Young Writers Society

M.C.A. Hogarth wrote:In their last email to me, Games Workshop stated that they believe that their recent entrée into the e-book market gives them the common law trademark for the term “space marine” in all formats. If they choose to proceed on that belief, science fiction will lose a term that’s been a part of its canon since its inception. Space marines were around long before Games Workshop. But if GW has their way, in the future, no one will be able to use the term “space marine” without it referring to the space marines of the Warhammer 40K universe.

Full post here: http://haikujaguar.livejournal.com/1208235.html

John Scalzi's post on the matter can be found here: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/06/space-marines-and-the-battle-of-tradem-ark/

This issue is still in the developing stages, but I forsee a lot of drama on the internets. As there should be on an issue like this.

Even if they do something like that, an author who uses the term would then have to be sued and a judge would have to uphold the suit. I don't see it happening. In the U.S. there is a pretty big respect for free speech and the use of words that had a public usage before corporate ownership of them. You would be hard pressed to find a judge that would rule for the company.

GW has already used the trademark claim to have one author's ebook removed from Amazon. Whether it is legal or not, damage has already been done.

Whether or not the case ever makes it to court depends on whether those with greater means than Hogarth decide to pursue the matter, as she cannot afford to.

Unfortunately, the recent trend in the U.S. is upholding frivolous trademarks and patents like these in the courts. It seems it's no longer about who comes up with an idea first, but who is the first one to run to the patent office.

I think this is terrible from a creative standpoint. If GW's claim on "space marine" is upheld legally, then we could see countless science-fiction writers struggling to sell their work simply because their replacement term for "space marine" does not resonate with their audience. (Because the original term has been used for decades).

I would classify GW's ridiculous trademark in this case as simply greedy. And anytime greed stifles creativity it's a very sad thing to see. Unfortunately this is happening more and more these days. (Because companies are abusing the trademark/patent system more so than ever.)

I keep meaning to trademark "Young Writers Society." It'd help with getting rid of the site squatters that profit from when people misspell the name in their browser (ex. youngwritersociety.com, but don't visit it!).

A trademark isn't a copyright, and it doesn't stop other people from using it. Even if the "Space Marines" trademark that Games Workshop is asserting applied to all books - digital and print - I could still use the term in my book. I just couldn't use it in the title.

You can also trademark just about anything under the right circumstances. For example, I can't start a social networking site called "WriterBook" because Facebook has trademarked the word "book." However, trademarks are also very, very narrow. Facebook's trademark applies solely to social networking sites. If "WriterBook" was a blog about books for writers, that'd be alright.

And if you own a trademark, you have to aggressively assert it. Otherwise, it's considered abandoned. So that leads to a lot of situations like "Space Marines." But, this is also a good thing. Trademarks are very powerful, so if someone gets lax about defending their trademark, the law uses that as an excuse to take the trademark away. If you don't defend it, you don't keep it. Fortunately with copyright, that's not the case; it's always yours whether you defend it or not.

But, that doesn't mean some trademarks aren't stupid. The US Patent and Trademark Office is underfunded and understaffed, so a lot of patents and trademarks get approved that really shouldn't be approved. In this case, the term "Space Marines" was not invented by Games Workshop and it was already in wide use in sci-fi. That doesn't stop them from trademarking it, but it does make it more difficult. They'd need to show that their use of the term "Space Marines" is so pervasive in the marketplace that whenever people think of it, they think of Games Workshop's products. That's why Facebook can trademark book; it has such a large presence in social networking that whenever you think of "book" with regards to social networking, you think of "Facebook."

In this case, something tells me that no one thinks of Games Workshop's products when they hear "Space Marines." My bet is that an over-worked, under-paid staffer who doesn't know sci-fi approved their trademark. By the way, such staffers are awesome people; I know a few, and they're always well-educated. But, they don't get the funding they need.

Last but not least, the above is only applicable to US law. European copyright, trademark, and patent law can be very, very different. US law was formed primarily in just the last 150 years (prior to that, we were a pirate nation akin to China today). But European law in this area stretches back to the 1200s, so you got some stuff that probably made sense to Venetian merchants and Florentian artists, but which doesn't make as much sense today. Still, more similarities than differences; it's just the differences can be very big differences.

Oh! And death to Games Workshop. How dare they try to steal a term Heinlein invented!

Yo. I don't really hear the term "space marines" much; I think of characters like Anne McCaffrey's Sassinak and Nintendo's Samus Aran as themselves, not a cliche. But yes, it is rather silly to decide you own a word or phrase unless it's a proper noun like "Playstation" or what have you.

Hardly a surprise. We all know how evil GW is. But I propose a counter-punch: why doesn't some one else trademark "The Empire" or something?