Pink Poogle Toy Forum

Just when you thought humans couldn't get any thicker, one of them comes along and threatens a kids site because of the name "Whack-a..." Despite the term and game being popular in the UK a long time before the nauseating electronic version of the game Whack-a-mole was knocked together.

From wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole Stupidity at its best.

_________________
http://alienaisha.blogspot.com
lol

All images still say Whack-a-Kass

_________________

Please help my dragons grow and give a click!

Well apparently it only happened yesterday so I wouldn't expect them to change any images just yet. Let's just hope they think of a better name than Kass Basher... it sounds dodgy.

_________________
http://alienaisha.blogspot.com
lol

My lord, you can copyright just about anything these days. It reminds me of something I read about using the sentence "Make yourself at home" or something like that. I think windows or microsoft or some company was supposed to have that copyrighted.

Really, it is stupid. I mean, can anyone just copyright anything? What if someone copyrighted the word "The" or something?

My goodness, it is just two words. Who cares? Why make a big deal out of it?

If I were neopets I'd just add a TH to all the images and make it Thwhack a kass or whatever.

_________________

I'm curious as to whether the copyright was held by the people who introduced the arcade game "whack-a-mole." If so, it's probably legitimate.

As to whether you can copyright anything, the answer is no. You can only copyright things that relate to your business or products, and are not otherwise already in common use. A woman whose husband died on United Flight 93, the aircraft that was forced down and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania on September 11, attempted to copyright the last known words of her husband: "Let's Roll." Her claim was denied, on the grounds that lots of people say that and that there was no business interest. It was also too short, IIRC.

_________________

Well there is a company right now and they are using "Duh" as their slogan. So does that mean that no one else can do that now?

_________________

People will try anything! Some state college (I can't remember what state) tried to copyright the state name, as it was their school name, and then collect fines for use. They actually managed to get the copyright through, but it was overturned later.

_________________

Set by KiTeNcHeTu!
Find me at WGF, where werewolf rocks!

As relates to automotive sales, and in the context of the phrase, "The Big Duh," yes.

_________________

Well, that's stupid. I mean, it's just a game, right? I wish people didn't care so much about copyright and everything. *prepares for the worst*

_________________

Man. Does that mean the Whack-A-Kass avvie is changed?

_________________

Set by Byakuya'<3

That's a good question. I doubt they'll be forced to change it as "Whacked" is a single word and is not "Whack-a"
On the other hand, if lawyerbot had the changes to the titles made that soon...

_________________

Set by KiTeNcHeTu!
Find me at WGF, where werewolf rocks!

A bit off topic, but I got the avatar.

But now that I think about it may not need to be changed.

_________________

Set by Byakuya'<3

The problem with the Wikipedia is that anyone can say anything, true or not. Maybe I missed it but it appears that the Neopets reference has been deleted from the Wiki's Whac-a-Mole listing.

Edited to add: Oops! I didn't realize that the game names had been changed.

Well changing the titles is likely a good faith gesture. So it makes sense that they'd do it as soon as possible, especially if they expect it to take some time to change all the images, etc. Depending on how they designed their site it shouldn't be particularly hard to change the text.

I'm grateful for this thread though. I was wondering why the names didn't match anymore.

I really wish neo would announce this sort of thing in their daily news. Did they do that when they had to change the red crosses or am I just participating in wishful thinking? I'm glad they're responding to a valid copyright notice, but I feel that this is the kind of thing that deserves to be explained to the site users.

With the red crosses, they didn't mention it until someone asked in the editorial. They said something along the lines of "Someone asked us nicely to remove them, so we did."

_________________