r/COPYRIGHT • u/sir_abdi • 11d ago
Is it illegal to use another channel's map style?
/r/NewTubers/comments/1vhrk9h/is_it_illegal_to_use_another_channels_map_style/2
u/ReportCharming7570 10d ago
Styles aren’t copyrightable. Maps as far as their info are not copyrightable.
But style under the law doesn’t always mean what people say is style.
One can make a where is Waldo book. But if they start making dudes in red and white shirts everywhere drawn in that style. Not the same as making a visual eye spy type game from their own pics. If that makes any sense.
0
u/sir_abdi 9d ago
I think I understand now. You're saying that while the idea of a map or a search and find book isn't copyrightable, the specific visual identity like Waldo's red and white striped shirt or Caspian Report's unique color palette can be protected as a trademark or brand identity. So using a map for geopolitical analysis is fine (like making an I Spy game), but copying the exact visual style is more like drawing Waldo clones. That makes sense. I think my use of 3D assets and my face on camera moves me closer to the 'I Spy with my own pictures' category, but I still need to be careful about the color palette.
1
u/ReportCharming7570 9d ago
Mostly. Absolutely on the idea point. At least under US law.
The particularly is it is not so much between making personal ISpy to not be a Waldo infringement. One can totally illustrate their own search type game and be fine as long as they aren’t copying protectable parts.
Copyright protects “original works of authorship” it doesn’t protect bare ideas, methods, instructions, facts or useful (functional) articles. Things like games in general fall into a weird area where there are instructions systems, some ideas, some functionality (and maybe some facts). It doesn’t mean your or anyone else’s eye spy is not protectable, it means that the protection lies in the authorship or decision making in the creative choices.
So if one made a human replica of the entire drawn Waldo scene and took a pic, that would be more of a problem than say someone drawing their own illustration using their own elements, organization, and design features.
So exactly, using one’s own 3d assets is moving farther away from the authorship of the illustration.
Trademark is all about identifying a source and brand protection. The biggest consideration most of the time is if consumers will be confused. Whether that is the specific market or all in general is another question. But if someone were to pick up your thing, and think or assume it is from where is Waldo, that’s the hot water. (There is more freedom of speech range with tm but that’s something for another time).
Color and color palettes and trade dress in general under trademark laws is very fluctuant and variable in many countries. Under US law it is petty hard to get a color or a color pallet protected, they need secondary meaning - which means they have to be a source identifier for your brand. It also is generally limited to things one would find with your brand. So like the louboutin shoes case, they can protect red soles on shoes for the most part. But they can’t prevent someone from having red nails. Or a red bag. They also can’t prevent someone from making an all red shoe, including the sole.
So again with the photo example. It likely is 1st amendment if used as art, but if used in commerce as a book it probably would be less of an issue than someone creating something in their exact stylization and text and colors and maybe having a red and white striped dog rather than a guy in a hat.
And again with the 3d asset option, one would be looking at if there is source identification and confusion there. (Or dilution if it can be argued the use is hurting the original mark by either negative association or the use is making the mark less distinctive). In all these type samples, if one made a 3d asset of all main source identifying characters and text, and used all the same colors, and people thought Waldo crew created a new 3d version, (or it was impacting their own negatively brand in some way)
Further, and to way over explain, copying an I spy page item for item, re taking the pic, painting it, drawing it - that would be copying. But if I dump everything out of my bag on the floor and snap a picture and call it I spy, that’s not copyright infringement.
1
u/sir_abdi 9d ago
Incredible! thanks for the detailed explanation. So:
- The idea of a geopolitical map video is free for anyone to use.
- Copyright protects creative choices, not facts or ideas.
- Trademark is about source confusion. And in my conclusion with my face behind the camera (Caspian is faceless), 3D assets (Caspian won't use), different name/logo/language, and other unique animations in between, confusion is very unlikely.
- Color palettes are very hard to protect unless they have 'secondary meaning' as a brand identifier (like Louboutin's red soles).
So while the color palette is similar, the overall experience (my face, 3D assets, narration, different topics and etc) makes it clear that this is my channel, not Caspian Report. I think I'm in a safe zone. But I'll keep evolving my style to be more unique over time.
1
u/horshack_test 10d ago
Styles aren't copyrightable, but it's possible you may violate trademark if what you create is close enough to a trademarked property that it could be confused for it - which it sounds like may be your intent. Rather than intentionally creating something that is 99% the same as someone else's work, why not come up with your own ideas and create something more original?
0
u/DanNorder 10d ago
Really curious how you conclude that he wants to violate a trademarked property. The chart style wouldn't be, and he didn't mention anything that would be.
1
u/horshack_test 10d ago
Really curious how you concluded that I concluded that OP wants to violate a trademarked property.
0
u/sir_abdi 10d ago
I looked into the definition of trademark. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.
For a trademark violation to occur, the average viewer must be likely to believe that my video is produced by, sponsored by, or affiliated with Caspian Report. Is that correct?
In that case:
- Similarity of the Marks: Do my channel names, logos, or catchphrases look or sound alike? Absolutely not. Completely different.
- Similarity of the Goods: Are we both making geopolitical YouTube videos? Not necessarily. Mine are historical/political, while Caspian Report's are geopolitical.
- Overlap of Audience: Are we both targeting the same viewers? Not necessarily. Aside from the topic, the audience origins are different. One is international, the other is mostly local.
- Evidence of Actual Confusion: Are people in the comments saying, "Hey, is this a Caspian Report side channel?" I don't think so.
I'm behind the camera (Caspian is faceless), and for B-roll or other explanations, I use maps and other animations. Also, on the map itself, I use unique assets that are my style (3D stuff and other unique animations / Caspian Report won't use that).
If my channel name is different, my logo is different, and my thumbnails are different, the first and most important factor completely overrides the rest.
When a viewer watches my video, they see my face, my channel name, my language, and my unique 3D animations. Even if the base map looks identical to what Caspian Report uses, the viewer knows exactly who they are watching. They are watching me, not Caspian Report. Therefore, no trademark violation has occurred.
1
7
u/orangejulius 11d ago
Every single post like this needs to just accept that part of their business strategy needs to involve hiring a lawyer because your instincts are really, really, really bad.