Are real world place names copyrighted?

[DaFool]

Let's say I have an RPG, and I name a town Baghdad. The fictional town would have absolutely nothing similar to the real-world version -- it won't even be an arabic town, for example. Would the state of Iraq be eligible to sue me?

I've been building a world inside my head and been having trouble finding appropriate-sounding names for its towns. I thought, screw it, this one's gonna be called 'Washington, D.C.'.

Besides being silly, perhaps it's a potentially dangerous move as well?

[Jake]

Would the state of Iraq be eligible to sue me?

Honestly, I think this is the most ridiculous question I have seen all day.

No!

[Aleema]

No, they're not copyrighted, it's just taboo if you're not trying to recreate the real-life locations themselves, because readers would get really confused and distracted. I know I wouldn't want to read about the magical forest Elf city of Baghdad, because I would constantly be thinking in my head "oh my god, that is totally not Baghdad," throughout the rest of the story. I would also find it pour taste that the author couldn't come up with their own name, especially for a fantasy world! If you're lazy enough to not think of appropriate names, then there might be other things you blow off as well.

I suggest you look through the many free name generators on the internet. Anything other than popular, real places would do. So please don't call one of your fantasy cities "Washington D.C.". You'll make the kittens cry.

[Jake]

No, they're not copyrighted, it's just taboo if you're not trying to recreate the real-life locations themselves, because readers would get really confused and distracted.

On the other hand, using existing place names - or ones close to them - also has the benefit that people have a lot of emotional investment in those place names already. If you're reading a mediaeval-style story and your characters come across a place called Baghdad, you can expect it to be a centre of learning and splendour, you can expect busy street markets and minarets and guys with scimitars and turbans and intricate woven carpets and so on, and you barely have to describe it - it's all in the reader's head already. And you don't have to be talking about the real Baghdad, you can make up people and events and buildings and so on, but the reader will still tag along with his 1001-nights-filled view.

[Aleema]

On the other hand, using existing place names - or ones close to them - also has the benefit that people have a lot of emotional investment in those place names already. If you're reading a mediaeval-style story and your characters come across a place called Baghdad, you can expect it to be a centre of learning and splendour, you can expect busy street markets and minarets and guys with scimitars and turbans and intricate woven carpets and so on, and you barely have to describe it - it's all in the reader's head already. And you don't have to be talking about the real Baghdad, you can make up people and events and buildings and so on, but the reader will still tag along with his 1001-nights-filled view.

But wouldn't that be "trying to recreate the real-life location" in some aspect? Sure, maybe it doesn't reflect modern times or any time, but an ignorant schmuck might think that's how life really is over there. The rest of my post clarifies what I was saying about taboo ... If you make a dwarven indoor cave city called "Baghdad", your readers would likely be distracted, if they indeed know about the real-life city. And if not, I surely would. =P

[Jake]

But wouldn't that be "trying to recreate the real-life location" in some aspect?

Not really, but yes - it's not what DaFool was talking about in his post. I'm just pointing out that there is actually some value in re-using existing place names, even if they're not accurately modelled, for exactly the same reason as it's a bad idea to do so for completely unrelated locations.

(And really, 'taboo' is totally the wrong word - it's something that is shied away from for entirely practical reasons.)

[Kxela]

Copyright is for things people create.

Unless you cause some kind of threat by using a country or city name, you're fine. All sorts of stories are set in real life places.

Although be careful with things like business names, as they may possibly sue if they don't like their name being used. (hint: parody)

[Asceai]

You can't copyright a name.

You can trademark a name, but I don't think names of cities are exactly covered by that, somehow.

[LVUER]

Then how about a name of a real product? They should've been copyrighted too along with the product, right? Muvluv have its mechas names the real fighters exist in real world (F-4J, F-16, F-22, EF-2000, etc).

[Asceai]

Then how about a name of a real product? They should've been copyrighted too along with the product, right?

Like I just said in the post before yours, names are not covered by copyright law. They are covered by trademark law.

And, yes, your real-world fighters are almost certainly trademarked, but trademark infringement is very different to copyright violation. I don't think age has to worry, unless they decided to start manufacturing fighter planes and naming them this way =P

[Kxela]

wait wha? It's not infringement unless you actually make actual products and use the names of it is it?

making fictional planes in a story and naming them after real planes wouldnt be considered infringement would it? that wouldnt make sense...

[Jake]

wait wha? It's not infringement unless you actually make actual products and use the names of it is it?

