The Mellotron Group

I liked this list better when it was just about politics and hating people. This copyright shit is boring.....

fritz

 


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 5, 2011 8:58 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] What's in a name?


  
    
                  
        On 05/09/2011 11:01, Chris Dale wrote:    
                       
            
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com>              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