Copyright gone out of control
-
@Cassidy said:
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you think the requirement itself is foolish and so chose the worst possible way to implement it as a passive-aggressive way of sticking it to your boss. I'd still fire you for it, though.
You assume partly correct.
I understand the requirement to be incredibly stupid (for all the technical reasons you specified) but rather than proceed into implementing it, I'd want management sign-off on one of the two options I presented: do it on the fly, or convert all existing and future data over to the trademarked version.
Then I'd want management engagement in determining what needs such symbols.
The passive-agressive part is right: if I'm tasked with something bloody stupid and not treated as someone who is trusted enough to provide input into the decision-making process, I'm going to proceed with the same frame in mind: I'll continue to be a doer and not a thinker, leaving the tricky implementation thinking to those who thought up the original idea in the first place. Ye shall reap what you sow, bitches.
Fire me for it all you like. But fucked if I'm expected to put in the effort trying to realise a WTF decision.
I really don't think wanting trademark symbols in a product system is a big WTF. It's unnecessary if it's not public-facing, but I would expect it to be mandatory for a public catalog.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Cassidy said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Jaime said:
Adding trademark symbols to data they maintain?
Oh, I see. I didn't realize it was data they maintained.
@Jaime said:
I understand adding it to static copy, but to database data?
Well, if it's a product name or description, yeah. How else would you do it?
I'd have some kind of lookup table to do on-the-fly "™" appending to recognised (trademarked) words and leave the marks out of the database. It only needs to appear in the final presentation, really.
(I'm probably thinking of some web-based system as the final presentation).
I mean, ultimately, it's possible. It's just a matter of whether it's stored v translated. If the former, how current processes will need to change to automatically capture the symbol, and how a one-off to "correct" existing data will be done.
.. then feed back the cost to the original requester and watch them splutter when they sign it off.
Holy Jesus God. So instead of including it as part of the text, where it belongs and is easy to edit, you're going to look up every single trademark from the database and apply a series of thousands-upon-thousands of string substitutions just to render a page? And you've unnecessarily introduced the problem of context: is "Windows" a trademark or not? If the trademark was stored inline it wouldn't complicate things but since you're apply it after-the-fact now every single instance of the words "windows" has a trademark symbol next to it.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you think the requirement itself is foolish and so chose the worst possible way to implement it as a passive-aggressive way of sticking it to your boss. I'd still fire you for it, though.
Morbs....Ummmm didn;t I pos the exact same issue with that approach (albiet I used "Digital" instead of "Windows")
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
Morbs....Ummmm didn;t I pos the exact same issue with that approach (albiet I used "Digital" instead of "Windows")
Yes, but Cassidy must have missed it (or not cared) so I figured it was worth reiterating.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I really don't think wanting trademark symbols in a product system is a big WTF. It's unnecessary if it's not public-facing, but I would expect it to be mandatory for a public catalog.
Mmm.. perhaps I'm misreading the original post: I interpreted it as "we want you to put these symbols against some names, but we don't really have a complete list of which names they are, and the list itself is dynamic too".
I've done a quick search/replace to add trademarks against data in a database (Oracle11g+regex) last year, and it wasn't particularly difficult - but then again I was probably dealing with much smaller datasets than Jamie's situation.
-
@Cassidy said:
@morbiuswilters said:
I really don't think wanting trademark symbols in a product system is a big WTF. It's unnecessary if it's not public-facing, but I would expect it to be mandatory for a public catalog.
Mmm.. perhaps I'm misreading the original post: I interpreted it as "we want you to put these symbols against some names, but we don't really have a complete list of which names they are, and the list itself is dynamic too".
I've done a quick search/replace to add trademarks against data in a database (Oracle11g+regex) last year, and it wasn't particularly difficult - but then again I was probably dealing with much smaller datasets than Jamie's situation.
It's entirely possible (nay, probable) that you are correct and that I didn't read the OP very closely.
Edit: Oh, wait, I did. His problem was that the software itself didn't let the people maintaining the content add trademark symbols. So TRWTF is the software.
