I googled Sparlock and this is the first thing that came up: http://www.sparlock.com/en/dn-introduction.shtml It would seem that WT has ripped off another company's name.
Sparlock - copyright infringement by WTS?
by poppers 15 Replies latest social humour
-
-
sd-7
A number of different things came up for that, including a Pokemon named Sparlock, so...maybe it's not to be taken too seriously. I doubt it will create much confusion, as there probably won't be Sparlock action figures in the toy stores unless Nintendo authorizes them for the Pokemon. But it's funny to see how this has evolved from worrying the WTS will sue someone to asking whether someone will sue the WTS... Maybe we're really taking this too far and need to develop more hobbies... Nah.
--sd-7
-
poppers
Well, whatever happens this has turned into a real phenomenon that'll be fun to watch.
-
ldrnomo
Sparlock blocks um they're probably made by the demons. No wonder the Watchtower hates sparlock toys so much
-
Diest
I dont think it is copyright infringement. You dont know it if is spelled the same and it is a last name. It is also not in the same category, one is a building company another is a toy.
-
NomadSoul
Uhhh, No.
-
ldrnomo
sparlock blocks, they aren't held together with morter, they must be held together by wicked spirits
-
Poztate
A number of different things came up for that, including a Pokemon named Sparlock
That could be a very good case of copyright infringement. Pass the information on to the pokemon nintendo game developers
I would love to see a lawsuit... and I would rather see Nintendo with the money than the WT
-
steve2
Don't worry people: The Watchtower Corporation ain't stupid. It's lawyers pore over everyhting that comes through the publications.
My understanding of copyright law is that corporations, organizations and even "the public" are permitted to use copyrighted names - provided they are not promoting their own versions of the copyrighted item. For example, "Buy my sparlock now. Only $9.99"
If for example the Watchtower came up with a product it named "Sparlock" and promoted it via its publications, it could be sued for copyright infringement.
However, if it is simply using the word in a story to express its negative opinions on the object, there is no copyright infringement.
It's comparable to my blogging about hating Coca Cola and warning my readers against buying it. That is not a copyright breach, even if it is unflattering of the product (after all, I am not stating anything "libellous". I am simply stating I do not like it and nor should you (in other words, an opinion piece).
-
mind blown
the only way there will be an issue is if they used an "exact" wizard's likeness from somewhere else. If so there's copyright issues as well as using it's likeness in a negative light.
Actually, I'm pretty sure Sparlock is a WarCraft (or) World of Warcraft on line game character.