Posted on 06/20/2011 3:40:49 PM PDT by TaxPayer2000
Yeah entrepeneurs selling T-shirts , buttons , bumper stickers internet porn sites featuring bestiality porn would be interfered with .
Sorry gotta side with the Palins on this one. The MSM would be investors in the beast porn site featuring Sarah Palins name in the title.
Perhaps Sarah is doing that to discourage angry drunken trolls like this:
This doesn’t stop satire, public figures and trademarked items are still fair game to satire under fair use. It stops merchandising.
Good for Sarah!
Didn’t somebody try to put up a fake blog under her name a couple of years ago?
The bids by Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol Palin to trademark their names and images have cleared a major hurdle and should soon be approved for the potential presidential candidate and her Dancing With the Stars child.
Sources close to the process tell our Suzi Parker that nobody challenged Sarah Palin's trademark application. Today is the deadline to do so. They also say that Bristol Palin's went unchallenged. That deadline passed June 10.
Each should receive their trademark within three months, said the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
end snip
For example - Mickey Mouse is a trademark of Disney.
You can talk about Mickey Mouse - write a story about Mickey Mouse - write the name Mickey Mouse; but if you try to sell a T-shirt that says “Mickey Mouse” you had better watch out!
Always remember what happened to Bill Watterson, failed to TM Calvin and Hobbes and a lot of people not him made a lot of money with that Calvin peeing on a logo thing.
I posted a comment there, but it’s relegated to “worst” comments. It would be fitting to freep it and make it one of the best, thus first seen, comments. It seems ALL PRO-Sarah comments are worst received.
D.C. Wright USMC Retired
He’d still be satire, fair use. It stops the equivalent of Calvin peeing on a logo. Even positive knockoff people are making knockoffs and not filtering any of that money over to the person whose name they’re using.
Wrong - the very names with the greatest profit potential are, amazingly enough, the most vigorously protected. Try selling coffee mugs with a bootleg Harley logo on them and see what happens. Included in the name owner's rights is the right to select those individuals authorized to utilize the name in the market. You wouldn't want some scuz like Katie Couric making money flogging Sarah Palin glasses, would you? The question is its answer.
I am not familiar with copyright law, but for public figures like Palin there are probably some uses of the name or image that can’t be prevented. For example, if Mad magazine wanted to do a Palin satire with Alfred E. Neuman made up to look like her on the cover, that’s probably protected free speech. But there are probably gray areas where protected speech verges into commercial exploitation.
Unlike the sales of, say, Barack Hussein Obama's phony "autobiography", or the Clinton memoirs?
You can sell T-shirts making fun of Mickey Mouse - call him Mickey Rat or whatnot - but if you sell a T-shirt that just says “Mickey Mouse” and/or has his picture - that is a violation. The intent has to be to satirize or make fun of it - you can't just piggyback on the name and image someone else has tradmarked.
>>>>Does this mean sites like freerepublic will have to pay her to post her name?
Fair use is OK for reporting of current events and expression of political opinion and commentary/criticism. At least it is for now... Dear Leader could Executive Order something to the contrary, and it might make it past a court or two - but I don’t think it would make it by SCOTUS with its present membership.
oops. I must have missed that thread. I did a search on the title and all that. Nothing came up.
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.