Good afternoon. Tell me, is it possible to use the minecraft style in the design of a cafe for children? Or does it violate rights?
I AM NOT A LAWYER AND NOTHING I POST HERE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL ADVICE
That said, the answer to this is both simple and complicated at the same time. First, you cannot copyright a "style" period. So in that regards you're safe.
HOWEVER!!! This does not mean that unique elements of Minecraft can be used willy nilly. Minecraft's artwork is still owned by them, which includes the individual textures and creature designs. Some of this is down to copyright, and some of it is down to trademark. So for example if you want a creeper standing around, you're very likely still going to get hit with legal action unless you can make yours distinct enough that it's not going to be confused for belonging to Mojang/Microsoft.
This goes with a lot of other "Minecraft" design bits. You can copy the aesthetic to a point, but the point at which any random person familiar with MC looks at it and immediately thinks "That's a Minecraft cafe" is the point where you're probably in trouble for violating trademark or trade dress laws. Basically you need to make sure that a reasonable person won't confuse your brand with Minecraft's even if they share a similar aesthetic.
The alternative to this is to actually get Mojang/Microsoft's permission to make a themed cafe. This sort of thing happens in Japan, though I doubt they're as keen on it elsewhere in the world. Also, expect to pay a HUGE licensing fee to go this route. I don't know what it costs to license the Minecraft IP but considering that it's still one of the most valuable properties in the entire world my guess is that it's in the neighborhood of "way too darn much".
If you're considering doing this, please please PLEASE hire a lawyer to review your designs BEFORE putting them in place. While Mojang is pretty chill, they are owned by Microsoft who are notoriously litigious. You do NOT want to stare down M$'s legal division. So if you're putting money into this idea, your second stop (after hiring a designer to get the look you want on paper) would be to hire a qualified lawyer to make sure that what you're doing doesn't violate copyright, trademark, or trade dress of what you're imitating.
(Consider that people will sell fanart, including that of a nsfw nature, on sites like patreon and subscribestar, or through NFTs).
Which is still technically illegal, by the way. At least to the best of my definitely not a lawyer and definitely not giving legal advice understanding of the issue.
The issue isn't one of copyright and legality, but of public perception. Most companies are smart enough to know what if they start bringing down the might of a legal department against fans who are just having fun and not really challenging the company's rights that they'd get HUGE amount of backlash from it.
For the less wholesome art, that can quickly become a matter of accidentally evoking the Streisand effect. Particularly for more family-friendly brands it's generally smarter to just ignore that it exists rather than call loads of attention to it by bringing about a very public lawsuit and having that associated with the brand. Generally the only time companies are willing to risk this is when the not-child-friendly fan art gets higher search results than the company's own website.
As always, this are more complicated than just what the law says. Regardless, it's really not likely that anyone is going to get in trouble over a fan work from which no money is being made.
I get frustrated when simply the red tape in legal proceedings outrides the actual case.
My own building wanted to put an electronic lock on our gym and put them on all doors instead, a complete overreach for the stated purpose - but to drag the building board members through a legal case would be slanted and impossible. It's not a fair system.
Same goes for a channel on youtube that parodies Smosh and was told to cease and desist even though parodies are legally protected under fair use. The time spent on legal argument costs more money than the loss or win itself.
I get frustrated when simply the red tape in legal proceedings outrides the actual case.
My own building wanted to put an electronic lock on our gym and put them on all doors instead, a complete overreach for the stated purpose - but to drag the building board members through a legal case would be slanted and impossible. It's not a fair system.
Same goes for a channel on youtube that parodies Smosh and was told to cease and desist even though parodies are legally protected under fair use. The time spent on legal argument costs more money than the loss or win itself.
The abuse of the legal system to bring down not for profit fan art bothers me as well, fortunately not every company does this, Sega for one are very forgiving when it comes to community content and as are Mojang, surprisingly.
Are people not legally allowed to make tributes to their favourite artists in honor of them and their historical works? personally if I was an artist, I wouldn't consider it offensive if other's made fan art of my works while not making loads of money from doing it, I'd take it as a complement and it can potentially increase revenue by allowing more people to know of what I did.
But as I said before, some companies are already aware of this point and it's why even though technically illegal, sometimes they let people do fan art without any legal consequence whatsoever, because what is more important to them is their reputation, if they lose popularity, they lose money.
The abuse of the legal system to bring down not for profit fan art bothers me as well, fortunately not every company does this, Sega for one are very forgiving when it comes to community content and as are Mojang, surprisingly.
Are people not legally allowed to make tributes to their favourite artists in honor of them and their historical works? personally if I was an artist, I wouldn't consider it offensive if other's made fan art of my works while not making loads of money from doing it, I'd take it as a complement and it can potentially increase revenue by allowing more people to know of what I did.
But as I said before, some companies are already aware of this point and it's why even though technically illegal, sometimes they let people do fan art without any legal consequence whatsoever, because what is more important to them is their reputation, if they lose popularity, they lose money.
It goes both ways. False legal strikes and avoiding controversy. Very disingenuous imo.
