 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Whether intentional or not, the title evokes an ironic symbolism that's entirely appropriate. posted by Audiophilander on June 17, 2004 at 11:26:14:
The original word Farenheit has nothing to do with the field where Ray used it, so he was free to use it like any other artist... before him. I suggest you read some on copyright... your family experience nothwithstanding.Furthermore, any entity or business in a substantially different field would be free to use it as well. There could be Chrysler Farenheit without stomping on Ray's invention.
But not the entity in the same field.
Courts always consider the industry or field in which it is used, and a movie is just too close to a... movie. So here we potentially have a clean court case, if Ray wanted to make an issue out of it.
So while to most of us this is simply the matter of integrity, to you it is nothing but the political mud slinging.
Interesting how you jumped out naked when your idol was criticized. Next time put on pants.
Follow Ups:
He wouldn't likely have a chance in court.1. You cannot copyright a title to begin with. 2. It is not a copy of the original title, good luck trying to enforce a copyright on a single word used in a longer title.3. parodies are protected from copyright infringment. He is clearly making a play on the old title. Clearly there is no copyright infirngement here.
The screenplay for Fahrenheit 451 was adapted by Francois Truffaut; as for the "courts always considering the industry or field in which it (i.e., the title) is used," books and movies are, excuse the cliche`, apples & oranges. Take it from folks who KNOW the fields in question, Ray has NO legitimate case.Game, set & match! ;^)
AuPh
I specifically mentioned the film because it makes the point even closer.So there goes your kaka "apples vs. oranges" stuff.
I WILL take it from the folks who know the field, as soon as I hear from them.
I am in love with your judgement - swift, broad and truly without a merit.
Why do we need courts when we have you already? There is your budget reduction.
Sheeeeesh! You squirm like a hemerhoid sufferer on a rubber donut! Books and movies are completely different rights issues. It's not uncommon for films to employ variations on the titles of well known books without any connection to the original work. If there are obvious CONTENT similarities, then right's issues MAY come into play, but even then it's notoriously difficult to prove theft of property in court without demonstrating that the screenplay's author(s) had both opportunity and intent. We DO know the field; you obviously don't!Ray Bradbury's outrage over Michael Moore's tongue 'n cheek play on his novel's title would be laughable were it not so sad.
AuPh
Go and read the post again - it sez film... hear? Film, not book. Your fixation on book is your usual diversionary tactics.So we are talking about a film that cuts way to close to another film, the title of which its author holds close to his chest... and he should.
So inspite of all your puffing and spitting, Bradbury would most likely have a good case if he wanted to bring it up.
By a strange coincidence, he also wrote the movie script... bummer...
For a worthy exercise you might try some other book-movie pairs.
Start with War and Peace.
I am sure you can google more... can you? Maybe I shouldn't eb so sure after these posts of yours.
For your information, the court in such case would consider many aspects, like the trademark, and the title significance, recognition, etc.
There are many titles that would have difficult time in court defending their right. Something like Little House. Son. Thief. That sort of things. But the 451 is an important event and it holds special importance.
Whether or not Bradbury will do anything about it is up to him. I am not taking any sides in this. But to say he has no case here, simply because the offender happened to share your idiology, shows lack of integrity.
"So we are talking about a film that cuts way to close to another film, the title of which its author holds close to his chest... and he should."I haven't seen Moore's movie yet but I would be surprised the two movies were in any substantial way similar.
> > > "By a strange coincidence, he (Ray Bradbury) also wrote the movie script..." < < <No, he did NOT. The movie was adapted by Francois Truffaut, who wrote the screenplay; additional dialogue was contributed by David Rudkin and Helen Scott.
Ray Bradbury wrote a B-O-O-K, not a movie; the BOOK title may be very close to the author's "chest" but even a respected author of the calibre of Ray Bradbury can't place unreasonable demands on another medium simply because someone has cleverly appropriated a mere portion of the title for symbolic purpose.
> > > "Whether or not Bradbury will do anything about it is up to him." < < <
I think that he's too smart to file suit in a case which has little or no merit; I'm equally confident that his business lawyers have informed him of this as well.
> > > "I am not taking any sides on this." < < <
Yeah, right; I bet that you're still trying to sell that nice big bridge over the East River too, aren't ya? ;^)
> > > "But to say he has no case here, simply because the offender happened to share your ideology, shows lack of integrity." < < <
1) In my humble informed opinion, NO "offense" was commited.
2) You are assuming without justification that ideology is my sole motivation in educating you about rights issues; I realize that you're a proud man and don't like someone familiar with artistic rights matters correcting your misimpressions, but perhaps you should look upon it as good opportunity to dismount your high horse and acknowledge the voice of experience.
AuPh
Since you missed every time I mentioned it, apparently the message needs to be driven hard.Teh Farenheit 451 is much more than a book and movie title - it is Bradbury's TRADEMARK. And trademarks are protected, defended, fought over.
How things become trademarks - you will need to learn that on your own, but this one certainly IS. So when you have chance to read about them, come back - prepared.
For your quick education - not every title becomes trademark. Figure THAT out.
A better argument than copyright which has no legal merit. However, trademark laws are very specific on purpose. They are there to protect the mercahnt from confusion as to whose goods are being sold. I don't think there is a strong case that Moore's movie title will create any confusion for the consumer. Now if he copied a logo design there might be a case.
