[TheOtherHobbes]

Grumpy Cat is a brand, not a logo.

This is no different to protecting a business name.

I'm bemused that critics of copyright believe that IP Protection is Evil, but have no problem understanding that they're not going to be able to call their startup "Microsoft", "Google", or "Apple" - because that would be an obvious and ridiculous branding infringement.

But copyright of a single work isn't a brand? In a practical sense it is, because the whole point of IP is that it has market value - and brands, individual works, band and artist names, logos, and the rest, all generate income for creators.

(Or more often for middle men and managers - but that's a different problem, and one that's hardly going to be solved by eliminating IP.)

[jdmichal]

Branding is in the realm of trademark, not copyright. This was a copyright lawsuit, so branding has nothing to do with it.

If Disney finally loses copyright of Steamboat Willie, you will still not be able to use the trademarked Disney Ears. (The one that's three circles.)

[khedoros1]

This was a copyright, trademark, and breach of contract lawsuit, not only a copyright lawsuit.

[khedoros1]

> I'm bemused that critics of copyright believe that IP Protection is Evil, but have no problem understanding that they're not going to be able to call their startup "Microsoft", "Google", or "Apple"

A critic of copyright protection could still support trademark and/or patent protection. For example, I'd say that current copyright terms are excessive, but that an entity, whether a person or a company, should have exclusive and perpetual rights to their own identity (i.e. trademark-like protection).