[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.