Who owns a colorway?

[Melvang]

So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

I admit confusion.

The first paragraph seems to imply that they have no issues re-running a set, while the second indicates that they will not re-run a "custom" set.  Does custom mean that a user selected the color scheme from their palette of colors, or that the set must have been a true color match with unique resin as detailed in the first paragraph?

I read it as, if you come at them asking them to make Pulse again, they would say no unless MiTo said it was ok. But if you come at them with a design for a set identical to Pulse, minus the custom legends they would be fine with making it again.

This is my interpretation as well.  If you go to them and tell them that you want to do a set with identical colors as "insert keyset here" they won't.  But if you get the exact color codes, and ask them to do a set with those specified colors, they won't have a problem.  Though you would need express permission to use the "custom" legends for both two shot and sublimated.  Same thing with custom colors.  I can't just email them and say I want to use the green from the Toxic set with RDA (could look bad ass though), they won't do it.  But if BunnyLake was to give me the pantone color code or whatever parameters they need to mix the exact custom color, they wouldn't have a problem.

[Zambumon]

I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

I can assure you that it wasn't that way.

[baldgye]

I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

I can assure you that it wasn't that way.

I trust this guy, 100% sarcasm.

[fatb0y]

So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

I admit confusion.

The first paragraph seems to imply that they have no issues re-running a set, while the second indicates that they will not re-run a "custom" set.  Does custom mean that a user selected the color scheme from their palette of colors, or that the set must have been a true color match with unique resin as detailed in the first paragraph?

I read it as, if you come at them asking them to make Pulse again, they would say no unless MiTo said it was ok. But if you come at them with a design for a set identical to Pulse, minus the custom legends they would be fine with making it again.

This is how I interpreted as well.

I don't think they have a problem remaking custom legends either, so long as you provide them with new files to make the legend from.

Makes sense, If I was Signature Plastics I wouldn't want to be bothered with checking a backlog of all custom legends ever made when a new one is submitted.

[Zambumon]

I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

I can assure you that it wasn't that way.

I trust this guy, 100% sarcasm.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

[baldgye]

I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

I can assure you that it wasn't that way.

I trust this guy, 100% sarcasm.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

Neither was I.

[MiTo]

I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

PuLSE 2 doesn't need an explicit IC right now, people obviously want it so they will have it. A lot of people knew this already. It was even easter egged with the "Wait and Sea" joke on Reddit and some users followed the clues. I was hinting there all along, despite of what I've said here. We all knew from the beginning that nobody can possibly own a scheme.

My post from a couple of hours ago and even older posts clearly said that.

[Zapheo]

I think the IC on Reddit fell apart. )

[beehatch]

I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

PuLSE 2 doesn't need an explicit IC right now, people obviously want it so they will have it. A lot of people knew this already. It was even easter egged with the "Wait and Sea" joke on Reddit and some users followed the clues. I was hinting there all along, despite of what I've said here. We all knew from the beginning that nobody can possibly own a scheme.

My post from a couple of hours ago and even older posts clearly said that.

blowing more smoke out of your ass once again

[nubbinator]

More

Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?

I don't think so. Citigroup has a logo, it's citi with the red arch between the I's.

Show Image

But beyond that trademark, they also have protectable rights over something like this.

Show Image

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2005506&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

You're confounding trade dress, which is capable of being trademarked as it is branding, with stuff that cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, like color ways.

So what you are saying is trade dress can be trademarked.  In America, trade dress specifically refers to the following things, the shape/configuration of a product, the packaging of a product, the color of a product or packaging, and the flavor of a product.

I'm sorry I'm confused, so are you saying colors can or can't be trademarked?

Trade dress is your brand identity.  With regards to colors, a trademark-able color is a specific color that was created to uniquely and distinctly identify your brand.  It's also a color that is neither functional nor one that is aesthetic.  It must be used to identify your brand.

Pulse is not a brand, as such, it is not something that could be trademarked.  I don't know how I could say it any clearer than has already been stated several times in here.

[xondat]

Some people don't like Pulse, me included

Told you

--

I have one class and this **** happens lmao it's the end of the world

[UTEster750]

More

Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?

I don't think so. Citigroup has a logo, it's citi with the red arch between the I's.

Show Image

But beyond that trademark, they also have protectable rights over something like this.

Show Image

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2005506&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

You're confounding trade dress, which is capable of being trademarked as it is branding, with stuff that cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, like color ways.

So what you are saying is trade dress can be trademarked.  In America, trade dress specifically refers to the following things, the shape/configuration of a product, the packaging of a product, the color of a product or packaging, and the flavor of a product.

I'm sorry I'm confused, so are you saying colors can or can't be trademarked?

Trade dress is your brand identity.  With regards to colors, a trademark-able color is a specific color that was created to uniquely and distinctly identify your brand.  It's also a color that is neither functional nor one that is aesthetic.  It must be used to identify your brand.

Pulse is not a brand, as such, it is not something that could be trademarked.  I don't know how I could say it any clearer than has already been stated several times in here.

That is pretty clear I think.

[Zambumon]

Trade dress is your brand identity.  With regards to colors, a trademark-able color is a specific color that was created to uniquely and distinctly identify your brand.  It's also a color that is neither functional nor one that is aesthetic.  It must be used to identify your brand.

