Fox Sues Al Franken! - Page 2  

Now at #1, up 14300%.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...563084-9464010

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/book...eut/index.html

hehe... Al doesn't seem too worried. I'm sure it's driving Fox News up the wall. O'Reilly and Scarborough are such tools.

According to Drudge, O'Reilly lobbied Fox to file the suit.

Guess he didn't like the photo Franken was using on the cover of the book.

Here's a good interview with Al before the lawsuit.

Basically he's just calling out the right-wingers on their shoddy fact checking and creative editing. And they can't handle it.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/...2_franken.html

Maybe O'Reilly is getting paid by the publisher to create a huge stir and drive book sales.

Well it's certainly helping Al Franken's sales!

I'll devote very little time to this response.
My experience is this: I am a communications lawyer who does an awful lot of work with First Amendment issues. Formerly, I worked in IP.

Your statement that he's attempting to "profit" off their
trademark and hence violating their trademark is question begging. "Profit" is only one factor that informs the Fair Use analysis.

Thoth.

Absolutely ****ing amazing!

BR

BR trying to discredit a valid argument by painting the arguer as a crackpot partisan who is incapable of having a well thought-out opinion. Who would have ever predicted this?

chu-bakka:




Oh, is that all? Thanks.


dstranathan:


Perhaps you missed what happened in April when Franken went totally "flippo" at the correspondants dinner.

The point is folks, that if Franken is using a trademarked phrase to SELL something, he's going to lose.

Finally, it's important to realize that Franken is truly nuts. What Fox says about him in the suit is correct (though I doubt they should have said it). Franken has no shame, that's for sure. I think he's hilarious, but...wow.

I bet you a Krispy Kreme Donut that he doesn't lose.

He used Fair and Balanced in the subtitle of his book... and the title is obviously satire... it's not called Al Franken "Fair and Balanced".

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/vall.../s_130759.html

No, that's not the point, at least not the entire point. As I stated above, profit is only one factor in the analysis. Franken is not branding a taco he sells "Taco Bell", thus directly trading on the name of a competitor. He is not intending to "confuse" or "dilute" someone's trademark. There is very little likelihood of confusion where the title of the book includes "the lying liers who tell them," in conjunction with an obviously ironic, even sarcastic, use of a trademarked phrase. I suspect that you would agree that no one who is acquainted with the "fair and balanced" trademark would think that Al Franken's book was a product of Fox News? That's the kind of confusion Trademark law prevents.

Would you say that a book title not written by Al Franken or some other liberal wonk entitled "Fair and Balanced: Does Fox News Practice What They Preach?" would be prohibited by the Trademark laws?

Trademarks are limited monopolies that are strongly circumscribed by the First Amendment, especially in areas of political and public interest, such as we have here.
You may not like Al Franken, but Fox's suit has zero merit.

Thoth

Maybe Fox News should sue Franken for false advertising if the book isn't Fair and Balanced . . . Oh wait, Fox would be bankrupt if some one sued them back for their claims.

O'Reilly tried to bash Franken last night but he didn't mention his name or the book only alluded to it at the top of the broadcast. Pretty cowardly method of attack but I guess the lawyers at Fox didn't want O'Reilly to get sued for libel.

O'Reilly and Franken need to have debate/contest to see who is the most Fair and Balanced. Who ever looses must relinquish their claim.

That Franken's selling something using the trademarked phrase is far, far from enough to cause him to lose the case. Protection for a trademark such as "fair and balanced" is especially weak since it's such an ordinary commonplace phrase. The more ordinary the trademark is, the more restricted the contexts in which the right to the trademark can be protected.

Franken is clearly not attempting to represent his book as a product of Fox News by using the phrase. There is little chance of a consumer becoming confused into believing he's purchasing a Fox product when buying Franken's book.

Franken is clearly not attempting to bask in any legitimacy (real or imagined) that Fox News has by using their trademarked phrase. Quite to the contrary, Franken is making a fairly obvious satirical attack against Fox's legitimacy. Turning a person's (or an organization's) own words against them has long standing as a common rhetorical device, and most certainly is protected free speech.

The only thing giving me the slightest doubt of Franken's victory in this case is my cynical feeling that the American justice system often devolves into a contest of who can spend the most on expensive lawyers and campaign contributions to political allies of the judges involved.

I was in no way trying to discredit your argument. I just was "audibly" expressing my sheer amazement that you would ever defend anything said or done by Fox Corporation. Please understand that my statement did not contain one iota of sarcasm. I am truly baffled by how fair and balanced you are in defending Fox Corporation as well as Fox News Channel.

Ohhh the irony.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08142...sday/83756.asp

hehe...

Yup... Fair and Balanced...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88364,00.html

does anyone believe their account of what happened at the event?

You said it perfectly

Of course.