-
BTW, a trademark symbol may help the owner of the trademark to defend their right in court. Use of the symbol by a third party is irrelevant, except to look pretentious. The funny part is that we don't sell brand name products, we sell generic versions of brand name products (everything is legal and above-board), so the request to ™ the heck out of our website wasn't to protect our rights, and wasn't even to protect the rights of our partners. We couldn't have an agreement with the trademark holder that we would display their products with a ™ symbol because we don't do business with them at all.
-
Okay... reading comprehension failure on my part, there.
Definitely a gap between what was written and what I understood.
Meanwhile.. back to the plot... on one website I assisted with, we simply slapped a block in the footer identifying the terms that were registered trademarks up higher in the body of the text, knowledging their use. Is this sufficient for most legal purposes?
IANAL.
-
@Cassidy said:
Meanwhile.. back to the plot... on one website I assisted with, we simply slapped a block in the footer identifying the terms that were registered trademarks up higher in the body of the text, knowledging their use. Is this sufficient for most legal purposes?
Legal text already on our website:
All product names, regardless of whether or not they appear in large print or with a trademark symbol, are trademarks of <<redacted>>, its affiliates, related companies, its licensors, suppliers or joint venture partners unless otherwise noted. The use or misuse of these trademarks, copyrights, or other materials, except as permitted herein, is expressly prohibited and may be in violation of copyright law, trademark law, communications regulations and statutes, and other laws, statutes and/or regulations.
That disclaimer has been there for years. What really happened was a massive BA failure. Our BAs simply write down what the business says and call it "requirements". It doesn't matter whether it's a good idea, redundant (as it is in this case), difficult (this case), or even legal. They never suggest alternatives, never take the idea any further, never even engage their brain. The right answer (that morbs alluded to) was to respond with "you already have the ability to change the web site description for any product, would you like us the look into enhancing the system to support the trademark symbol?".
The reason I left all of this out, was that I thought it would be obvious to everyone (except our BAs) that doing trademark symbol insertion on the web site is the worst possible way to implement this. The biggest WTF was that the requirement made it all the way to development without being questioned.
-
@Jaime said:
I got the requirements and immediately sent them back to my manager with an infinity dollar quote.
Oh how I wish "Infinity dollars" was an option in our project management toolchain.
-
@Weng said:
@Jaime said:
I got the requirements and immediately sent them back to my manager with an infinity dollar quote.
Oh how I wish "Infinity dollars" was an option in our project management toolchain.That would be so handy.
"PHB: Can you provide an estimate for <violation of space-time and/or causality>?"
"Me: Sure, only #NAN hours."
-
@Cassidy said:
Okay... reading comprehension failure on my part, there.
Definitely a gap between what was written and what I understood.
Meanwhile.. back to the plot... on one website I assisted with, we simply slapped a block in the footer identifying the terms that were registered trademarks up higher in the body of the text, knowledging their use. Is this sufficient for most legal purposes?
IANAL.
In the US:
For registered trademarks the symbol doesn't need to be present for injunctive relief however it does need to be present for legal relief (read: "money") unless it was extremely obviously a registered trademark. (It would be hard for me to argue that I didn't know "Ford" or "Microsoft" were registered trademarks. However, "Air Miles" seems sufficiently generic that I might be able to argue I was unaware it was registered. A lot of companies just use the symbol everywhere because it makes the court case that much easier to handle. Also, the OP is Canadian so I have no idea if the Molson-swilling snowbacks do things the same way us Proper North Americans do. They probably just decide court cases by whichever side's lawyer can wrestle a moose to the ground with his bare hands.)
For unregistered trademarks, you generally want to use the symbol whenever possible. That's because unregistered trademarks have a region of use (which may be the entire country, or just a region like the northeast, or a state or even just a city) and things can get real thorny if someone is using the same trademark. Since it's unregistered, you stake your claim by attaching the TM symbol to your trademark and using it within your region of business.
IWALBWDWTFOIWMMAFCPIS
-
@morbiuswilters said:
That's because unregistered trademarks have a region of use (which may be the entire country, or just a region like the northeast, or a state or even just a city) and things can get real thorny if someone is using the same trademark. Since it's unregistered, you stake your claim by attaching the TM symbol to your trademark and using it within your region of business.
