Films/DVD Asylum

Since teaching an old Russian wolfhound new tricks requires a great deal more patience than I can muster at the moment:

24.0.34.251

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

Audiophilander

(A)

In Reply to: One final pointer posted by Victor Khomenko on June 18, 2004 at 06:12:20:

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)

Follow Ups:

More homework for a lazy student - Victor Khomenko 18:17:55 06/20/04 (8)
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.
- No offense, but are you really that dense, Victor? - Audiophilander 21:00:48 06/20/04 (7)
  > > > "...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
  - Re: No offense, but are you really that dense, Victor? - Analog Scott 12:16:43 06/21/04 (0)
    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.
  - Simply caught you with your pants down - Victor Khomenko 04:44:22 06/21/04 (5)
    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 "source" was simply for your benefit; I already knew you were wrong on this. - Audiophilander 08:57:42 06/21/04 (4)
      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
      - Ahem... you will never bother to learn, apparently. - Victor Khomenko 09:23:37 06/21/04 (3)
        
        In Reply to: The "source" was simply for your benefit; I already knew you were wrong on this. posted by Audiophilander on June 21, 2004 at 08:57:42:
        
        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...
        
        Sheeeeeeesh! He employed NO DUE DILIGENCE in stopping others from borrowing reference to his book's title! - Audiophilander 11:50:27 06/21/04 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Ahem... you will never bother to learn, apparently. posted by Victor Khomenko on June 21, 2004 at 09:23:37:
        
        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
        
        But your Honor, murders have been commited before! Why judge me? - Victor Khomenko 12:04:02 06/21/04 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Sheeeeeeesh! He employed NO DUE DILIGENCE in stopping others from borrowing reference to his book's title! posted by Audiophilander on June 21, 2004 at 11:50:27:
        
        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...
        
        Yes, "Fahrenheit 452" could even be legally used in some instances (i.e., as in a parody of the author's original work)! - Audiophilander 12:17:57 06/21/04 (0)
        
        In Reply to: But your Honor, murders have been commited before! Why judge me? posted by Victor Khomenko on June 21, 2004 at 12:04:02:
        
        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

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.

You can not post to an archived thread.