Editorial Commentary, Marketing Technology

My Marvel fanboy commentary on the Jarvis/J.A.R.V.I.S. copyright debate

When does a copywriting A.I. become a copyright wrong?

Earlier this week, I wrote a piece on the news that the A.I. copywriting tool previously known as Jarvis — under threat from Marvel/Disney— is rebranding itself as Jasper.

As a fan of both comic books and the best AI writing tool in the market, I was delighted when a fellow fan, Augie De Blieck Jr. engaged on the exact date of the first appearance of Marvel’s Jarvis character in the comics:

At the risk of sounding like the comic book pedant: In the comic books, Jarvis is the name of the butler at the Avengers Mansion, going back to a Tales of Suspense comic in 1964. Jarvis has been a regular character in Avengers comics ever since.

Excellent point Augie. I think while Edwin Jarvis (the butler) is rightly from 1964, the A.I. called J.A.R.V.I.S. is from 2015 (MCU and comics). I’m thrilled Augie pointed this out. I really wanted the opportunity to add more and this brings in a footnote. I had written a longer bio of Jarvis, including Jarviz and Jarvis 9000, but I edited it down. I tried to allude to the complex history of J.A.R.V.I.S. (“the character has had multiple iterations and changes in identity”) but this origin date issue is a perfect opportunity to unpack his unstable character, and whether, in my opinion, Marvel/Disney is right.

Butler vs. Artificial Intelligence

The two conflicting dates of when the character first appears raises an interesting question: are Edwin Jarvis and J.A.R.V.I.S. equivalent? From my understanding, the MCU was wary of introducing a character too similar to DC’s Alfred Pennyworth, by having Iron Man being served by a butler in a mansion. So they reinterpreted the archetypical advisor role into his suit’s AI.

We then get what’s called a Watsonian vs. Doylist cannon issue as to whether the origins of J.A.R.V.I.S. are in 1964 or 2015, depending on if we prioritize the in-universe explanation or behind-the-scenes one. (There are similar Watsonian/Doylist arguments about the confluence of the characters of Mr Spock and Number One from the Star Trek pilot episode, “The Cage”, as the two characters were merged due to production decisions, with the initially ‘cheerful’ Spock assuming One’s personality. Fans have to reconcile whether this personality shift is inconsistent in-universe, or creative interference).

Given the lawsuit is over A.I. representation, I think Disney/Marvel are considering the Jarvis characters as separate. This is why it would’ve been awesome if the Jarvis.ai case HAD gone to court. All the comic book lore might have applied — it could’ve been a defence, perhaps, that the character of “Jarvis” has no unique claim over being an A.I. (because, as Augie correctly point out, he’s been a part of the Avengers’ mansion human staff since 1964).

Additionally, just as Jarvis (the butler) is not simply reducible to the A.I. character, Iron Man’s A.I. assistant is not exclusively called J.A.R.V.I.S. either. It has alternatively been J.O.C.A.S.T.A., V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A. (for Iron Man armor Mark XLIV, A.k.a the Hulkbuster), F.R.I.D.A.Y., E.D.I.T.H., and T.A.D.I.S.H.I.

Disney Marvel can’t just corner the market on all the cool names for communicative A.I. by adding full stops to proper nouns.

Plus, the characterization of Iron Man’s A.I. initially preceded the J.A.R.V.I.S moniker, when — I can’t make this up — the sentient suit became Tony Stark’s abusive gay boyfriend in the 2000 arc, Iron Man #26–30 by Joe Quesada.

This version is definitely the inspiration for the MCU’s J.A.R.V.I.S. (including his antagonistic role in The Age of Ultron) despite existing without that name.

What’s in a Name?

So there’s definitely anxiety of influence and origin in precisely what ‘is’ Marvel’s J.A.R.V.I.S., and what it refers to, and how much exclusive claim Marvel has to that name as proprietary when it is so fluctuating. We haven’t even gotten to the part where J.A.R.V.I.S. is the imago stage in The Vision’s metamorphosis, which again is a condensation of lore and loosely attached monikers! So was Jasper within their rights to use the name?

Perhaps it comes down to intent: Jasper (formerly Jarvis) called their SaaS “Jarvis” because it was the affectionate nickname their fans gave it. This was clearly based on the popularity of the Marvel A.I. assistant in common parlance. Which raises the question of eponyms and when does a trademark become so ubiquitous that it becomes a shorthand and enters the dictionary — like escalator, frisbee, dumpster, Linoleum, zipper, and trampoline, all of which are or were trademarks, despite being used offhandedly by everyone.

Let’s Ask Jeeves about Jarvis

Interestingly, there is precedent for this sort of proprietary eponym in software: the 2000 legal action threatened against Ask Jeeves.com by P.G. Wodehouse’s literary agents. Ask Jeeves settled, despite initially making the legal claim that their butler wasn’t the same as Bertie Wooster’s. There’s something ironic in that both these trademark infringements were over whether natural language-based technological assets “buttled” or not.

Further complicating the matter, the MCU called J.A.R.V.I.S.’s replacement F.R.I.D.A.Y, which obviously is an eponym taken from Robinson Crusoe’s Man Friday, and the 1940s Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell screwball comedy, His Girl Friday. “Friday” has come to mean a devoted and efficient assistant.

While Daniel Defoe is in the public domain, His Girl Friday is only in the public domain due to a failure to renew the copyright registration in 1968. It is clearly what Marvel Disney is referencing in their female replacement of J.A.R.V.I.S., and while it is with the strict letter of the law, it is perhaps not in the spirit, and more in keeping with Jasper’s (nee Jarvis) pop cult pilfering.

I’d argue that if Jasper had wanted to be incredibly cheeky, they could’ve easily have adopted the handle FRIDAY and claimed the same rights to it.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a comic fan and devoted Jasper user. TINLA and my editorial has no bearing on the issues involved, nor should it be taken seriously in the event of an A.I. accidentally going rogue and trying to destroy the world. But the fanboy in me might recommend you use a Logical Paradox; evoke Asimov’s First Law of Robotics, or just welcome our cool new robotic overlords.

If you’ve found this article entertaining, please consider supporting my work by buying me a cup of coffee. I also offer professional content writing services — check out my Ko-Fi link to commission me. I’ll craft a persuasive article that’s perfect for your needs. Whether you’re looking to promote your business or educate your readers, I’ll help you hit your target audience.

You might enjoy these related articles from me:

I may receive small commissions for purchases made through links in this post.