On 05/09/2011 11:01, Chris Dale wrote:
\ufffd
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com>
wrote:
Again, no he wouldn't.\ufffd A trade mark is any
sign capable of being represented graphically
which is capable of distinguishing goods or
services of one undertaking from those of other
undertakings.\ufffd Characters or character names in
a work of fiction would not apply under such a
set of circumstances\ufffd - again, they would come
under the aegis of copyright, although the
definitions are much less clear than you may
imagine.\ufffd
\ufffd
Yes, true but how would he be able to use character
names such as "Commander Cody" "Klaatu", "Barada",
"Nikto"?
He could certainly use them if he wanted.\ufffd (I had to look up the
names since I didn't realise that he had - I'm not much of a fan of
his stuff in particular or
blockbuster films in general)
Within copyright law lies the realm of 'fair use' which in essence
says that you can use other people's works or the product of their
works in certain circumstances, such as criticism or parody.\ufffd When
is fair use not fair use at all but plagarism?\ufffd That's the narrow
slot within which copyright lawyers make most of their money.\ufffd
George Harrison's fairly shameless rip off of
'He's So Fine' revealed
that in music the minimum amount that you can use to make a phrase
is three notes - two is just an interval.\ufffd More modern legal efforts
have shown that you really cannot do much less than that.\ufffd Attempts
by EMI to sue for plagarism all the people who sampled the snare and
kick drum sounds from the intro to
'Lets Dance' proved not
only fruitless but a tad embarrassing when it was revealed that in
actual fact the processed sound itself was sampled from
'Moby
Dick'.\ufffd (Also ironic, given the amount of ripping-off that Led
Zeppelin performed in their career to blues men like Willie Dixon
whom they assumed no one else had ever heard)
One fine division lies in the concept of 'homage'.\ufffd When does
something stop being a supportive but derivative work and instead
become plagarism?\ufffd Again, this sort of thing propels the children of
lawyers through an existence at University, with no doubt a fair
proportion of them going on to follow in the family law firm -
perhaps another reason for hating laws regarding copyright, designs
and patents.\ufffd
Incidentally, ignorance is not a competent defence.\ufffd If George
Harrison had - by some miracle of bad luck - not heard anything by
the Chiffons he still would have no excuses, which seems incredible
given that I would hazard that in order to copy something you have
to be aware of what it is you are copying.\ufffd
Hodson v Hutchison
Software Publishing (1978) showed that even if you argue that
a common problem requires the application of two nearly identical
solutions - even if reached in ignorance of the other - the law will
still maintain that the latter version is a copy of the former.\ufffd
Amazing.
So George Lucas used Commander Cody because he wanted to.\ufffd It
probably constituted fair use.\ufffd Of course the name had already been
copied in the interim, so he had precedent to rely upon.
The amount of 'fair use' you can invoke is an interesting and
inverse question to the one which asks how much you can feasibly
copyright.\ufffd Theoretically, you have copyright on your shopping list
if you really want to.\ufffd All you have to do is assert that the work
is yours.\ufffd Some things do prove sticky for some firms though, such
as Intel.\ufffd After the 486 chip they planned on making (guess what)
the 586, but AMD beat them to it by a few months.\ufffd Intel sued and
lost since the court told them that you cannot invoke copyright on a
number.\ufffd Neither can you use it as a trademark, hence the launch of
the Pentium processor.\ufffd Having said that, Chanel are permitted to
use as a trade mark
'No 5'. How can they do this? Because
trademarks (as we said before) brought out in specific commercial
areas, in this case cosmetics.\ufffd If Dior tried to make 'Dior No 5'
then they would be in trouble.\ufffd If I want to make a lawn mower and
call it 'No 5' I'd be OK.\ufffd Say Chanel thought themselves wise to my
evil ways and tried to extend their trade mark to that area.\ufffd They
would still fail, unless they had some valid reason for doing so
(other than fucking up my nascent trade in
grass husbandry).\ufffd
Hence, the Ford Mellotron might be upon us.\ufffd You could use it to
drive to the pub, have a pint of Mellotron Ale and a packet of
Mellotron flavoured crisps.\ufffd And no one would be any worse off.
(Unless you had eight pints of it and tried to drive home)
Those are all names and words\ufffdappearing in other
sci-fi films long before Star Wars. He stole lots of
other idea props from other films too - the Flash Gordon
videoscreen, Logan's Run hologram,\ufffdetc.etc. \ufffd
He did.\ufffd Why wasn't he sued? Class discuss.
\ufffd
\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd The pop musical hot beat combo
'Wet Wet Wet' trademarked their name in
categories related to printed material and won a
case against an author who wrote a book about
them which used their name in the title.\ufffd
\ufffd
What a bunch of class A assholes. I'm sorry, but why
anyone would bother to write a book\ufffdabout such
non-entities\ufffdis beyond me. I would think they'd be
grateful for any possible publicity they got.\ufffdTo me,
their version of Love Is All Around was an overproduced
teenage Karaoke session\ufffd - them flubbing the timing of
the lyrics as they sang the second half.\ufffdEvidence of
horrendously low standards (and not an artistic
move)\ufffd\ufffd-\ufffdand that's being kind.\ufffdThey might be well known
and respected in Britain, but over here in Canada\ufffdthey
may as well be working a McDonald's drive thru. They're
as forgettable as the lint in an elephants' belly
button.
Well, I happen not to care very much for them either (you're better
off than me, as you can name one thing they sang - I cannot say
anything much about them) but I will have to admit that they were in
the right here.\ufffd It is not inconceivable that someone involved in
music will move into print as well, particularly when you consider
sheet music, etc.\ufffd In some way the author may have been giving the
impression that it was 'band authorised' when it was not.\ufffd And I
don't think they are
'known and respect in Britain' all
that much, other than by lonely and disillusioned middle-aged women
who long for the lost landscapes of their half-forgotten youth when
they were still beautiful and life promised more than it delivered.\ufffd
Possibly.
In any event, most people end up being forgotten, given enough time.
Under patent legislation, one
person holds the patent and can
licence others to manufacture the
product as it sees fit.\ufffd Hence,
Markus is making Mellotrons
and Streetly are making mellotrons.
There is a difference.
\ufffd
Yes - but only in the spelling of the name,\ufffd not in
the functions of the instrument. I guess I should have
been more clear. I\ufffdwas referring to the functions of the
instrument covered in the patent -\ufffdwhich is what
ultimately\ufffdmatters.
Actually one guy is making the Mellotron which isn't and the others
are making a mellotron which cannot be.\ufffd If you find this concept
difficult then I strongly advise against a career in law.\ufffd There are
far more weird decisions than this floating in the
law books.
Mike
