[crdrost]

I mean, “voluntarily” in quote marks. They were likely threatened in some way and had to react pretty strongly, no? This looks like a typical action of a legal-compliance department or individual. “we just want you to know, Disney wanted us to take down everything with the keyword Loki and we are terrified of their legal department so we did.”

The title just says “claims trademark over Loki” which may be semi-inaccurate (they may be claiming copyrights or other authorship rights) but I mean, you are complaining that the title is inaccurate for being pointed at “a specific work” and, like, the title doesn't say any such thing. I would have written “claims trademark over ‘low key’” and that might have indeed been a little more misleading in one way, but more illustrative in another...

[plandis]

It’s probably even worse than that because I’d be willing to wager that no smart company wants to risk litigation against one of the biggest companies in the world. Disney doesn’t even need to threaten them because it’s clear that Disney can bury most companies in legal fees. Unless selling “Low Key Loki” is critical to their business it’s just not worth the risk.

[TheOtherHobbes]

I'm honestly more concerned about reducing >800 years of mythology to a filmed image of a photogenic dude with cheekbones and silly costumes than about questionable copyright claims.

Although the claims are an outrage too.

[krapp]

>I'm honestly more concerned about reducing >800 years of mythology to a filmed image of a photogenic dude with cheekbones and silly costumes than about questionable copyright claims.

Why? Most people will never have even heard of, much less care, about Loki or Norse mythology in any context until Marvel and Disney came along. Now far more people are aware of the mythological version through the popular version than ever.

Also, no one is attempting to replace the mythological Loki with the Marvel version, not even Disney is trying to burn copies of the Eddas or break carvings of Loki Taliban style. That's not even the only version of Loki that appears in modern pop culture.

Also, don't talk about cheekbones or silly costumes when this[0] is your template.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Processed_SAM_loki.jpg

[hugi]

As an Icelander, we are very aware of our heritage and mythology and I'd really prefer that it not be copyrighted by greedy American corporations.

[dragonwriter]

Fortunately for you, copyright doesn't work in a way which would allow that, so you are safe.

[runarberg]

As a fan of the stories from Norse Mythology, I’d argue that the MCU has done a great disservice. Thor for example is nothing like the mythology figure. In Norse Mythology Þór is not a good person, his violence is actually blamed for the fall of Ásgarðr. His stories most often revolve around his overdrinking and the troubles he gets into. I can’t remember a story where he actually does a good deed.

Previously I was able to tell people these stories and they would enjoy them for what they are. Now most people giggle at them because they can only think of the Marvel characters.

[bitwize]

Come on, you have to admit, when considering the Þrymskviða, the image of Þrymr pulling back the bridal veil to reveal Chris Hemsworth in a dress standing before him is pretty funny. At least I thought it so.

I like to look at the media depictions of these characters and compare them to their mythological counterparts. Disney's Hercules was ridiculous and a missed opportunity. But the way they depicted Maui was really, really good -- and when you consider that Maui is slightly different in every Polynesian culture that discussed him -- almost plausible as legitimate Polynesian mythology.

[ghaff]

For the most part, the majority of the pagan gods are not exactly nice people in the stories. Plenty of rape and killing relatives to go around. Not that the Old Testament Yahweh is exactly a shining role model either.

[crooked-v]

Also, while it's not so much in the "evil by modern standards" category, New Testament Jesus is often rendered benign and generically harmless by people who profess to be Christians but don't want to deal with any of the parts of his teachings that might inconvenience them.

[UnpossibleJim]

Most of the old stories/religions have been cleansed for the modern palette. For better or worse, I suppose it's bound to happen, religions have to evolve or suffer the fate of extinction. A little ironic =)

[runarberg]

I think Baldr is supposed to serve as the role model in these stories (and is arguably inspired by Jesus). And that is sort of why Loki is such a villain, since he conspired to have Baldr killed.

[Tenoke]

>Most people will never have even heard of, much less care, about Loki or Norse mythology

I doubt that's the case. Thor for example at least has been pretty popular from before, maybe on the level of Zeus, I'm guessing Loki was at least half as popular of a mythological character.

Even separately, I must've read at least 10 fantasy works with a trickster god named Loki.

[sovande]

>Thor for example at least has been pretty popular from before

That’s safe to say. Thursday is literally Thor’s day

[krapp]

Bear in mind that Marvel started their Asgardian mythology in the 1960s. This didn't all just start with the MCU.

[ghaff]

Short-lived, but there was at least one other 1960s vintage cartoon Asgardian series as well. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156221/

From my perspective, Norse mythology was maybe not quite as generally known as the Greek/Roman pantheon (outside of northern Europe anyway). But it was certainly not obscure--at least as far as the Odin, Thor, Loki basics.

[ghaff]

Not sure why the downvotes. Thor appeared in various Marvel comic book properties starting in the early 1960s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Comics) I'm sure this contributed to public knowledge of Thor at least among a certain demographic.

[TomSwirly]

> Why? Most people will never have even heard of, much less care, about Loki or Norse mythology in any context until Marvel

:-o

For one datapoint, when I grew up in England, you'd learn about the Greek Myths and the Norse Myths in school.

I was an adult before I ever heard of the Marvel comics.

[mLuby]

> bury most companies in legal fees

I can't stand that this is part of the "justice" system. The outcome of a case should depend on its merits, not the litigants' war chest. Anything less invites corruption.

