Satire, like this book cover, is protected under the First Amendment. Otherwise almost no comic could get published. Fox hasn't sued Doonsbury or the millions of websites that use "Fair and Balanced."
I wonder how many times this phrase has been used in books and the internet. Probably thousands of times. To keep a trademark you have to defend it.
Al Franken should counter sue Fox for defamation and libel for calling him "not a well-respected voice in American politics, his views appear shrill or unstable, and he lacks any serious depth or insight."
Satire, like this book cover, is protected under the First Amendment. Otherwise almost no comic could get published. Fox hasn't sued Doonsbury or the millions of websites that use "Fair and Balanced."
I wonder how many times this phrase has been used in books and the internet. Probably thousands of times. To keep a trademark you have to defend it.
Al Franken should counter sue Fox for defamation and libel for calling him "not a well-respected voice in American politics, his views appear shrill or unstable, and he lacks any serious depth or insight."
I wonder if Fox would sue him for copyright infringement if he turned around and used their characterization of him against them?
As in: "Fox News is not a well-respected voice in American politics, its views appear shrill or unstable, and it lacks any serious depth or insight."
Satire, like this book cover, is protected under the First Amendment. Otherwise almost no comic could get published. Fox hasn't sued Doonsbury or the millions of websites that use "Fair and Balanced."
I wonder how many times this phrase has been used in books and the internet. Probably thousands of times. To keep a trademark you have to defend it.
Al Franken should counter sue Fox for defamation and libel for calling him "not a well-respected voice in American politics, his views appear shrill or unstable, and he lacks any serious depth or insight."
You don't get it. Let me put it this way. He's using a trademarked phrase to sell something. That's like you trying to sell your own brand of soda with the phrase "Just for the taste of it". Now, you can certainly drink your soda "just for the taste of it" and when asked you why you drink it, you can tell others. You can even make a joke about it. But, you can't use that phrase to sell something.
That's really the end of it. They own the phrase. This has nothing to do with our political views...though some here would like to make it have something to do with them.
You don't get it. Let me put it this way. He's using a trademarked phrase to sell something. That's like you trying to sell your own brand of soda with the phrase "Just for the taste of it". Now, you can certainly drink your soda "just for the taste of it" and when asked you why you drink it, you can tell others. You can even make a joke about it. But, you can't use that phrase to sell something.
That's really the end of it. They own the phrase. This has nothing to do with our political views...though some here would like to make it have something to do with them.
SDW defending Fox. Gee. Who would ever have predicted this?
Fox News Channel owns a trademark on "Fair and Balanced"...circa 1995.
I have a friend studying intellectual property law and such...I'll have to ask him what he thinks. My understadning of it is that Franken can;t use that phrase for promotion of a commodity....in this case, a book.
The statutory fair use defense prevents trademark owners from monopolizing a descriptive word or phrase. Franken can argue that he is describing his book as 'a fair and balanced look at the right' rather than trying to usurp Fox's 'Fair and Balanced' trademark. The key issues are (1) whether or not the term 'fair and balanced' can be used to describe Franken's book and (2) whether Franken's intention in using the term 'fair and balanced' was to foster identification with Fox.
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Kneel,
If you knew what you were talking about, it would be worth talking to you. You don't, and it isn't.
I'll take it that you hadn't heard of statutory fair use then...funny, it is usually a requirement that you take one or two IP classes.
Don't get me wrong, I think Franken is borderline insane, but to say so in a legal document? I don't know. It might actually hurt the case because if the defense can prove that no reasonable person would take him seriously, it may may get thrown out.
Actually, this is exactly the point they have to prove.... if you can prove that association with your trademark would blur or tarnish it, you can protect your trademark against such use.
I'll take it that you hadn't heard of statutory fair use then...funny, it is usually a requirement that you take one or two IP classes.
Actually, no this is exactly my point. This isn't covered by fair use. He's not attempting to parody Fox News (ie: Saturday Night Live) he's attempting to use someone else's trademark for his own promotional, and personal gain.
Actually, no this is exactly my point. This isn't covered by fair use. He's not attempting to parody Fox News (ie: Saturday Night Live) he's attempting to use someone else's trademark for his own promotional, and personal gain.
Actually, no this is exactly my point. This isn't covered by fair use. He's not attempting to parody Fox News (ie: Saturday Night Live) he's attempting to use someone else's trademark for his own promotional, and personal gain.
Al Franken got away with "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot." I'm sure his legal team is up to the task of defending an obvious parody. No reasonable person will confuse Franken's use of "Fair and Balanced" here.
Actually, no this is exactly my point. This isn't covered by fair use. He's not attempting to parody Fox News (ie: Saturday Night Live) he's attempting to use someone else's trademark for his own promotional, and personal gain.
Franken may well argue that he is parodying Fox news, but I believe that describing his book as fair and balanced constitutes statutory fair use (aka classic fair use) because 'fair and balanced' is a generic descriptive term.
Al Franken got away with "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot." I'm sure his legal team is up to the task of defending an obvious parody. No reasonable person will confuse Franken's use of "Fair and Balanced" here.
rush, in fact lost a bunch of weight because of the title.
I saw the C-Span show live with Al and O'Reilly on an author panel a couple months ago. Franken previewed the book for the first time (with a live audience too) and O'Reilly totally flipped-out. It became a WWF cage match for a while. Fun to watch...
Comments
I wonder how many times this phrase has been used in books and the internet. Probably thousands of times. To keep a trademark you have to defend it.
