: Yes and No.
: Words alone like "Hobbes", "Calvin", "Halo",
: and "Cortana" can not be copyrighted because they are common
: place words and names.

Everything has automatic copyright protection, but a single word - even a new one - would not be deemed substantial enough work to garner protection by any legal system known to me. Never mind that that it would fundamentally undermine the whole point of language and lead to an inordinate number of frivolous lawsuits.

: However, combinations of words can be. Words like
: "Halo 2", "Superman", and "Back To The
: Future" can. Fully made up words can be trademarked and copyrighted
: as well. Ungorry would be a great example of that; as would most names of
: Halo characters and species.

Those would just be trademarks. People can use the words all they like: Sangheili, Jiralhanae, Kig-yar, Unggoy, Mgalekgolo, San 'Shyuum, Yanme'e, Huragok! Microsoft ain't coming after me!

What trademarks prevent others from doing is conducting business with those names, symbols and designs that form the trademark. If I made a book called 'Rise of the Sangheili' and tried to sell it on Amazon, I would get a strongly worded letter from MS Legal asking for it to be renamed.

: Sadly, technology and the internet has made naming parodies (true parodies) a
: nightmare. Parody artist are consistently running into ID bots on a daily
: bases. These IDbot look at the names, keywords, & tags of all images
: online. If ANY OF THOSE WORDS match copyrighted material in their
: databanks, then they create a false claim on behalf of the company in
: their databanks and have the supposedly infringing art removed. The IDbots
: completely ignore the art and the rights of the parody artist for the
: equal rights of the larger artist/company.

This is a probably a liability thing. I know YouTube, for example, got sued by VIACOM for mass copyright infringement. And settled for millions of dollars with various music companies. So they tread on the side of 'safe but overzealous' rather than 'by the letter of the law' since it's generally the hosting companies that copyright owners come after since they're bigger, richer targets.

: Think of it as the same issues we are all having with the IDbot on YouTube
: type sites. But Parody Artist have been dealing with it for two years
: longer and on multiple websites. RebBubble has such a bot and is the
: reason I've stopped using them. Their Bot has removed all of my Portal
: parodies and claiming Valve made the claims.

Parodies can be protected by 'fair use' but that is only a doctrine that can be used as defense in court: it does not prevent you from getting sued. It also only applies in the US. Taking a very quick look at RedBubble, they have operations in Australia and sell to the UK - where fair use does not apply and the 'fair dealing' law is much, much less permissive.

Selling t-shirts or posters for profit with a parody piece on them would also be less likely to pass the fair use test if it came up in the US. Granted, the systems in place to resolve such disputes on various sites are entirely woeful.

I did a little digging and found this relevant quote on parodies in the US:

For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works. If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes accordingly

So it seems to depend on the content whether it is a parody (legally speaking), satire, or neither.

: Companies like RedBubble also have the DMCA.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and specifically the Take-Down clause, is a piece of US law that only applies to companies that operate there; it's a legal requirement for them to have a process for it. Unless you can make the case that they should pull all operations from the US there is nothing they can do about it.

: This is a group od actual human
: being going through online art submissions to ensure parodies and art are
: indeed parodies and/or original works of art. And for the most part, they
: do their job very well.

DMCA take-down notices are only supposed to be issued by the copyright holder or an authorised representative. It can and has been abused but these come from outside sites like RedBubble - who will generally comply since a DMCA notice is basically 'take this down or we will sue you.'

: However, they also get paid on commission which
: results in them removing parodies during the release dates of the parody's
: subject matter's promotions. These promotions are game and movie releases
: as well as clothing releases. Although they have no right to remove
: parodies,

Might want to read the user agreement again.

Redbubble reserves the right to review and if in its sole discretion deemed necessary, remove any content from the website and / or cancel your account, because that content breaches your agreement with us and / or any applicable laws, or otherwise

As well as the IP, publicity and rights policy:

Additionally, certain works may be taken down without a specific report being received if we are otherwise alerted or aware of potential infringement issues.

This stuff is a minefield, a nightmare and all the laws involved are either outdated or poor. But you need to pay a bit more attention to this stuff, especially if you're trying to make money on it.