On 05/09/2011 11:01, Chris Dale wrote:
Again, no he wouldn't. A trade mark is any sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. Characters or character names in a work of fiction would not apply under such a set of circumstances - again, they would come under the aegis of copyright, although the definitions are much less clear than you may imagine.
Yes, true but how would he be able to use character names such as "Commander Cody" "Klaatu", "Barada", "Nikto"?
He could certainly use them if he wanted. (I had to look up the names since I didn't realise that he had - I'm not much of a fan of his stuff in particular or
blockbuster films in general) Within copyright law lies the realm of 'fair use' which in essence says that you can use other people's works or the product of their works in certain circumstances, such as criticism or parody. When is fair use not fair use at all but plagarism? That's the narrow slot within which copyright lawyers make most of their money.
George Harrison's fairly shameless rip off of
'He's So Fine' revealed that in music the minimum amount that you can use to make a phrase is three notes - two is just an interval. More modern legal efforts have shown that you really cannot do much less than that. Attempts by EMI to sue for plagarism all the people who sampled the snare and kick drum sounds from the intro to
'Lets Dance' proved not only fruitless but a tad embarrassing when it was revealed that in actual fact the processed sound itself was sampled from
'Moby Dick'. (Also ironic, given the amount of ripping-off that Led Zeppelin performed in their career to blues men like Willie Dixon whom they assumed no one else had ever heard)
One fine division lies in the concept of 'homage'. When does something stop being a supportive but derivative work and instead become plagarism? Again, this sort of thing propels the children of lawyers through an existence at University, with no doubt a fair proportion of them going on to follow in the family law firm - perhaps another reason for hating laws regarding copyright, designs and patents.
Incidentally, ignorance is not a competent defence. If George Harrison had - by some miracle of bad luck - not heard anything by the Chiffons he still would have no excuses, which seems incredible given that I would hazard that in order to copy something you have to be aware of what it is you are copying.
Hodson v Hutchison Software Publishing (1978) showed that even if you argue that a common problem requires the application of two nearly identical solutions - even if reached in ignorance of the other - the law will still maintain that the latter version is a copy of the former. Amazing.
So George Lucas used Commander Cody because he wanted to. It probably constituted fair use. Of course the name had already been copied in the interim, so he had precedent to rely upon.
The amount of 'fair use' you can invoke is an interesting and inverse question to the one which asks how much you can feasibly copyright. Theoretically, you have copyright on your shopping list if you really want to. All you have to do is assert that the work is yours. Some things do prove sticky for some firms though, such as Intel. After the 486 chip they planned on making (guess what) the 586, but AMD beat them to it by a few months. Intel sued and lost since the court told them that you cannot invoke copyright on a number. Neither can you use it as a trademark, hence the launch of the Pentium processor. Having said that, Chanel are permitted to use as a trade mark
'No 5'. How can they do this? Because trademarks (as we said before) brought out in specific commercial areas, in this case cosmetics. If Dior tried to make 'Dior No 5' then they would be in trouble. If I want to make a lawn mower and call it 'No 5' I'd be OK. Say Chanel thought themselves wise to my evil ways and tried to extend their trade mark to that area. They would still fail, unless they had some valid reason for doing so (other than fucking up my nascent trade in
grass husbandry).
Hence, the Ford Mellotron might be upon us. You could use it to drive to the pub, have a pint of Mellotron Ale and a packet of Mellotron flavoured crisps. And no one would be any worse off. (Unless you had eight pints of it and tried to drive home)
Those are all names and words appearing in other sci-fi films long before Star Wars. He stole lots of other idea props from other films too - the Flash Gordon videoscreen, Logan's Run hologram, etc.etc.
He did. Why wasn't he sued? Class discuss.
The pop musical hot beat combo 'Wet Wet Wet' trademarked their name in categories related to printed material and won a case against an author who wrote a book about them which used their name in the title.
What a bunch of class A assholes. I'm sorry, but why anyone would bother to write a book about such non-entities is beyond me. I would think they'd be grateful for any possible publicity they got. To me, their version of Love Is All Around was an overproduced teenage Karaoke session - them flubbing the timing of the lyrics as they sang the second half. Evidence of horrendously low standards (and not an artistic move) - and that's being kind. They might be well known and respected in Britain, but over here in Canada they may as well be working a McDonald's drive thru. They're as forgettable as the lint in an elephants' belly button.
Well, I happen not to care very much for them either (you're better off than me, as you can name one thing they sang - I cannot say anything much about them) but I will have to admit that they were in the right here. It is not inconceivable that someone involved in music will move into print as well, particularly when you consider sheet music, etc. In some way the author may have been giving the impression that it was 'band authorised' when it was not. And I don't think they are
'known and respect in Britain' all that much, other than by lonely and disillusioned middle-aged women who long for the lost landscapes of their half-forgotten youth when they were still beautiful and life promised more than it delivered. Possibly.
In any event, most people end up being forgotten, given enough time.
Under patent legislation, one person holds the patent and can licence others to manufacture the product as it sees fit. Hence, Markus is making Mellotrons and Streetly are making mellotrons. There is a difference.
Yes - but only in the spelling of the name, not in the functions of the instrument. I guess I should have been more clear. I was referring to the functions of the instrument covered in the patent - which is what ultimately matters.
Actually one guy is making the Mellotron which isn't and the others are making a mellotron which cannot be. If you find this concept difficult then I strongly advise against a career in law. There are
far more weird decisions than this floating in the law books.
Mike