cyoubx
Member
I recently got in a conversation with Seven Towns regarding the scope of their copyright on the Rubik's cube. This seemed like a relevant topic considering the sudden influx of new puzzles. There seems to a lot of confusion regarding the legality of these new cubes. Coincidentally, a Reddit post has surfaced which brings this into question.
Certainly, Seven Towns' patent has expired; this is what allows new cubes to have their mechanisms patented. However, Seven Towns also has a copyright on both the Rubik's cube and it's associated (2-D) images. Copyrights are given to works of art, be it literature or design. As the Rubik's cube fits into this category, a copyright is completely logical.
Here is the full response regarding this issue I received from Seven Towns:
Of course, I don't want to mislead people who respond to this thread with my own anecdotes but I have some important considerations:
1. Although it is inconvenient for speedsolvers, copyright claims certainly make a lot of sense for Seven Towns as a company.
2. So a DIY kit should be fair game, right? Particularly ones with just a plastic bag for packaging, nothing would imply that the pieces assemble to become a "magic cube." For example, if I gave a DIY kit to a noncuber, he/she wouldn't have any reason to believe that the assembled product is a magic cube.
Thoughts on any of this?
Certainly, Seven Towns' patent has expired; this is what allows new cubes to have their mechanisms patented. However, Seven Towns also has a copyright on both the Rubik's cube and it's associated (2-D) images. Copyrights are given to works of art, be it literature or design. As the Rubik's cube fits into this category, a copyright is completely logical.
Here is the full response regarding this issue I received from Seven Towns:
The name Rubik’s is a registered trademark in multiple classes. The 2x2, 3x3 and 4x4 Cubes are copyrighted objects as are their 2D images. In addition the 2x2, 3x3 and 4x4 Cubes are registered 3D trademarks in multiple classes in a huge number of countries. Copyright exists for most works of art or creations and the 3x3 Rubik’s Cube qualifies as it was for instance exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Copies of any original work may infringe the authors rights, even if they are not identical. Professor Erno Rubik has authorised Seven Towns to be the holder of this copyright and to have the ability to take action. Trademark protection (a separate form of intellectual property) exists where a company has used a certain name, logo or design (which can be in 3D) for a number of years to identify products or a service and where people recognise and associate the trademark with the design, image or product. Anyone else who then sells anything that might cause confusion in the mind of the buyer as to the origin of the goods or who trades off the reputation and goodwill built up over the years is infringing the trademark. Registered trademarks are more powerful and give better protection that un-registered trademarks especially where use and recognition of the trademarks are substantial.
It is true that the original patents have lapsed and in some cases new patents have been taken out by other non-authorised or unlicensed copy manufacturers. These patents may or may not be valid, but in any case the Rubik’s products do not infringe any known patent. The granting of those patents does not mean that the products are legal since the patents refer to the internal mechanism. The outside design of these “patented” cubes still usually infringe the other forms of intellectual property protection mentioned above and this results in hundreds of thousands of illegal Cubes being seized and destroyed each year by customs officers in over 40 countries.
The Rubik’s team employs over 30 different legal companies around the world to continually battle against illegal importers and illegal use of the Rubik’s name and Rubik Cube image. However it is simply not practical to take action against every single instance of infringement and therefore focus is given to the more serious and financially significant breaches of the intellectual property.
Of course, I don't want to mislead people who respond to this thread with my own anecdotes but I have some important considerations:
1. Although it is inconvenient for speedsolvers, copyright claims certainly make a lot of sense for Seven Towns as a company.
2. So a DIY kit should be fair game, right? Particularly ones with just a plastic bag for packaging, nothing would imply that the pieces assemble to become a "magic cube." For example, if I gave a DIY kit to a noncuber, he/she wouldn't have any reason to believe that the assembled product is a magic cube.
Thoughts on any of this?