Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Raggedy Ann Coulter]

Originally posted by Anntila the Hun
How appropriate that a traitorous LIE-BERAL like TS should adopt a serpent as his mark. The Bible teaches us that serpents are the creatures of Beelzebub, and so it is with all TS's ilk. He's probably off somewhere in the Oakland docks taking pictures to pass along to his cohorts in self hatred. Be on guard!! Anyone with a camera could be your enemy!!

You sound like a bad caricature of a Republican from a Seymore Hersh screed. Or that other modern-day Nostradamus, Lewis Lapham.

You sir/madam are nothing but a sham. A sheep in wolf's clothing. True, you might confuse some idiots in Hollywood or their star-struck followers, but you won't fool me.

Sure, you and your rabble-rousing socialists can try to pretend to be good citizens and then slither into the GOP convention to try to usurp the power of democracy, but it is of no use.

Better to save your efforts for more noble pursuits, such as trying to parole Kerry fundraiser Mumia Al-Jamal or helping Nelson Mandela in his attempts to get Saddam the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Raggedy Ann Coulter
You sir/madam are nothing but a sham.

Ladies, ladies, please. We already have a serpent-toothed hoo-ha on this board. We don't need another, much less two more.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ever notice that when the grocery store scanner makes a mistake, it's NEVER for a smaller price?

Seems that way, but my point was that the Kerry website mistake neither raised nor lowered the price, nor changed the substance. I doubt that the folks maintining the website for either candidate know much about military decorations.

[You're saying it might have been intentional, because it expressly states/clarifies that the medal was for valor?]

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Kerry's some kind of honor-bound to stop using McCain's statements against Bush, but Bush can use other peoples' images any damn way he pleases? Why, there's something in Article II that can't be found in Article I?

Hank is using honor for the first point, while relying on the more narrow strictures of trademark law (n.b. to LDE -- _not _ patent law) for the second point.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Ladies, ladies, please. We already have a serpent-toothed hoo-ha on this board. We don't need another, much less two more.

SS has a hoo-ha?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(n.b. to LDE -- _not _ patent law)

I try to talk dumb whenever I agree with the other side. It's quite diabolical.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So FOX could have a camera guy film Olympics crap and televise it? Str8, do you have Murdoch's cell number- its an emergency.

You are confused. Yes, if the Fox channel filmed the olympics, they would own the copyright to the film. Whether they could televise it or not depends on under what terms they obtained the film footage. For instance, I am sure that as a condition of admittance to the events, you have agreed not to broadcast any videotape, etc. of the events. I am sure that is printed on the back of the tickets and that there are signs posted notifying those attending the events of this.

Moreover, I doubt a fox camera crew would be allowed into an event given that the IOC sold the exclusive rights to broadcast the events to NBC.

Now if a Fox crew snuck into the Olympics and broadcast the events in violation of the terms of admittance, the Olympic committee would have a cause of action against Fox. The IOC could sue them for damages and for an injunction barring them from broadcasting the footage under a breach of contract cause of action. However, Fox would still own the copyright to the footage. The IOC could also ask the judge for a mandatory injunction requiring Fox to destroy the footage and any copies as it was created in violation of a contractual agreement i.e., the terms of admittance to the events.

Which brings us back to the first question I asked, where did Bush get the film? I bet he got it from NBC, which owns the copyright to the films.

Absent an agreement otherwise, the IOC does not own the copyright to the NBC films. NBC does. The person who films the footage is considered the creator of the copyrightable work of art and the owner of the copyright (yes, the film is considered art under the copyright act). Now that person as an employee of NBC is almost certainly under an obligation to assign the copyrights to NBC, so NBC would be the ultimate owner of the copyrights.

Now perhaps NBC has agreed to give the copyrights to the IOC, but unless they have done that, NBC owns the copyrights to the footage of the events (assuming of course that it was filmed by an NBC employee under an obligation to assign the rights to NBC, which I am sure it was).

