[bleah1000]

As much as Disney sucks, it looks like Redbubble is being overly aggressive in removing things that are kind of like Disney's Loki. The specific part:

In most cases, this means that the rights holder did not specifically identify your for removal, but Redbubble has detected potential similarity between your removed work and one or more words, phrases or images included in the rights holder's removal guidance.

It looks like Redbubble is the one that doesn't understand how to enforce copyright properly.

[shadowgovt]

Upon further inspection, I think Redbubble may be interpreting the situation correctly here, unfortunately.

The artwork in question is a definite direct reference to this https://www.reddit.com/r/Marvel/comments/cwiix0/loki_2_cover... , which Disney is absolutely going to beat the drum on enforcing (because if they aren't selling that t-shirt in Disney stores yet, they will within a quarter; they're hot on Loki right now with their Disney+ show). Artist may have gotten away with it if they hadn't called the work "Low Key Loki," but their intent seems extremely clear.

It sucks, but this kind of thing is actually what intellectual property law is supposed to protect against.

[danShumway]

Is it? IP law is supposed to protect against references now?

Is Disney allowed to send a takedown request to every movie that says "that's not a moon" or "I am your father"? Did Disney file a trademark for the words "Low Key"?

I'm not on board with the implication that even talking about or referencing a copyrighted work is somehow an unprotected privilege, instead of fair use. To me this sounds a lot like the expansionist attitudes that the Olympics and sports teams have where they (incorrectly) assume anything adjacent to something they own is also theirs by law.

[shadowgovt]

Redbubble makes shirts. The product purchasable here isn't the design; it's a product matching the product worn by Disney's character in their comic, which appears to be an original design.

This is well within "lawyers will be paid a lot of money to argue the finer points" territory.

[danShumway]

> The product purchasable here isn't the design; it's a product matching the product worn by their character in their comic

Which is a reference. The character in their comic is wearing a generic design; I would expect that it's not trademarked. It's also not an original design, Disney's use itself appears to be a reference to an earlier depiction of Loki by Neil Gaimain.

It's also not a matching product, it uses a different font and color than Loki's version (at least in the images I've seen, maybe there are others floating around).

But I'll follow your thread of logic. Disney owns the copyright on Superman, can they sue anyone who produces red capes?

> This is well within "lawyers will be paid a lot of money to argue the finer points" territory.

This doesn't mean much to me, almost everything except the most blatant fair-use issues seems to fall into this category nowadays. I have seen companies sue or threaten to sue over far more ridiculous claims.

"It's close enough to get lawyers involved" is a really weak argument when we're talking about copyright, especially where companies like Disney are concerned.

[Talanes]

And Marvel's use is a reference to Neil Gaimain's American Gods: https://americangods.fandom.com/wiki/Low_Key_Lyesmith/Novel

[fnordsensei]

Neil Gaiman may be the owner of “Low Key” specifically. The name appears in his book “American Gods”, which I’m sure predates this.

IANAL.

[bena]

"Low key" is an easy enough homophone that I don't think that that will fly. I think they even used it on Supernatural at some point. Not as a name, but as a pun on the name.

Copyright is kind of loose. Gaiman and Marvel can both base a character off of the character of Norse mythology because that character is public domain. That doesn't mean either is a reference to each other. There are certain character traits that are contained within that mythology. Certain things are added by Gaiman or Marvel that are specific to their interpretations and those could be protected under copyright.

But could is not is. It really depends on how much of a deviation those details are. Or how much can be extrapolated from public characterization.

Loki and Thor being adopted brothers is probably off-limits to Gaiman as that is something Marvel invented out of whole cloth.

Loki being a secret identity of an archangel to hide from his brothers is probably off limits to both Marvel and Gaiman as that's specific to Loki's portrayal in Supernatural.

Loki being a manifestation of chaos whose power is waning and running a con out of jail is specific to Gaiman. Although deities being manifestations of belief isn't exactly a stretch itself. But him leading a new pantheon of "New Gods" is novel. That specific characterization is off limits to Marvel.

But noticing that Loki and "Low Key" sound similar, that falls squarely in the realm of possible independent discovery.