I am just amazed by the statements I am reading here. It's like some of you live on another planet.

Franken has two problems. One, he used a trademarked phrase to sell his product. Two, he even mimicked the look and feel of the trademarks owner....which COULD, in fact, result in confusion. Look at the cover...it's even in the same FONT Fox uses. There is no question that this is infringement.

http://www.businessknowhow.com/QandA/phrasetm.htm

From the selection:


(emphasis added)



This isn't about Fox or anyone's politics. It's about a clear attempt to piggyback on their phrase.

I wish Hitler trademarked some of his phrases so you could launch an offensive against Ann Coulter's books a la your offensive against Al Franken's.

I am totally amazed about your mistrust in the american educational level.

"Wow. So if I buy this book I can actually see FoxNews? I didn´t know they had started to put TV sets in books now"

Those who buy this book because they think it somehow has anything to do with Fox are fools for both reasons.

Wasn't that at the conference where O'Reilly kept yelling at Franken to shut up while he was speaking? I heard about this a while back, and as I understand it, the deal was that Franken had gone over on his time (not uncommon) and that O'Reilly started yelling at him. And then the inevitable screaming match ensued.

I'm still waiting on O'Reilly to freak out at physically attack someone on his show.

Watching him get his ass handed to him by the NC prof about the Koran a while back was priceless....

Cheers
Scott

Which phrase(s) does Coulter use that make her a Hitler?

Anders:





I am talking about the word "confusion" is a legal context. The courts have to weigh the possibility of confusion. It's not as far out as you think.

Shawn:

Please tell me you are kidding with those links. O'Reilly, despite your hatred of him, is dead on.

Watching some of you guys yuck it up over this is like watching dogs bark at cars. You HATE that evil Fox News Channel, while Franken is some sort of satrical rebel hero. I encountered many people with this attitude, and it's amazing the how similiar their thinking is (despite their trumpeting of themselves as independent thinkers). Fight the power!

Confusion in legal context? There is no confusion in any context if there isn´t a confusion with those who read the words on the book.

The court has to account for the possibility that someone might be confused (or mistaken). It's the same phrase and it mimicks the look and feel of Fox News Channel. It's quite possible they'll win on these grounds alone.

But the above is not the real problem for Franken. It's the usage of the trademarked phrase to boost sales of a book. That part is cut and dry.

And this is why I say your view on the american populations comprehention skills is quite pessimistic. Or at least your view on the court systems view on it.


You have to prove that 1) it does boost the sale of the book and 2) that it is because people mistake it as something from Fox and not because they appriciate the satire.

"Hi, my name is Hitler. If you disagree with me you are guilty of treason."

president bush's press pool reporters refers to coulter as a "social climbing slut-bitch" and the ones that don't like her call her a "social climbing bitch-slut"
don't ask me how i know.

That's just it. It's not about "my view". It's about a judge determining whether or not someone would/could identify the cover with Fox News. It's damn close, that's for sure.

No, a sales boost does not have to be proven. It's the attempt that's the problem. Question: If Fox News did not use that slogan, do you think Franken would have used it? That's the real question, and I suspect we all know the answer.

BR:


Try reading her book before making that leap. Or, continue to just look at the title and assume you understand.

Actually it's SATIRE... he making it very clear that he's lampooning FoxNews and it's talking heads.

He's not trying to dilute the trademark... he's making fun of it. He's not impersonating it he's ridiculing it.

la la la...

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democ...on/6543046.htm

wanna know what the answer is?

whoever granted the trademark for a basic phrase such as "fair and balanced" should be dragged out into the street and beaten with "fair and balanced" two-by-fours. then this wouldn't even be an issue.

then again, franken might not have been compelled to use the phrase if it wasn't tied to fox news in the first place.

don't worry, al, you're good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you! i'd like to see franken on o'reilly. actually, no i wouldn't.



and fox news shouldn't worry. we'll all be illiterate by 2011, and i won't be able to digest any written content that spans more than two screens worth of scrolling in my web browser.

p.s. by the way, since someone mentioned her, ann coulter really freaks me out. i won't get into specifics, but there's a vibe coming off her and her appearances on talk shows that i have seen that just gives me the willies. maybe it's because i feel like if i said the wrong thing around her, she'd make a few quick phone calls and i'd have some gentlemen in dark suits and sunglasses at my front door within 24 hours... *shiver*

p.p.s. you know what the REAL irony is? Fox is the network whose birthing cries were composed of what was considered at the time as vile primetime programming (both in content and, in some cases, scriptwriting). remember how parents were covering up their children's eyes and ears whenever "the simpsons" or "married with children" would come on the air? that was fox, folks. i feel old for talking like this, but i remember defending fox back then as a teenager growing up in high school. the president of fox, at either their first or second shareholders meeting (i think) brought strippers in for a public burlesque to show how different they were. i think he was asked to step down immediately following that display. what a difference a decade or so makes, huh?