That seems weird. All you have to do is say: hey, this is my trademark now, and that's it? I guess what I don't understand (and I must say I missed a large part of this thread) is why would anyone want to register their trademark if all you have to do is put a little TM by it?
I suppose your other point would apply to, for example, the fictional MickDonald's in that Coming to America movie (unless I'm thinking of the wrong movie). If that were real, and McD would sue, then no judge in their right mind would believe the guy if he tried to argue that he didn't know McDonald's existed. But knowing McDonald's exist doesn't make it illegal to copy them, not in and of itself. No judge in their right mind would believe Coca-Cola either, if they argued that they didn't know the color red existed, but McDonald's can't sue them for using their trademark color, and we all think that's obvious. So why is "MickDonald's" illegal? Is it because McDonald's registered their trademark? Why don't I, not being affiliated with McDonald's, have any right to stell stuff and put their brand on it? I mean, I understand the reason for it being illegal, but I mean technically. Is the logo copyrighted, or how does that work?
-
The TM is for if you believe you have something that can be trademarked. The R is for if it's actually a registered trademark. I'm sure the second is much more enforcable than the first.
As for your second paragraph, it has to do with identity. I reasonable person could confuse MickDonald's with McDonald's easily, particularly if it was spoken. "The restaurant with the red logo" is not identifiable as a particular restaurant.
-
@toon said:
So why is "MickDonald's" illegal? Is it because McDonald's registered their trademark? Why don't I, not being affiliated with McDonald's, have any right to stell stuff and put their brand on it? I mean, I understand the reason for it being illegal, but I mean technically. Is the logo copyrighted, or how does that work?
The word "McDonald's" is a registered trademark for a restaurant. And part of the law also says that you can't use a name that is similar enough to a trademark that it might cause confusion. It's perfectly legal use the word McDonald's for something else (McDonald's Plumbing, McDonald's Medical Center, etc) but you can't use that word (or a similar word) in association with a restaurant. There used to be a brand of dog food called "Cadillac" and that was perfectly legal because no reasonable person would think it was made by General Motors.
-
@El_Heffe said:
There used to be a brand of dog food called "Cadillac" and that was perfectly legal because no reasonable person would think it was made by General Motors.
Weird.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
For unregistered trademarks, you generally want to use the symbol whenever possible. That's because unregistered trademarks have a region of use (which may be the entire country, or just a region like the northeast, or a state or even just a city) and things can get real thorny if someone is using the same trademark. Since it's unregistered, you stake your claim by attaching the TM symbol to your trademark and using it within your region of business.
So, what good could it possibly do to put a ™ symbol next to someone else's trademarked name? That's what I was asked to do.
-
@toon said:
That seems weird. All you have to do is say: hey, this is my trademark now, and that's it?
Basically, yes. I take it you don't live in a common law country. Common law prescribes a number of fundamental rights and procedures for ameliorating conflicts. The US inherited common law from the British and it forms the basis of a considerable portion of US law, especially civil law (this is where we get concepts like contract law, estates/wills, trusts/corporations, etc.) And the TM arguably isn't necessary, although it would make your case much more ironclad to just use it.
@toon said:
I guess what I don't understand (and I must say I missed a large part of this thread) is why would anyone want to register their trademark if all you have to do is put a little TM by it?
In the US, a registered trademark (®) is registered with the Federal government. That gives you exclusive use throughout the US, assuming you follow certain practices. An unregistered trademark (™) has a region or area of influence. For example, two nearby cities might have a "Super Fantastic Plumbing Service" because each only operates in its own city, but if someone came in and tried to operate under that name they could be stopped. The reason to register is simple: if your business has growing influence you want to keep competitors from grabbing your name. Say there was a successful business in the northeast US called "Morb's Tastee Pizza". Someone could open under that name in California and probably get away with it unless the trademark were registered. There's a lot more to it than that, but that's the basic idea.
@toon said:
So why is "MickDonald's" illegal?