[Retric]

It doesn’t invite corruption, it was designed that way.

The English legal system was setup for aristocrats not peasants. We changed a lot about how the criminal side works, but very little about the civil.

[HWR_14]

Does the DMCA not provide a safe harbor from trademark claims as well?

[gruez]

>digital millennium copyright act

Judging by the name, and the fact that the wikipedia article contains zero instances of the word "trademark", I'm going to guess "no".

[danShumway]

> I mean, “voluntarily” in quote marks. They were likely threatened in some way and had to react pretty strongly, no?

No, I don't think so. It wouldn't completely shock me if it was true, but I wouldn't expect it.

My prior is that Redbubble has a list of words that just trigger takedowns or at least reviews, and "Loki" is one of them. I don't think Disney needs to threaten companies like Redbubble over every individual item, they can file a normal takedown request. I suspect that Redbubble is just generally scared of Disney overall, and that fear leads them to issue broad takedowns without the need for any other inputs.

I don't know for certain, but I suspect this is an unprompted, voluntary move by Redbubble.

[brundolf]

Which is still a story, just a different story: the mere possibility of legal action has a chilling effect on entire creative domains because platform owners are too scared to get within half a mile of where the actual line is drawn.

[bdowling]

> platform owners are too scared to get within half a mile of where the actual line is drawn.

This. Then the tech news and commentators on HN, etc., get agitated and complain about IP rights as if the actual lines are drawn where the scared platform owners think they are.

[username90]

Yet another reason to reign in the freedom of platforms, as you say they aren't following the law they make their own laws that are much more hostile to the little guy.

[bdowling]

> Yet another reason to reign in the freedom of platforms

Forcing platforms to host material that may, arguably infringe copyrights or trademarks isn’t a solution.

What’s needed are bright-line rules for determining fair use. Bright-line rules, however, are basically impossible for all but the simplest cases. Most cases are far too nuanced or deal with novel uses.

[erik_seaberg]

(It’s “rein in,” like a horse.)

[danShumway]

Oh sure, the DMCA absolutely has a chilling effect on creative industries, and Redbubble is probably justifiably scared of Disney, and that fear is a huge source of unjustifiable takedowns online. Disney in particular has a lot of responsibility for this, they have fought hard to expand copyright and are famously litigious. In my mind, the company very consciously and deliberately contributes to a culture of fear around fan works, references, and fair use in general.

The DMCA in its current form chills both free speech and industry, and it should be revised or repealed.

But, I suspect that Disney did not directly threaten Redbubble over this specific shirt. My guess is that this takedown is a product of the system, not a product of a specific phone call from a lawyer.

[dragonwriter]

> Oh sure, the DMCA absolutely has a chilling effect on creative industries

Are you using “the DMCA” as shorthand for “the risk of contributory infringement lawsuits which predates the DMCA and which the DMCA safe harbor provisions mitigate”, or something else?

[danShumway]

The main problem with the DMCA is not that it provides a safe harbor, it's that the DMCA's safe harbor is provisional on following takedown requests.

This creates an environment where platforms are extremely trigger-happy to remove content. There is very little reason not to take down every piece of content you get a request for, even if it's obviously fair use, because refusing to take it down opens you up for liability as a platform. Compare this to something like Section 230, where platforms are just not liable for 3rd-party content period. They don't have to worry so much that they're going to suddenly get dragged into court because they refused to listen to someone who complained about a likely legal piece of content.

The DMCA safe harbor is better than making platforms directly liable, and a repeal of just the safe harbor laws and nothing else would be pretty bad. But lots of things are better than making platforms directly liable, that's not a high bar to clear. Even with the safe harbor provisions, it's still generally a harmful piece of legislation because it strongly incentivizes thoughtless takedowns.

Also worth noting that DMCA does not simply maintain status quo on copyright law outside of the safe harbors, it also expanded copyright in a number of harmful ways (most infamously barring circumvention of DRM). Those parts aren't so relevant to what we're talking about, but I do want to bring up that there are plenty of other reasons beyond the current situation with Redbubble to criticize the law.

> the risk of contributory infringement lawsuits which predates the DMCA

Don't get me wrong, I'm also open to revising/repealing some of them, but they weren't the thing I was referring to in this comment.

[dragonwriter]

> Compare this to something like Section 230, where platforms are just not liable for 3rd-party content period.

That's actually a controversial judicial expansion of 230 which has, AFAIK, only been been explicitly endorsed by one federal appeals circuit (and which there is a very strong case from the text of the CDA is the wrong interpretation), though I don’t know that any circuit has ruled the other way (cases which would turn on the distinction are not super common); on its face 230 only removes publisher liability under the conditions it provides, which would, under the rules applicable pre-230 (and not offline content still), leave distributor liability. Distributor liability is notice-based, much like contributory infringement under the DMCA safe harbor regime, though it operates on actual notice, rather than requiring adherence to a prescribed procedure.

[ghaff]

That seems likely. Maybe Disney shipped them the list and maybe they didn't. And presumably Disney could own copyright (trademark?) to some elements of the Loki and Thor characters as represented in the MCU. They just obviously can't own the name, as they can with many other characters.

[quantified]

Fear the Maus!

[judge2020]

This is effectively what rights holders did to YouTube and lead to the creation of content ID.