Is that book still on the top sellers list? I can't find it now.

I saw the C-Span interview and it seems to me that O'Reilly very obviously lied. He may have misspoke about the peabody award (several times at that), but then after Franken rather politely informed him about his mistake he then went on to deny that he ever said "Peabody." Isn't that a bona fide lie?

Also, can someone who thinks this lawsuit has merit please tell me how one could ever use the term "fair and balanced" in a title without violating trademark? Would it have to be something like:

"Al Franken's Satirical Look at Fox News' Use of the Term 'Fair and Balaned'"

okay, i am no expert on this sort of thing, but use of a trademark phrase or even "look and feel" varies in degree, depending on what it's trying to sell. also, it depends on the context in which the phrase is used.

here's an example which may or may not help: during apple's "think different" phase, if i were another computer maker and tried to use the phrase "think different" to sell computers such as "rok's computers: think different", i am in direct violation. not only am i using a trademarked phrase, but i am in direct competition with the vendor who owns the trademark AND i am not making ANY attempt to differentiate the trademarked phrase from the owner's use. i don't have a leg to stand on.

BUT what if, instead of making computers, i ran a bookstore? "rok's books: think different" i might have a better case, as my use doesn't infringe on apple's market, but, again, it uses the phrase verbatim from it's trademark, and if i used it with marketing materials that also borrowed visually from apple's, they could make the case that i am using their trademark to make profit, because i am not parodying them, and instead just being lazy and taking a look, feel and motto and applying it to my own business. if apple decided to make me stop, they probably could fairly easily.

now let's say i played with the phrase a little. let's say it's still "rok's books" but now i use the phrase "read different." unless i am playing directly to apple's core market (like i only sold books about macs) or used their visual identity, they'd have a much harder case against me. sure, they probably would because i would still be a small vendor and couldn't keep up the legal costs, but technically, it would take them longer to wear me down. heck, along these lines, there was at least one major auto manufacturer who used the phrase "drive different," and apple didn't lay a glove on them.

there's also a matter of exposure. they have a much better case that i am using their trademark to compete in the same space if i am a large retailer. if i am a mom and pop store in the middle of nowhere, the case (weak though it is) could be made that i cannot be considered a serious threat to apple's marketshare through my use of the phrase.

finally, let's go that last step: "rok's alternative books: authors who think different". NOW, i am not in the same retail space, so i am not in competition, i am using it in context off a larger phrase which helps it have a more unique identity (but isn't completely unrelated to the overall product), and (let's assume) i am not aping apple's visual identity either. apple would have a hell of a time proving in a court of law that, no matter how successful my business was, that it has anything to do with apple, their ability to sell, market, etc. i doubt apple would even bother with me, and even if they did, i would probably win.

in al franken's case, he is teetering on the edge. sure, he modifies the context, but considering the demographic he's going for AND the visual look on the cover, the case could be made that he is unfairly leveraging the money and effort that fox news put forth in promoting "fair and balanced" as a trademarked phrase instead of thinking up something original on his own. but if he is parodying fox news in his book, it helps his cause, and he didn't just call it "al franken: fair and balanced", which also helps him a lot.

anyway, this is just a mish-mash compilation of how i understand that laws as they have been told to me over the years, and may not be entirely accurate. basically, can fox news sue? sure. but their time and money could probably be put to far better use than this.

This is what pisses me off about the Right wing more than anything else. You've got the presidency, you've got both houses of congress, you even have a majority of the governor's mansions. In short, YOUR ARE THE FREAKING POWER.

Seeing Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly positioning themselves as underdogs is ludicrous. Having trademarked a TV Network, and then trying to extend that trademark to book titles is ludicrous.

People here have made valid legal argument, and all you can do is just spout the same crap over and over again, only louder. Just like Fox.

Don't forget he also tries to silence the opposition. Remember Ari Fleischer? "WATCH WHAT YOU SAY!" "THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED!" "NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!" It's a common tactic of the "right." Not to say that the "left" doesn't also have its common tactics that are equallly repugnant to me, but we aren't talking about them right now.

Remember, he did report me to the mods for calling him a dummy head or something else rather harmless but he still turns around and says that anyone who thinks liberal is borderline retarded and should be made into soylent green a few days later. Just remember what you are dealing with here.

Probably lucky I only said "Freaking" then.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...896114-2284958

It's #6 on Amazon's Top 100 at the moment.

Get a grip. I was being facetious. I've made several reasonable arguments as to why I think Franken should lose. You don't have to agree with those arguments.

You need to back off. Either argue the point or get out of the thread. You're not going to just follow me around making statements like the above. Once again, your preference for trying to discredit and insult me rather than debate the point in question is clear.