Al Franken should counter sue Fox for defamation and libel for calling him "not a well-respected voice in American politics, his views appear shrill or unstable, and he lacks any serious depth or insight."
Originally posted by jante99
Satire, like this book cover, is protected under the First Amendment. Otherwise almost no comic could get published. Fox hasn't sued Doonsbury or the millions of websites that use "Fair and Balanced."
I wonder how many times this phrase has been used in books and the internet. Probably thousands of times. To keep a trademark you have to defend it.
Al Franken should counter sue Fox for defamation and libel for calling him "not a well-respected voice in American politics, his views appear shrill or unstable, and he lacks any serious depth or insight."
I wonder if Fox would sue him for copyright infringement if he turned around and used their characterization of him against them?
As in: "Fox News is not a well-respected voice in American politics, its views appear shrill or unstable, and it lacks any serious depth or insight."
Originally posted by jante99
Satire, like this book cover, is protected under the First Amendment. Otherwise almost no comic could get published. Fox hasn't sued Doonsbury or the millions of websites that use "Fair and Balanced."
I wonder how many times this phrase has been used in books and the internet. Probably thousands of times. To keep a trademark you have to defend it.
Al Franken should counter sue Fox for defamation and libel for calling him "not a well-respected voice in American politics, his views appear shrill or unstable, and he lacks any serious depth or insight."
You don't get it. Let me put it this way. He's using a trademarked phrase to sell something. That's like you trying to sell your own brand of soda with the phrase "Just for the taste of it". Now, you can certainly drink your soda "just for the taste of it" and when asked you why you drink it, you can tell others. You can even make a joke about it. But, you can't use that phrase to sell something.
That's really the end of it. They own the phrase. This has nothing to do with our political views...though some here would like to make it have something to do with them.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Kneel,
If you knew what you were talking about, it would be worth talking to you. You don't, and it isn't.
Is this really necessary?
Originally posted by SDW2001
You don't get it. Let me put it this way. He's using a trademarked phrase to sell something. That's like you trying to sell your own brand of soda with the phrase "Just for the taste of it". Now, you can certainly drink your soda "just for the taste of it" and when asked you why you drink it, you can tell others. You can even make a joke about it. But, you can't use that phrase to sell something.
That's really the end of it. They own the phrase. This has nothing to do with our political views...though some here would like to make it have something to do with them.
SDW defending Fox. Gee. Who would ever have predicted this?
Originally posted by BR
Is this really necessary?
He'd be 'fair and balanced', but the law doesn't let him.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Fox News Channel owns a trademark on "Fair and Balanced"...circa 1995.
I have a friend studying intellectual property law and such...I'll have to ask him what he thinks. My understadning of it is that Franken can;t use that phrase for promotion of a commodity....in this case, a book.
The statutory fair use defense prevents trademark owners from monopolizing a descriptive word or phrase. Franken can argue that he is describing his book as 'a fair and balanced look at the right' rather than trying to usurp Fox's 'Fair and Balanced' trademark. The key issues are (1) whether or not the term 'fair and balanced' can be used to describe Franken's book and (2) whether Franken's intention in using the term 'fair and balanced' was to foster identification with Fox.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Kneel,
If you knew what you were talking about, it would be worth talking to you. You don't, and it isn't.
I'll take it that you hadn't heard of statutory fair use then...funny, it is usually a requirement that you take one or two IP classes.
Take a look at this sales chart courtesy of JungleScan.com. Sales are up 744%. Nice job, Fox.
Don't get me wrong, I think Franken is borderline insane, but to say so in a legal document? I don't know. It might actually hurt the case because if the defense can prove that no reasonable person would take him seriously, it may may get thrown out.
Actually, this is exactly the point they have to prove.... if you can prove that association with your trademark would blur or tarnish it, you can protect your trademark against such use.
I'll take it that you hadn't heard of statutory fair use then...funny, it is usually a requirement that you take one or two IP classes.
Actually, no this is exactly my point. This isn't covered by fair use. He's not attempting to parody Fox News (ie: Saturday Night Live) he's attempting to use someone else's trademark for his own promotional, and personal gain.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Actually, no this is exactly my point. This isn't covered by fair use. He's not attempting to parody Fox News (ie: Saturday Night Live) he's attempting to use someone else's trademark for his own promotional, and personal gain.
Um, no he is doing satire.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Actually, no this is exactly my point. This isn't covered by fair use. He's not attempting to parody Fox News (ie: Saturday Night Live) he's attempting to use someone else's trademark for his own promotional, and personal gain.
Al Franken got away with "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot." I'm sure his legal team is up to the task of defending an obvious parody. No reasonable person will confuse Franken's use of "Fair and Balanced" here.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Actually, no this is exactly my point. This isn't covered by fair use. He's not attempting to parody Fox News (ie: Saturday Night Live) he's attempting to use someone else's trademark for his own promotional, and personal gain.
Franken may well argue that he is parodying Fox news, but I believe that describing his book as fair and balanced constitutes statutory fair use (aka classic fair use) because 'fair and balanced' is a generic descriptive term.
Safe and sound.™
Warm and dry.™
How's it going?™
Looks good to me.™
It'll never work.™
Absolutely not!™
And I sue the pants off anyone who uses any of these without... My Express Permission.™
Originally posted by Shawn
Al Franken got away with "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot." I'm sure his legal team is up to the task of defending an obvious parody. No reasonable person will confuse Franken's use of "Fair and Balanced" here.
rush, in fact lost a bunch of weight because of the title.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...563084-9464010
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...563084-9464010