Because it came after McDonald's was registered and it seems to be infringing (trademarks aren't restricted to spelling--Pepsi couldn't start selling a product named Koka-Kola). However, it does get more complicated with something like McDonald's which is a legitimate last name. The question usually comes down to the intent of the infringer and how likely it is consumers would be confused. However, trademark rights can also be broader, for example you basically can't have a business or product of the form "McFoo" where "Foo" is some generic term because McDonald's has done that for quite some time. So even though McDonald's doesn't sell McHaggis you wouldn't be able to sell a product called McHaggis.
Also keep in mind that trademarks tend to be tied to a specific industry, so to speak. So you'd probably catch static for starting a McDonald's restaurant but a McDonald's Tractor Parts Catalog would be fine.
@toon said:
Why don't I, not being affiliated with McDonald's, have any right to stell stuff and put their brand on it?
Because that's fundamentally what trademark law is trying to prevent. If I could open a restaurant identical to McDonald's with their name and logo people would shop there assuming I was somehow connected with the McDonald's they knew. I'm exploiting their reputation which harms them and consumers.
@toon said:
Is the logo copyrighted, or how does that work?
Logos are usually trademarked because they are used as trademarks and because trademarks don't expire so long as you keep up with them as required by law. (Nowadays copyrights are perpetually extended so they don't really expire, either, but traditionally they did.)
-
@Jaime said:
@morbiuswilters said:
For unregistered trademarks, you generally want to use the symbol whenever possible. That's because unregistered trademarks have a region of use (which may be the entire country, or just a region like the northeast, or a state or even just a city) and things can get real thorny if someone is using the same trademark. Since it's unregistered, you stake your claim by attaching the TM symbol to your trademark and using it within your region of business.
So, what good could it possibly do to put a ™ symbol next to someone else's trademarked name? That's what I was asked to do.Mostly just to keep the trademark owners happy, I'd guess. Basically, trademark law is complex and tricky and some trademark holders are very concerned about dilution or genericization of their marks so they become concerned about uses that might jeopardize their rights under the law. If your software was internal-only those concerns were probably unjustified.
-
@dhromed said:
And don't forget Linus Torvlad's favorite soap:@El_Heffe said:
There used to be a brand of dog food called "Cadillac" and that was perfectly legal because no reasonable person would think it was made by General Motors.
Weird.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@dhromed said:
And don't forget Linus Torvlad's favorite soap:@El_Heffe said:
There used to be a brand of dog food called "Cadillac" and that was perfectly legal because no reasonable person would think it was made by General Motors.
Weird.
FAIL! (that is actually a Penguin cleaner <ducking and running>)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@toon said:
So why is "MickDonald's" illegal?
Because it came after McDonald's was registered and it seems to be infringing (trademarks aren't restricted to spelling--Pepsi couldn't start selling a product named Koka-Kola). However, it does get more complicated with something like McDonald's which is a legitimate last name. The question usually comes down to the intent of the infringer and how likely it is consumers would be confused. However, trademark rights can also be broader, for example you basically can't have a business or product of the form "McFoo" where "Foo" is some generic term because McDonald's has done that for quite some time. So even though McDonald's doesn't sell McHaggis you wouldn't be able to sell a product called McHaggis.
Gather roun', chilluns, for a little story from the deep dark distant past....
Back around 1979 or 1980, Datamation (a magazine devoted to the world of "business computing") printed a nice long article about the new art and science of "presentation graphics". A few months later (remember, this was in the days before instant turnaround in the publishing world), the magazine printed a letter they had received from a company demanding that they issue a retraction and an apology for their flagrant misuse of the company's trademark: Presentation Graphics (® & ™). The letter claimed that Datamation had wilfully and with malice aforethought used the name of their company without proper acknowledgement of its trademark, had made claims that had nothing to do with that company's products or services, and had (how dare they!) rendered the phrase throughout the article without so much as capitalizing the first letter of each word!
This attitude would be considered silly at the time, considering that the magazine had never even heard of the company prior to receiving the letter, and was simply using the common term within the industry for the collection of techniques and practices associated with displaying information pictorially.
A few years later, another company, one that had been familiar to Datamation as a purveyor of mainframe computers, co-opted another generic phrase as its trademark for its new line of small, one-user computers, a phrase that had already been widely used by other companies that had preceded it into the individual-user market. It called the new line Personal Computer (® & ™), or PC (® & ™) for short. And for some reason, that company was able to make the trademark stick.