FYI - to whomever it was who claimed the word "Olympics" is something that someone could own as a copyright. Copyrightable subject matter includes literary works and works of art (including music and archtecture). The word "Olympics" is neither a literary work nor is it a work of art under the Copyright Act. It is a word designating a sporting event.

The other requirement is that the work be fixed in a tangible form of expression for it to be protectable under the Copyright Act. Moreover, the Fair Use exception can be quite forgiving when the work is used in the context of news and other First Amendment protected activities.

The word Olympics could be a service mark, though, under the Lanham Act.

FYI - computer software is considered a literary work and that is why code is copyrightable.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

There's also that little thing, 36 USC Sec. 220506.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
You are confused. Yes, if the Fox channel filmed the olympics, they would own the copyright to the film. Whether they could televise it or not depends on under what terms they obtained the film footage. For instance, I am sure that as a condition of admittance to the events, you have agreed not to broadcast any videotape, etc. of the events. I am sure that is printed on the back of the tickets and that there are signs posted notifying those attending the events of this.

Moreover, I doubt a fox camera crew would be allowed into an event given that the IOC sold the exclusive rights to broadcast the events to NBC.

Now if a Fox crew snuck into the Olympics and filmed the events in violation of the terms of admittance, the Olympic committee would have a cause of action against Fox. The IOC could sue them for damages and for an injunction barring them from broadcasting the footage under a breach of contract cause of action. However, Fox would still own the copyright to the footage. The IOC could also ask the judge for a mandatory injunction requiring Fox to destroy the footage and any copies as it was created in violation of a contractual agreement i.e., the terms of admittance to the events.

Which brings us back to the first question I asked, where did Bush get the film? I bet he got it from NBC, which owns the copyright to the films.

Absent an agreement otherwise, the IOC does not own the copyright to the NBC films. NBC does. The person who films the footage is considered the creator of the copyrightable work of art (yes, the film is considered art under the copyright act). Now that person as an employee of NBC is almost certainly under an obligation to assign the copyrights to NBC, so NBC would be the ultimate owner.

Now perhaps NBC has agreed to give the copyright to the IOC, but unless they have done that, NBC owns the copyrights to the footage of the events.

FYI - to whomever it was who claimed the word "Olympics" is something that someone could own as a copyright. Copyrightable subject matter includes literary works and works of art (including music and archtecture). The word "Olympics" is neither a literary work nor is it a work of art under the Copyright Act. It is a word designating a sporting event.

The other requirement for is that the work be fixed in a tangible form of expression for it to be protectable under the Copyright Act. Moreover, the Fair Use exception can be quite forgiving when the work is used in the context of news and other First Amendment protected activities.

The word Olympics could be a service mark, though, under the Lanham Act.

FYI - computer software is considered a literary work and that is why code is copyrightable.

Looking at this I think back on AG's con law arguments, and I know not to engage. I have grown from the experience of AG.

[Raggedy Ann Coulter]

Originally posted by Not Me
SS has a hoo-ha?

No. A vagina.

Sans teeth

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
There's also that little thing, 36 USC Sec. 220506.

Oh Panda! Its cute you trying to be a lawyer and all. Cept, W is not doing anything likely to confuse as to the source of origin or use the marks for anything prohibited. But we all admire your research skills. 80% right is a solid B at lots of law schools.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
There's also that little thing, 36 USC Sec. 220506.

Bush Infringed!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Bush Infringed!

Quick question --- where did you grow up? My guess is it was a redwood slat half-barrel deep under the Pacific. Regards!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh Panda! Its cute you trying to be a lawyer and all. Cept, W is not doing anything likely to confuse as to the source of origin or use the marks for anything prohibited. But we all admire your research skills. 80% right is a solid B at lots of law schools.

"To induce the sale of any goods or services," Hank. To put it in terms you can understand, 43 is at the second interview stage in front of a really large Recruitment Committee. But the end result is the same --- sale of services. It's hard to see when the prospective hire is already rich, I know, but it's there if you look.

[Not Me]

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.