Pulse is not a brand, as such, it is not something that could be trademarked.  I don't know how I could say it any clearer than has already been stated several times in here.

Case closed

[nickheller]

I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

PuLSE 2 doesn't need an explicit IC right now, people obviously want it so they will have it. A lot of people knew this already. It was even easter egged with the "Wait and Sea" joke on Reddit and some users followed the clues. I was hinting there all along, despite of what I've said here. We all knew from the beginning that nobody can possibly own a scheme.

My post from a couple of hours ago and even older posts clearly said that.

If it doesn't need an IC why did you post one (and delete it)

[fatb0y]

More

Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?

I don't think so. Citigroup has a logo, it's citi with the red arch between the I's.

Show Image

But beyond that trademark, they also have protectable rights over something like this.

Show Image

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2005506&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

You're confounding trade dress, which is capable of being trademarked as it is branding, with stuff that cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, like color ways.

So what you are saying is trade dress can be trademarked.  In America, trade dress specifically refers to the following things, the shape/configuration of a product, the packaging of a product, the color of a product or packaging, and the flavor of a product.

I'm sorry I'm confused, so are you saying colors can or can't be trademarked?

Trade dress is your brand identity.  With regards to colors, a trademark-able color is a specific color that was created to uniquely and distinctly identify your brand.  It's also a color that is neither functional nor one that is aesthetic.  It must be used to identify your brand.

Pulse is not a brand, as such, it is not something that could be trademarked.  I don't know how I could say it any clearer than has already been stated several times in here.

You should re-read what I said, I never said that Pulse can be trademarked, I was simply saying that a color can be trademarked, since up and down this thread people kept saying color cannot be trademarked, when in fact it can.

Also, a color need not be a specific color created for you, it just has to be a color that is peculiar within your market. The color can't solely be functional or aesthetic, but that doesn't mean that a color used in trade dress can't have those qualities.

I mean why use color if not for its aesthetic value? I can almost guarantee every color that is currently trademarked was incorporated into the brand identity because of aesthetic purposes.

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

[GL1TCH3D]

More

Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?

I don't think so. Citigroup has a logo, it's citi with the red arch between the I's.

Show Image

But beyond that trademark, they also have protectable rights over something like this.

Show Image

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2005506&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

You're confounding trade dress, which is capable of being trademarked as it is branding, with stuff that cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, like color ways.

So what you are saying is trade dress can be trademarked.  In America, trade dress specifically refers to the following things, the shape/configuration of a product, the packaging of a product, the color of a product or packaging, and the flavor of a product.

I'm sorry I'm confused, so are you saying colors can or can't be trademarked?

Trade dress is your brand identity.  With regards to colors, a trademark-able color is a specific color that was created to uniquely and distinctly identify your brand.  It's also a color that is neither functional nor one that is aesthetic.  It must be used to identify your brand.

Pulse is not a brand, as such, it is not something that could be trademarked.  I don't know how I could say it any clearer than has already been stated several times in here.

You should re-read what I said, I never said that Pulse can be trademarked, I was simply saying that a color can be trademarked, since up and down this thread people kept saying color cannot be trademarked, when in fact it can.

Also, a color need not be a specific color created for you, it just has to be a color that is peculiar within your market. The color can't solely be functional or aesthetic, but that doesn't mean that a color used in trade dress can't have those qualities.

I mean why use color if not for its aesthetic value? I can almost guarantee every color that is currently trademarked was incorporated into the brand identity because of aesthetic purposes.

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

Have you seen tim hortons uniforms??? 

[SixtyLife]

You know, if you had just said 'oh yeah i used those icons' I think most of us would've been like 'ok cool whatever who cares.' but now you're claiming to have made the leaf?!

below are 2 screenshots from this http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png godspeed IC image with the original icons overlaid.

Show Image

Show Image

About the PuLSE icon, it looks exactly the same and it's clearly from Nico. The diameter of the edges and angles are in fact identical and this is not a surprise, since I used an image featuring his icon as reference to create a logo for the set.

I can't say anything but repeat that the the leaf is an incredible coincidence. Not a surprise though, since it's a general shape with an closed angle cut. Anyone can do this is less than five minutes and I created the one I used from scratch.

The planet is a scan from a newsletter from my university, they used this icon as a tag for highlighting their website on the back of the newsletter. They also have the Facebook iconic "f" and a small phone to highlight their telephone number.

At this point you guys discussing ownership of everything might as well discuss the ownership of the shape of our planet and a leaf. Good luck with that.

this is all anyone should ever need to see to never support any of Mito's projects ever again. "incredible coincidence"?? just man up and admit you used someone else's icon.

[Niomosy]

So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

So it seems that the answer to the thread question, "Who owns a colorway?" is, not surprisingly, nobody.

The thing is, you say, "not surprisingly," but I suspect that a fair number of users here, on /r/MK, and on MassDrop are going to be very surprised by this.  Hell, the Eslup IC already has the question in it once.  I've seen numerous discussions of the set being owned IP on MassDrop and even /r/MK has people believing in colorway ownership.

Regardless of the answer, I'm glad we have an answer.

[user 18]

It seems that the question has been answered authoritatively by Melissa. In the interest of not driving this thread any further off-topic, the thread has been locked.

 

So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)