyright as a verb with history of that use going back to the 1878

It's worth pointing out that, prior to January 1, 1978, the word DID have meaning as a verb since the Copyright Acts of 1870 and 1909 required formalities to secure a copyright (e.g., publication with notice and registration).

 

[Tax Counsel]

As explained, people seem to use it to refer to registration, but that use implies that registration is a necessary prerequisite to obtaining a copyright. That's usually why I make this point.

Ah, got it. Your point is that their use of the word isn't right in the context they used it. Thanks.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The OED lists copyright as a verb with history of that use going back to the 1878, meaning

The OED is quite different from other dictionaries. It is a historical dictionary rather than a dictionary of modern use like Webster's. It is also a British publication which means that, while the editors attempt to include words throughout all of the English speaking world, it does sometimes either not include the American definition of the word or get the definition of the American use correct. It is a great resource, but it's not the same as a regular dictionary. The publisher of the OED explains the differences here: About the OED

 

[thesedaiv]

Depends on the content. Remember, you have to contend with both trademark and copyright issues.

If you write a comic book about a Certified Public Accountant named Urza McDonald, you are less likely to get sued.



Again, depends on content. Mishra and Misha are common names and can probably be used without issue, unless you creating content similar to this Mishra.

Mishra, Eminent One (The Brothers' War Commander) - Gatherer - Magic: The Gathering (wizards.com)

Why are you resisting the concept of consent?

I didn't realize I was doing said action. Forgive my ignorance, I would like to get this foolishness out of the way so I don't look stupid in front of Lawyers, and if necessary, the court of common pleas.

In the MTG Storyline, Urza & Mishra are brothers. They started off as archaeologists. Urza became a clockmaker turned Prince Consort. Mishra became a slave, then a teacher of a Shahs' child, then the Shah himself. Mishra died in battle with Urza who later became a godlike being that played with families' destinies in order to breed the strongest possible champion to defeat a greater evil and ultimately sacrificed himself to defeat said evil. Both were brothers, born one year except a day apart.

I just like the name Urza and wanted to make him an Archmage of a Wizard Academy. Mishra, I wanted to use more as a wink & nod to MTG. I didn't plan to make them brothers or go to war with one another.

Zddoodah: There is a Jack Swallow, a character in a pornographic film, so your example of Jack Swallow does count.

 

[flyingron]

The OED is quite different from other dictionaries. It is a historical dictionary rather than a dictionary of modern use like Webster's. It is also a British publication which means that, while the editors attempt to include words throughout all of the English speaking world, it does sometimes either not include the American definition of the word or get the definition of the American use correct. It is a great resource, but it's not the same as a regular dictionary. The publisher of the OED explains the differences here: About the OED

The publisher's explanation doesn't support your contention at all. It specifically says that the modern definitions are there (and in fact, do track modern changes in both American and British usage) as well as the extensive historical use. I have been an OED subscriber for years, and your comments about it are unfounded and if you'd actually had used the resource you'd know it is untrue.

You may wish to do the little quiz at the bottom on OED myths and see how many of yours are indeed false.

You omitted this boast in the link you provided:
The OED has been the last word on words for over a century.


Further, I was pointing out that the "misuse" of copyright as a verb is hardly "recent" (or American).

 

[adjusterjack]

Further, I was pointing out that the "misuse" of copyright as a verb is hardly "recent" (or American).

You're probably the only person in America that cares "enough" to make an issue about it on a public forum.

 

[Zigner]

You're probably the only person in America that cares "enough" to make an issue about it on a public forum.

To be fair - this came about based on zddoodah's attempt to correct the usage of the word, followed by others attempting to correct zddoodah. That alone means that he's not the only person in America that cares "enough".