Films/DVD Asylum

The "source" was simply for your benefit; I already knew you were wrong on this.

24.0.34.251

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

Audiophilander

(A)

In Reply to: Simply caught you with your pants down posted by Victor Khomenko on June 21, 2004 at 04:44:22:

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

Follow Ups:

Ahem... you will never bother to learn, apparently. - Victor Khomenko 09:23:37 06/21/04 (3)
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)
  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)
    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)
      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:

Kimber Kable

You can not post to an archived thread.