Consider the newsprint impression I'm leaving on your nose the final coup de grace:
- Fahrenheit 451 is NOT trademarked (read discussion thread & links from Asimov's board) (Open in New Window)
Next task for you: figure out how thing doesn't need to be trademarked to be a trademark.Boy, you are really being obtuse. Those are simple things most educated people are supposed to know.
Funny, that apparently you spent sime looking for that trademark, when in reality you should have read about trademarks in general.
But you went for a simple shot, and you farted.
> > > "...apparently you spent time looking for that trademark..." < < <No, I spent all of 30 seconds locating a knowledgeable discussion on this subject; other's had already done the research. Unfortunately, now you're trying to tell us that being trademarked doesn't require registering a trademark while ignoring prior restraint issues. You DO know what prior restraint is don't you?
I figured that a "smart" guy like you would KNOW about trademark laws, but apparently I'm mistaken! Wholy Fair Use, Batman! ;^)
> > > "But you went for the simple shot, and you farted." < < <
Apparently, whether simple shot or mere fart, it's all that's required to place your misinformation in perspective. :o)
I almost hate to say this, but after discussing your posts on this subject with my wife my wife, we both laughed about your obstinence over this. As you're aware, my wife is a published author and an editor; she's also involved in corporate communications for a major corporation and has to keep current on trademarking issues, even though they rarely come up. Let's just say that she has acquired quite a bit of knowledge on rights issues from several perspectives; that's why we're finding your denial of the facts so amusing.
You can doubt our knowledge on trademarking if you like, just because you apparently enjoy doing it, but if you persist in arguing what you "think" you know, I suspect that you'll continue to come up sorely lacking on this topic.
AuPh
Victor is right on this one. One does not have to register a trade mark to have a trade mark that the courts would recognize. A merchant's established use of a trade mark registered or not has legal priority. It makes for a messy court case though. But that wouldn't be Bradbury's problem in court. His problem would be proving that Moore's movie will create confusion with his product in the market place. Good luck with that.
No one with ANY knowledge of subject would have dumped that kaka "source" on us. It is a discussion of those who know about as much as you do on the subject - which is about zero.I'll give you last hint - TRY to read on the dirrerence between R and TM... there is reason why two are used.
Your idiotic posturing was silly - if you don't know about something - ask.
The point is that a) Ray Bradbury has no TM on Fahrenheit 451, and b) his rights do not extend to variations on that title. He has no sustainable cause of action. As for prior restraint, he has made no effort to stop others from using variations on the title Fahrenheit 451 in the past (i.e., one example is a CSI episode which used a variation on his book's title last year) so it weakens any legal claim he might have against Michael Moore's documentary title. If you studied property laws with as much zeal as you insult folks you'd be a bright man indeed! :o)AuPh
You just keep displaying your glaring ignorance more, and more, and more still.***Ray Bradbury has no TM on Fahrenheit 451
For pete's sake, AuPh, just go and read some on the subject, stop this torture.
He DIDN'T HAVE to put any TM on it, in order for it to become his trademark. I feel like I am talking to my dog.
For something to become a trademark, one doesn't need to register it, to put TM over it...
Can't you get that through your head?Need more proof? Here is what the ABA says about trademark infringement:
"Trademarks and logos can often be used in movies without clearance, as long as they are not used in the 'Trademark sense.' This covers instances where the use would create a liklihood of confusion as to the origin of goods or services or as to whether the mark's owner sponsored or otherwise approved the use of the trademark, in advertising or promotion, or in a manner that would dilute or denigrate the mark."
Note: THIS is in the instance of unlicensed use the EXACT trademark, not an altered or variation on a trademark in another medium, assuming that a trademark could be proven in the first place through the author's due diligence in stopping others who also "borrowed" his book's title for symbolic value.
Have you found that clue yet? ;^)
AuPh
Nice logic you have. Crooked as usual. Each case will be determined on its merits.Notice, I am talking "case", as the final determination is up to the court... meaning - until the hammer falls NO ONE knows the outcome.
If you read your own infringement sentence carefully, you will see that Bradbury does indeed have a potential case there.
Just how exact it has to be would need to be determined, but the phrase "Fahrenheit 451" has a strong ring to it, known to every educated person, so making it "Fahrenheit 452" would not make it different enough. Mention a distorted phrase, say, "Fahrenheit 350" to anyone, and which name will pop up?
Damn right, Bradbury's. And I am sure Ray has the right to want it stay that way.
I don't think author's diligence in stopping others is an issue, but his unique identification with the coined phrase is.
And certainly Moore's use of it DOES "dilute" the Bradbury's trademark, and therefore, according to your own sentence, there is a potential case.
I am glad you are no longer using the second-grade primitives like "He didn't trademark it!" At least we have been able to establish that he didn't have to.
Progress... one small bit at a time...
Michael Moore took a totally different approach: he used the symbolism of Fahrenheit 451 to evoke the image of the burning WTC and it's aftermath; the emphasis is obviously on the "9/11" in his documentary's title, the Fahrenheit prefix just being a clever aphorism. Ray Bradbury would find it difficult to contest the appropriateness of such a variation in a court of law, but believe whatever you like. Personally, I think this boils down to Mr. Bradbury wanting some kind of out of court financial settlement for his apparent outrage, not to mention the benefit the added publicity for his forthcoming reissue of the original novel.AuPh
Bradbury almost certainly has no legal case against Moore. Moore is within his rights under fair use. (AuPh is right.)However, even if Moore is technically within his rights, it does not make it morally defensible. (Victor is right.)
Can we move on and just accept it as a damn funny interview?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
