Quote:
Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
There's also that little thing, 36 USC Sec. 220506.
|
First, that section does not confer copyrights to film footage. That sectoin gives trademark/service mark protection to the name and the mark. Was Bush using the Olympic mark in the ads? Even if he was, the statute appears to be confined to commercial use of the mark and not to non-commercial use of the mark.
Second, no statute can trump your first amendment rights. Trademark/service mark protection is something that occurs in a commercial context. It can be used to prevent someone from passing off and otherwise using your mark to confuse the consumer as to the origins of a good or of services. It cannot be used to suppress non-commercial speech.
Teresa Heinz cannot prevent me from writing a newspaper column sayng Heinz ketchup sucks by asserting her trademark rights. She can prevent me from labeling my ketchup that I sell with a name/mark that would be confusingly similar, say for instance, Heins.
That section doesn't confer copyright protection of film footage of the events. It is merely protection of the mark and it appears to be limited to a commercial context. Copyrights and trademarks/service marks are two completely different concepts legally.