Good afternoon. Tell me, is it possible to use the minecraft style in the design of a cafe for children? Or does it violate rights?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffI AM NOT A LAWYER AND NOTHING I POST HERE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL ADVICE
That said, the answer to this is both simple and complicated at the same time. First, you cannot copyright a "style" period. So in that regards you're safe.
HOWEVER!!! This does not mean that unique elements of Minecraft can be used willy nilly. Minecraft's artwork is still owned by them, which includes the individual textures and creature designs. Some of this is down to copyright, and some of it is down to trademark. So for example if you want a creeper standing around, you're very likely still going to get hit with legal action unless you can make yours distinct enough that it's not going to be confused for belonging to Mojang/Microsoft.
This goes with a lot of other "Minecraft" design bits. You can copy the aesthetic to a point, but the point at which any random person familiar with MC looks at it and immediately thinks "That's a Minecraft cafe" is the point where you're probably in trouble for violating trademark or trade dress laws. Basically you need to make sure that a reasonable person won't confuse your brand with Minecraft's even if they share a similar aesthetic.
The alternative to this is to actually get Mojang/Microsoft's permission to make a themed cafe. This sort of thing happens in Japan, though I doubt they're as keen on it elsewhere in the world. Also, expect to pay a HUGE licensing fee to go this route. I don't know what it costs to license the Minecraft IP but considering that it's still one of the most valuable properties in the entire world my guess is that it's in the neighborhood of "way too darn much".
If you're considering doing this, please please PLEASE hire a lawyer to review your designs BEFORE putting them in place. While Mojang is pretty chill, they are owned by Microsoft who are notoriously litigious. You do NOT want to stare down M$'s legal division. So if you're putting money into this idea, your second stop (after hiring a designer to get the look you want on paper) would be to hire a qualified lawyer to make sure that what you're doing doesn't violate copyright, trademark, or trade dress of what you're imitating.
I hope that helps you.
Well, does this mean I'm a criminal because I made a comic about an enderman who likes videogames and I painted it black with purple eyes or not?
Seriously, am I a criminal for that or not?
Because I don't wanna get sued for copyright restrictions just because of 6 drawings with a bit of text I made!
Not even my hello world works :'C
(But powerpoint does xd)
Btw what does api stand for?
Are you selling that comic?
Fair use laws are a tricky thing.
Absolutely not!
It's just a joke I came up a late sunday evening, not intended to be sold!
And, it's drawings are pretty cringy and bad quality.
Literally made them in 10 seconds in paint while I was working on a project for next week (2 weeks ago now).
Not even my hello world works :'C
(But powerpoint does xd)
Btw what does api stand for?
Then it's fine.
(Consider that people will sell fanart, including that of a nsfw nature, on sites like patreon and subscribestar, or through NFTs).
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffWhich is still technically illegal, by the way. At least to the best of my definitely not a lawyer and definitely not giving legal advice understanding of the issue.
The issue isn't one of copyright and legality, but of public perception. Most companies are smart enough to know what if they start bringing down the might of a legal department against fans who are just having fun and not really challenging the company's rights that they'd get HUGE amount of backlash from it.
For the less wholesome art, that can quickly become a matter of accidentally evoking the Streisand effect. Particularly for more family-friendly brands it's generally smarter to just ignore that it exists rather than call loads of attention to it by bringing about a very public lawsuit and having that associated with the brand. Generally the only time companies are willing to risk this is when the not-child-friendly fan art gets higher search results than the company's own website.
As always, this are more complicated than just what the law says. Regardless, it's really not likely that anyone is going to get in trouble over a fan work from which no money is being made.
I get frustrated when simply the red tape in legal proceedings outrides the actual case.
My own building wanted to put an electronic lock on our gym and put them on all doors instead, a complete overreach for the stated purpose - but to drag the building board members through a legal case would be slanted and impossible. It's not a fair system.
Same goes for a channel on youtube that parodies Smosh and was told to cease and desist even though parodies are legally protected under fair use. The time spent on legal argument costs more money than the loss or win itself.
Yeah, 2 years ago microsoft tried to sue me because of a windows parody I made on flash.
Anyway, I (somehow) didn't get sued. Luckily.
But they actually tried.
Not even my hello world works :'C
(But powerpoint does xd)
Btw what does api stand for?
Close brush.
The abuse of the legal system to bring down not for profit fan art bothers me as well, fortunately not every company does this, Sega for one are very forgiving when it comes to community content and as are Mojang, surprisingly.
Are people not legally allowed to make tributes to their favourite artists in honor of them and their historical works? personally if I was an artist, I wouldn't consider it offensive if other's made fan art of my works while not making loads of money from doing it, I'd take it as a complement and it can potentially increase revenue by allowing more people to know of what I did.
But as I said before, some companies are already aware of this point and it's why even though technically illegal, sometimes they let people do fan art without any legal consequence whatsoever, because what is more important to them is their reputation, if they lose popularity, they lose money.
It goes both ways. False legal strikes and avoiding controversy. Very disingenuous imo.