Skip to comments.
Fox Sues Humor Writer for Using 'Signature' Slogan (Al "Irrelevant" Franken)
Yahoo! News ^
| August 12, 2003
| Reuters
Posted on 08/12/2003 8:31:50 AM PDT by El Conservador
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 last
To: Range Rover
Is it REALLY Satire?Good question. Lately Franken has been insisting he tells the truth. He is acting as though his book is filled with facts.
61
posted on
08/12/2003 5:58:36 PM PDT
by
syriacus
(I plan to use the words "By Al Franken" in the subtitle on the cover of my next book.)
To: Beelzebubba; libravoter
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 indicates that companies can claim infringement if the defendant's use of a trademark (such as corporate names Coca-Cola and Xerox, or their logos) causes "blurring" or "tarnishment" of the trademark in the eyes of consumers. The act makes no clear exception for parodies or satires.
*Proving dilution of a mark: Under the Dilution Act, famous marks are protected against the dilution of the distinctive nature of the mark. There is no need to prove a likelihood of confusion, nor is there any need to show competition between the goods of the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, it is possible to use a dilution cause of action against users of the same mark even when the defendant's goods and services bears no relation to the goods or services of the famous mark.
Dilution causes of action are normally brought when the defendant's use of the mark causes either
- "Blurring", by which the connection in consumers' minds between the plaintiff's mark and the plaintiff's goods or services is weakened; or
- "Tarnishment", which means that the defendant's use is unsavory or unwholesome, or the mark is used in connection with inferior products.
However, the Act makes clear that certain actions will not be subject to the provisions of the Act. Specifically, the Act states that fair use (such as comparative advertising), noncommercial use (such as noncommercial web pages), and all forms of news reporting and news commentary (which would apparently include reporting and commentary appearing on the Internet) would not constitute dilution under the Act.
To: JustAnAmerican
But if they're using their trademark in conjunction with pictures of people are their network, doesn't that make a difference?
63
posted on
08/13/2003 6:23:54 PM PDT
by
Hildy
To: El Conservador
Since when was Al Franken a humor writer?
64
posted on
08/13/2003 6:25:03 PM PDT
by
CWOJackson
(The World According to Garp isn't that bad when compared with The World According to Todd.)
To: Paul Atreides
Interesting cover.
The title is "Lies, liars and the lying liars who tell them."
And the most prominent person on the cover is...
65
posted on
08/13/2003 6:29:08 PM PDT
by
SerpentDove
(Each post focus-group tested for maximum wallop.)
To: Saundra Duffy
Depends on if Franken is a parody or a serious work.
The Martin Luther King Jr. family has denied the use of King's speeches in serious analysis works for decades. In essence preventing any discussion.
DC comics automatically prevents homosexual revisionists from using Batman/robin works.
From what I have been seeing, Al Franken is trying to do a serious work. He has a problem. Enough of a problem to withstand at least the motion to dismiss.
Can you imagine the trial exposing the bitter small person that franken is? Its sid blumenthal all over.
It looks like FOX will lose it and the Dems will milk it and Franken will gain credibility.
67
posted on
08/13/2003 6:32:45 PM PDT
by
Consort
To: Consort
Are there other books with the "fair and balance look at..." in the title?
I would not be so quick to dismiss the case. I can see how this could be mistaken for a Fox news sanction SERIOUS book.
No one has answered the question if this is a serious analysis. From the AP story its a serious analysis. Serious does not equal parody. Al will pay $$$.
To: El Conservador
I think Fox knows in its heart it's just a big joke, and it deliberately acts in an outrageous manner--it's the Ann Coulter of TV News.
69
posted on
08/13/2003 6:49:11 PM PDT
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: xm177e2
If you mention Coulter etiquete requires a post of her picture.
FR is nothing if not civilized.
To: longtermmemmory
No one has answered the question if this is a serious analysis. From the AP story its a serious analysis. Serious does not equal parody. Al will pay $$$.Fox reported today that the book is #1 in pre-published books as a result of its lawsuit. Al will make big bucks and probably donate some to help Dems beat Repubs. It may not matter matter how serious the book is.
71
posted on
08/17/2003 4:52:02 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: CWOJackson
Since when was Al Franken a humor writer? I believe in the early days of SNL
72
posted on
08/20/2003 6:05:43 PM PDT
by
AgThorn
(Go go Bush!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson