And the term "chevron" was used in the game starship titanic, where I learned its meaning.
I still can't take it seriously.
That is, if it's actually a DMCA claim and if that DMCA claim is patently invalid (trademarks are not covered by copyright, so filing a DMCA claim on trademark grounds would be obviously invalid).
Most of the time the things people call "DMCAs" aren't actual DMCA takedown requests, though. For example YouTube blocks a lot of content based on automated flagging which doesn't even invoke the DMCA -- illegitimate flagging isn't illegal, it's often not even a violation of the ToS, even if it causes lost revenue.
While I certainly agree that abusing DMCA notices is a bad thing, I have only ever seen a few really egregious filings get punished and even that was marginal. I'm honestly surprised that there hasn't been more pushback. I've seen some pretty idiotic filings...
So using a DMCA takedown request because of a trademark infringement if there isn't also a copyright infringement would be perjury because you're making a bogus claim. AFAICT this would only matter if both sides ended up pursuing legal action (i.e. the DMCA counter-claim is resisted).
The only example of DMCA abuse being punished I've seen so far is the infamous YouTube drama between thunderf00t and VenomFangX (who ended up reading a prepared statement as part of an out-of-court settlement with tf00t to avoid facing legal consequences).
I think most people aren't willing to actually sue DMCA trolls or are unsure about their actual legal position. It's certainly understandable why a company like Google might be more likely to just follow the rules instead of taking a stand as long as they're not affected directly. And tools like YouTube's automated content claims completely circumvent the need for "content owners" to invoke DMCA and risk legal consequences.
Not saying you can't get in trouble for anything else, I just haven't seen that yet, other than some out of court settlements (I don't remember yours, but I've heard about others).
I certainly do wish that more people would bring some of the utterly bogus claims to the attention of the relevant courts or bar associations (assuming they bear the signature of an actual lawyer).
I got DMCA'd by Nintendo anyways. I didn't bother fighting it, since it wasn't worth my time for a one-day project. Nintendo of America has overzealous paralegals that WILL go DMCA anything pokemon related.
If you mean images of Pokémon, those would be copyrighted.
Still ridiculous, but consistent with copyright law, and not an obvious case for fair use either.
@andyjiang / @lambtron was kind enough to add them to the emojipacks project:
I can see it be amusing to have repos with pokemon names, but for practicality, I would have no idea what they are for by reading the name.
By popularity, do you mean the repos or the pokemon?
(I would assume repo popularity, as pokemon popularity can already be found elsewhere)
From a quick glance, looks like Jolteon would be number 1 in the list.