So successful were they, in fact, that around thirty years later, yet another company, one that hadn't even been dreamt of back in the days of Datamation, applied for and was granted a trademark on the word Like.
-
@da Doctah said:
Gather roun', chilluns, for a little story from the deep dark distant past....
Your story reminded me of another local story of ridiculousness. Recalling this story took me down memory lane . . .Back in the early 90's, I was a participant in FidoNet™, Portland metro area net 105. I was an echomail hub for the west side of the Portland area. There was a system, 1:105/319, called Points R Us. One day, the sysop received a letter from a well-known company with a goofy giraffe as a mascot and a backwards R in its name. It ordered this hobbyist bulletin board system to cease and desist using the name Points R Us because it infringed on their trademark. As the story goes, a couple of letters were exchanged and the company refused to budge. Deciding that it just wasn't worth it, he [url=http://bbslist.textfiles.com/503/503.txt]changed the name[/url]. (At the time, it was changed to "Mostly Mail BBS"; there's another name listed as "Points Were Us" which I wasn't familiar with.) We all encouraged him to continue fighting, as the success of a trademark complaint is supposed to lie on whether it will cause any confusion or not. No, he didn't want to continue the fight. Considering the costs he may have been facing, we understood, but it would've been sweet to see this Goliath slain.
A "point" was a system that communicated directly with a host system. Most systems had their own net/node number, but there were requirements to having your own official number (had to be up for Zone Mail Hour [ZMH]). A point was basically a dial-in system hosted off of an officially-registered node that could be up or down as it wanted. Many people used this to get/send mail without having to constantly be online with a bulletin board.
(FidoNet™ is a trademark of Tom Jennings; dunno if it's registered or not.)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
They probably just decide court cases by whichever side's lawyer can wrestle a moose to the ground with his bare hands.
+1 Would litigate again.
-
@da Doctah said:
Back around 1979 or 1980, Datamation (a magazine devoted to the world of "business computing") printed a nice long article about the new art and science of "presentation graphics". A few months later (remember, this was in the days before instant turnaround in the publishing world), the magazine printed a letter they had received from a company demanding that they issue a retraction and an apology for their flagrant misuse of the company's trademark: Presentation Graphics (® & ™). The letter claimed that Datamation had wilfully and with malice aforethought used the name of their company without proper acknowledgement of its trademark, had made claims that had nothing to do with that company's products or services, and had (how dare they!) rendered the phrase throughout the article without so much as capitalizing the first letter of each word!
This attitude would be considered silly at the time, considering that the magazine had never even heard of the company prior to receiving the letter, and was simply using the common term within the industry for the collection of techniques and practices associated with displaying information pictorially.
Which is entirely predictable because the trademark wasn't being used to refer to a specific product. You didn't state whether the trademark was revoked or not, nor have you provided any citations.
@da Doctah said:
A few years later, another company, one that had been familiar to Datamation as a purveyor of mainframe computers, co-opted another generic phrase as its trademark for its new line of small, one-user computers, a phrase that had already been widely used by other companies that had preceded it into the individual-user market. It called the new line Personal Computer (® & ™), or PC (® & ™) for short. And for some reason, that company was able to make the trademark stick.
And how long before the trademark lost its protection? I can't even find a reference to PC ever having been trademarked and it clearly hasn't been for quite some time.
@da Doctah said:
So successful were they, in fact, that around thirty years later, yet another company, one that hadn't even been dreamt of back in the days of Datamation, applied for and was granted a trademark on the word Like.
At this point I'd say "Like" has probably achieved secondary meaning in the area Facebook is registering it (demonstrating approval for something on a social network). However, I can't find any reference stating that Facebook's trademark application has been approved, so you seem to be talking out of your ass on this one, too.
I guess if you are that surprised by these then it's gonna blow your mind when you find out that Windows, Amazon, and Apple are all registered trademarks.
-
@nonpartisan said:
We all encouraged him to continue fighting, as the success of a trademark complaint is supposed to lie on whether it will cause any confusion or not.
