Popular video game critic Jim Sterling has sparked a fierce online debate about how companies allegedly abuse IP-reporting tools on YouTube to censor criticism. This follows developer STICLI Games filing a trademark takedown request on a video critical of one of its games, basing its grievance solely on a stipulation in its strict end user licence agreement.

This part of the website has now moved to the subscriber area. To read more, please pick an option below.

Register to access two articles per month

Subscribe for unlimited access to articles, in-depth analysis and research from the World Trademark Review experts

Already registered? Log in

What our customers are saying

World Trademark Review is simply the first resource I will go to for trademark-related information, whether about the latest trademark law development or case news, top trademark practitioners or interesting trademark events.

Jerry F Xia
Deputy general counsel and chief IP counsel – Asia-Pacific, corporate law department
Honeywell

Benefits

Subscribe to World Trademark Review to receive access to the full range of trademark intelligence, insight, and case law, as well as our guides, rankings and daily market insight delivered to your inbox.

Why subscribe?

Comments

Please log in or register to leave a comment.

RE: “Cure the disease, not the symptom” – prominent critic calls for improved YouTube takedown process following questionable trademark claim

Open IP, Open IP Open IP, Open IP Open IP, Open IP Open IP, Open IP!!!

Make it default if it seeks a revenue flow to pay for its distribution or to make a profit then a 30% cut of profit after 30K in revenue a year goes to the IP owners. They get a cut of internet revenue and anything under 30k a year in revenue is treated as fair use or too small to police. When it this 5-10M in revenue take 60% of revenue as a way to get a bit of control over worthwhile endeavors so licenses will be almost mandatory on the top end of the IP spectrum. Fair use will not go anywhere however if it remains vague I see no other way to protect the people from an abusive system than exempt revenue up to 30-40K a year. Also just to be clear revenue is anything that’s not out of your pocket, YOU can spend 100K a year out of your own pocket from money that dose not come from the site/distribution point or donations, gifts,ect however if the site/distribution point has ads/donations/items for sale ,ect and they go over 30-40K then that counts. Either it’s completely funded out of pocket free of you gaining funds/gifts off its fame/infamy or items or its part of the system paying into the pot. I say this because there are many education and science related archives and information that can be freely distributed by groups of teachers or scientists who can work together and pay into a private pool of funds that goes directly to the site/distribution point.

Further balance the system with a 5% tax on internet connection services and 5% on digital hardware, this pays for the system to log and track IP ownership and the percentage of use various IPs have within other IPs.

Finish off balancing with giving heavily used but lesser profitable IP's a larger payout than in proportion to larger more profitable IPs.

The small fish is always going to get screwed but if we had 3 or 10 times as many publishers that are leaner and more willing to make deals to get revenue flowing then they would be more focused on quality support for smaller and medium fishes as they do for the big fishes.

Our current system promotes scarcity, cloning and exclusivity to place a lock on the market so the executives and investors can make more money via artificial means which is counterproductive in the age of sending data at the speed of light across the world, if everyone has the potential to become a creator or vendor and we tap into the revenue flow then then everyone will at some point create, consume or sale that’s where the money is not the exclusive minded zombie Jesus dinosaur business model…..

PS: Now excuse me I need to take my meds…. LOL

PSS: TL:DR I fail…..

Lee Jarvis, on 10 Mar 2017 @ 18:01

Share this article