Exactly. Trademarks protect the name only in the market it's sold in - so Microsoft can trademark "Windows" for the operating system market, but they can't go after Anglia Windows for selling double-glazing using their trademark, because it's a totally different market.



However, IIRC, if you use a trademark in your fiction to describe the product that is normally sold under that mark - talk about your Sony TV or your Nike trainers - and you represent that product in a bad light, then there are certain protections which the owner of the mark can use to prosecute you for defaming their brand. But if you're just representing the product as a normal TV or shoe, or using the same name to represent something which is obviously not the product sold under that name, I'm pretty sure you should be fine. If in doubt, consult an actual lawyer, etc., etc.



(Also - I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the aircraft designations such as 'F-22' were given by (and thus, owned by) the US Military, not the aircraft manufacturer. So it could well end up being the case that the mark is owned "by the people of the United States" or something and thus even less likely to be aggressively protected.)

[PyTom]

Basically, there are three kinds of "intellectual property":

- Copyright protects the expression of an idea. It's what generally protects artists and authors. Basically, it means that nobody can make a copy of your work without your permission. But they can learn things from your work, and make their own work, so long as they don't copy too closely.

- Trademark protects brand names. Basically, it lets me establish a brand of product, and make sure people don't sell the product under the same brand name. For example, it's what would prevent someone from renaming Blade Engine to Ren'Py Supreme in order to confuse people. Trademark only kicks in when you're naming your product. It's okay to use it inside a book or VN, but probably not in the title. So you could have characters called Coca and Cola, but if you make a VN called Coca and Cola's Adventures, you've gone too far.

- Patents protect inventions. (Machines, Processes, and in some countries Software).

Take a Harry Potter book. The main protection is copyright... it's what means you're not allowed to use Harry, or Hogwarts, or the basic storyline in your own work. (But it probably won't rule out other books set in an arbitrary wizard academy.) You also can't just make a copy of the book wholesale.

There's also trademark rights. You couldn't make a story called "Harry Potter's Buddy Brad", even if it had nothing to do with and never mentioned anything in the Harry Potter universe.

Finally, patents might cover the way the book is printed and bound.

(Does using Harry Potter as an example date me?)

[PyTom]

(Also - I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the aircraft designations such as 'F-22' were given by (and thus, owned by) the US Military, not the aircraft manufacturer. So it could well end up being the case that the mark is owned "by the people of the United States" or something and thus even less likely to be aggressively protected.)

Actually, I did a trademark search, and Lockmart owns the F-22 trademark in the following areas:

- Toys and playthings, namely, scale model airplanes, toy airplanes, play sets consisting of a toy airplane and accessories therefor, kites, ride-on toys.
- Decorative cloth shoulder patches, embroidered patches for clothing.
- Clothing, namely tops, caps, jackets.
- book bags, travel bags, tote bags.
- pens and posters.
- Jewelry.
- Jet aircraft and structural parts therefor.
- metal key chains

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=l ... h&p_d=trmk

is the link to the US trademark search. It's probably not a bad idea to do a trademark search on the title of a new game, lest you be forced to change it.

[Jake]

Actually, I did a trademark search

While a trademark search is a good idea, and staying clear of marks that such a search turns up is also a good idea, it's not so clear-cut a problem:

- You don't need to register a trademark to use it as a trademark and to gain some protections thereof (the difference between 'TM' and 'R'). It's a good idea, in the same way that if you think it's going to be contentious registering a copyright is a good idea, but if you're using a trademarkable name for a product and someone else comes along and sells his product under the same name, then you can sue him for trademark infringement regardless of whether you bothered to register. It's just that the court case will be a lot more clear-cut if you did.

- If a trademark owner doesn't use a mark, or doesn't actively protect it, then they lose it. Since trademarks are market-specific, it means that if (for example) Lockheed Martin had registered F-22 for the confectionery market, with the intention of making Raptor-shaped cookies, then failed to actually do so (for, IIRC, five years), then you would be at liberty to sell your confectionery under the name 'F-22'.

- I could be wrong, but as I understand it there's no oversight on trademark registration, and registration doesn't automatically grant you mark rights you wouldn't otherwise have - at least in the UK and US - so I can register a trademark which is actually used and owned by someone else, and unless it's obvious it will only get noticed if they search for it themselves or try to register the same mark (or some legal squabble comes up and catches their attention) and if they've demosntrably been in that business longer than I have, then I could lose my registration.


So it could also be that you search and find a registration for a mark which is actually invalid or has lapsed and nobody's noticed yet, and it could also be that you search and find nothing, but that trademark does actually exist in the market you're intending to use it in, it's just not registered or catalogued.