That's hardly the only criteria. However, the reason they went after him was probably to prevent trademark dilution. If people start calling everything "Foo R Us" without being challenged then Toys R Us could lose their trademark protection, so they obviously pursue cases like this.
@nonpartisan said:
(FidoNet™ is a trademark of Tom Jennings; dunno if it's registered or not.)
It is registered (or at least was at one point) so it should be written thus: FidoNet®
-
@nonpartisan said:
Your story reminded me of another local story of ridiculousness. Recalling this story took me down memory lane . . .
Ditto. Several that spring to mind:
DVLA (UK govt organisation thinks globally...)
-
@nonpartisan said:
Your story reminded me of another local story of ridiculousness. Recalling this story took me down memory lane . . .
...which sparks yet another story I remember. Back in the early 90s, there were a series of futuristic adventure games some of you other old fogies might recall from Sierra called Space Quest. In the first game, the protagonist arrives in a desert village of sorts that contained, among other establishments, a place called "Droids R Us" which came complete with a giraffe-like alien mascot in the sign. Toys-R-Us was quick to threaten legal action and they had to release a 1.1 that changed the name to Droids-B-Us and drop the mascot. Strangely, Lucas Films didn't yell at them over the use of "Droid."
Over the next few years, they released a few sequels, including Space Quest 4. One of the scenes was a galactic mall with stores like "Sacks", "Big and Tall", and "Radio Shock". Guess which company cried foul? It wasn't Sacks or Big and Tall, but Radio Shack. They had to change the name to Hertz So Good in subsequent productions of the game to avoid their legal hammer. No word on if John Cougar Melloncamp swarmed his legal juggernaut against Sierra.
I'm pretty sure Sacks and Big and Tall were not paid product placement. I bet Radio Shack might have been OK with their actual name in the game as "free product placement" plus in retrospect it would have made it even funnier because of the notion that Radio Shack is this cockroach of a retail establishment, having survived the hardships and collapses other brick-and-mortar tech stores have experienced over the last decade despite having huge markups over online stores... to the point it's even survived in the futuristic world of Space Quest.
-
@RHuckster said:
I'm pretty sure Sacks and Big and Tall were not paid product placement. I bet Radio Shack might have been OK with their actual name in the game as "free product placement" plus in retrospect it would have made it even funnier because of the notion that Radio Shack is this cockroach of a retail establishment, having survived the hardships and collapses other brick-and-mortar tech stores have experienced over the last decade despite having huge markups over online stores... to the point it's even survived in the futuristic world of Space Quest.
Before product placement was "invented", you'd be surprised at some of the shenanigans. (Although it was invented before those Sierra games.) For example, Stanley Kubrick had to pay Pan-Am to use their logo in 2001: A Space Odyssey. (Natch, I can't find a cite right now... grr... so sprinkle liberal salt grains.)
-
@RHuckster said:
"Big and Tall"
Are you a multidimensional being in need of a good suit? Are off the rack knockoffs from New China not quite fitting all your right-angles of right-angles?
Come to Zzxyyz's "Big and Tall and Wide and Hyper". Zzxyyz understands your unique needs, because not only is he the owner AND a customer, but also an omnicient destroyer of worlds.
Zzxyyz's "Big and Tall and Wide and Hyper", located just to the left/up/inner/spin of the Orange Julius, and right across from the entance/exit of Ouroboros R Us
-
@blakeyrat said:
Before product placement was "invented", you'd be surprised at some of the shenanigans.
It's actually funny. Watch movies from the 60's and 70's and note the sheer amount of gratuitous product placement. Except that it all seems natural, because they're making a movie about X culture, and that culture uses products. Of course James Dean drove a motherfucking Harley (I assume). And when you're on a hot beach, you're drinking a Coke, not a Cola, because otherwise you're a pussy.
Look at Saturday Night Fever (which I point out only because it's the last movie I watched, and my memory is shit). Aside from the unavoidable product placement you get from filming in New York-- the main character has specific movie posters up (because of characters he idolizes), his car has is branded with a specific oil manufacture (because that's what happens in real life when you get an oil change), and for fuck's sake, there's a scene that's explicitly in a White Castle, complete with a thirty second long shot of nothing but an employee putting together their signature burger using their signature assembly method.
