FA+
Shop
On the legal side of closed species -
3 years ago
General
Saw this in another illegal Primagens F-list. Decided it would be good armor for here too~
Paraquoted from Runes f-list:
The US Patent Office (https://www.uspto.gov) does not have any entries from Malice-Risu for either Primagen or Protogen.
Neither do either of these terms return records from the European Patent Office (epo.org)
In the Australian Intellectual Property Office (https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/), patent 2034501 for Primagen has been declined trademark protections.
Canadian Intellectual Property Office (https://www.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/introduction.html) has no references to Primagen and Protogen outside of medical technologies, none of which relates to Malice-Risu/Koinu.
Likewise, the Japan Patent Office (https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/) returned zero results for trademark of Primagen, and one result of Protogen linked to pharmaceutical technologies, similar to Canada.
This does not support the claim of closed-species, nor does Malice-Risu/Koinu have any legal authority to restrict the creation and use of Primagens or Protogens. You need not take my word for these things, you can cross-check these patent offices yourselves.
While these are only five Patent and Trademark Offices and an exhaustive search of other regions was not performed, I am confident these five are sufficient to support my assertion that Primagens and Protogens do not enjoy any trademark protections.
tl;dr Primagen and Protogen are open species. So is pretty much every other "closed species"
You don't need to believe me, you can go read up on it yourself. This is a compilation of the Copyright Act 1968 that shows the text of the law as amended and in force on 23 June 2017 [legislation.gov.au]
Relevant sections include Part III Divisions 1, 2, 3, 4B, 7, and 8. Feel free to read up on these sections yourself.
And again, from the protogen/primagen originator's home country, comes some more knowledge on beginner information concerning IP [ipaustralia.gov.au] including, but not limited to, the following excerpt;
Quote:
Copyright
The moment an idea or creative concept is documented on paper or electronically it is automatically protected by copyright in Australia.
We do not handle copyright. The responsibility for copyright belongs to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications.
Copyright protects the original expression of ideas, but not the ideas themselves.
A species falls under the article of an idea, and is inherently not covered as copyright. Unique and specific characters of said species do get inherent protections. The idea of closed species is inherently inhibitive of innovation and creativity, and only opens up opportunity for harassment.
If you are still sour about me having "illegal" closed species OCs, you can leave.
Have a good day~
Paraquoted from Runes f-list:
The US Patent Office (https://www.uspto.gov) does not have any entries from Malice-Risu for either Primagen or Protogen.
Neither do either of these terms return records from the European Patent Office (epo.org)
In the Australian Intellectual Property Office (https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/), patent 2034501 for Primagen has been declined trademark protections.
Canadian Intellectual Property Office (https://www.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/introduction.html) has no references to Primagen and Protogen outside of medical technologies, none of which relates to Malice-Risu/Koinu.
Likewise, the Japan Patent Office (https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/) returned zero results for trademark of Primagen, and one result of Protogen linked to pharmaceutical technologies, similar to Canada.
This does not support the claim of closed-species, nor does Malice-Risu/Koinu have any legal authority to restrict the creation and use of Primagens or Protogens. You need not take my word for these things, you can cross-check these patent offices yourselves.
While these are only five Patent and Trademark Offices and an exhaustive search of other regions was not performed, I am confident these five are sufficient to support my assertion that Primagens and Protogens do not enjoy any trademark protections.
tl;dr Primagen and Protogen are open species. So is pretty much every other "closed species"
You don't need to believe me, you can go read up on it yourself. This is a compilation of the Copyright Act 1968 that shows the text of the law as amended and in force on 23 June 2017 [legislation.gov.au]
Relevant sections include Part III Divisions 1, 2, 3, 4B, 7, and 8. Feel free to read up on these sections yourself.
And again, from the protogen/primagen originator's home country, comes some more knowledge on beginner information concerning IP [ipaustralia.gov.au] including, but not limited to, the following excerpt;
Quote:
Copyright
The moment an idea or creative concept is documented on paper or electronically it is automatically protected by copyright in Australia.
We do not handle copyright. The responsibility for copyright belongs to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications.
Copyright protects the original expression of ideas, but not the ideas themselves.
A species falls under the article of an idea, and is inherently not covered as copyright. Unique and specific characters of said species do get inherent protections. The idea of closed species is inherently inhibitive of innovation and creativity, and only opens up opportunity for harassment.
If you are still sour about me having "illegal" closed species OCs, you can leave.
Have a good day~
Danger
~jerryk
Crazy that people make drama for stuff like this, honestly I never really cared about the whole "closed species" thing, you are right when you say it blocks creativity & opens more pathways for harassment.
Khandor
~khandor
They make drama because its exploitable and if too many people started to realize that the drama is all fake anyways, they'll lose their monetization and other standings.
