
Если вкратце, то Марвел комикс, в последних нескольких своих журналах поместила как мехи, так и неких mechwarrior-ов, что ими управляют. И если MECHWARRIOR это зарегистрированная торговая марка ТОППС, то за изображенным мехом все вопросы к Хармони Голд.
Вот только судится с "Дисней", которая перекупила "Марвел", это не ФАСА нагибать... из чего начинает вырастать куча очень и очень интересных моментов.
И цитата
Fireangel писал(а):Context matters; seeing the word in association with a 'mech that (despite HG's wishes to the contrary) is identifiable as (being an amalgamation of several of) BT's most recognizable "unseen" 'mechs is really courting legal action.
Now, this is a very interesting case which I'd love to see given to law students for research;
Can HG (which claims ownership of the likeness of the 'mechs in question) sue Marvel over the frankenmech's appearance?
Can Topps (which owns the trademark "MechWarrior") sue over its unlicensed use based on context created by images it cannot use?
I can see legal arguments both ways for both questions, with some hinging on jurisdiction.
Me? Uncharacteristically, I'll actually give my personal opinion without attaching a legal opinion or advice to it; If I were in Topps' position, I'd contact Marvel and over a nice lunch tell them that I have no problem with them using the term "MechWarriortm" or its derived "Mechwarrior" free of charge for the current storyline provided that A) the trademark is acknowledged and B) mention of BT is made elsewhere in the book in a positive way.
Heck, I might be inclined to grant them the use of the likeness of one or two 'mechs (to be used by the good guys) for a limited number of issues (Jenner or Timberwolf sounds good to me), to create cross-genre awareness, and of course, provided that copyright is observed in the credits.
Seriously; how many of us got interested in BT because of those RT 'mechs on the cover?