Move forward to the 80s, and you get what Blakey points out-- companies going bananashit over OMG OUR PRODUCTS. People start drinking generic brand cola, or products with a one-off name/symbol. It's a wink and a nod, but never anything explicit. Everyone knows what MickDonalds means, but-- fucking lawyers.
Then all of a sudden, someone has a brilliant idea. "FUCKING MONEY FOR EVERYONE!!1", and paid product placement was "born".
FWIW, the documentary The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is worth a watch. It's a documentary about product placement framed by the idea that the director wants the documentary entirely paid for by product placement. So it's about him getting money to make the movie he's making about getting money. The meta mindscrew of it all is worth the price of admission alone.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
FWIW, the documentary The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is worth a watch. It's a documentary about product placement framed by the idea that the director wants the documentary entirely paid for by product placement.
S'not such a strange concept: many newspapers are funded entirely by advert sponsorship.
So are some games. And websites, come to think of it.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Everyone knows what MickDonalds means, but-- fucking lawyers.
The MickDonald's thing is actually a deliberate thing from a movie. As said before, I think it's Coming To America but I'm not sure. The whole joke is, that one of the characters thinks he can make a buck by starting a fast food chain called MickDonald's, with Golden Arcs instead of Golden Arches, MickShakes, instead of McShakes, etc. Also, the whole Mick-is-a-nickname-for-those-of-Irish-descent thing makes it even ROFLOLier. It's funny you should mention it, because I wouldn't be surprised if that whole ordeal got the real Mickey D's to sponsor the movie a bit.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@nonpartisan said:
Yeah, couldn't remember if it was registered. Maybe if I'm really nice and if the karma of this weekend's retreat is still with me, a mod will go back and magically transform the ™ symbols to ®.(FidoNet™ is a trademark of Tom Jennings; dunno if it's registered or not.)
It is registered (or at least was at one point) so it should be written thus: FidoNet®
-
@Lorne Kates said:
The meta mindscrew of it all is worth the price of admission alone.
The movie Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story is a movie about filming an unfilmable book. It's pretty funny. The book is unfilmable because the author jumps around in time and space completely at random, making so many digressions that he never actually gets to his main story. The movie... well, they spend so much time dinking around and making digressions from filming a movie that they never get to the actual filming. The result is a film that's very faithful to the humor style of the original book.
Very meta, you'd enjoy it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
That's hardly the only criteria. However, the reason they went after him was probably to prevent trademark dilution. If people start calling everything "Foo R Us" without being challenged then Toys R Us could lose their trademark protection, so they obviously pursue cases like this.
No, it's not the only criteria, but I think that's a weak argument too. I Googled for "r us" -"toys r us" and got:- Goats R Us
- Disabilities-R-Us
- Bricks R Us
- Patches R Us
- Bimmers R Us
- Payments R Us
- Malls R Us
- Lapel Pins R Us
- Stumps R Us
That's just the first page.
Pretty damn petty to have gone up against a hobbyist bulletin board system. If our local station had "2 On Your Side" or "Problem Solvers" or whatever they have now I'd have advocated for contacting the media.
-
@nonpartisan said:
Pretty damn petty to have gone up against a hobbyist bulletin board system.
There's always <a href-"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft">MikeRoweSoft. Not that I'm denying that Microsoft had a case. But it's still kinda funny. YPDMMV
-
-
@nonpartisan said:
No, it's not the only criteria, but I think that's a weak argument too. I Googled for "r us" -"toys r us" and got:
- Goats R Us
- Disabilities-R-Us
- Bricks R Us
- Patches R Us
- Bimmers R Us
- Payments R Us
- Malls R Us
- Lapel Pins R Us
- Stumps R Us
That's just the first page.
Pretty damn petty to have gone up against a hobbyist bulletin board system. If our local station had "2 On Your Side" or "Problem Solvers" or whatever they have now I'd have advocated for contacting the media.
I have no idea why Toys R Us hasn't gone after those sites. Maybe they're not in the US, I dunno.. Anyway: Toys R Us has a history of suing (and winning) trademark dilution cases (see Geoffrey, Inc. v. Stratton and Toys "R" Us v. Akkaoui).
