As the main character says, "My God, what a testimonial!"...
defending the right to innovate
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
The Coca-Cola company manages to supress an entire film because they didn't 'authorize' an image of a Coke can in it.
As the main character says, "My God, what a testimonial!"...
Any idea what the legal rationale could be? I read the article, but it was pretty uniformative. Surely Coca-cola is a matter of trademark, and I believe trademark law allows the use of the trademark by others, for example in works of fiction and in general in settings where it does not result in consumer confusion.
[Comment at 04/06/2007 11:41 AM by David K. Levine]
The legal rationale in 'trademark infringement'. But that is a 'rationale' in every sense of the word. You are right - the legal claim is completely bogus. However, this is a legal threat is ALWAYS used in the entertainment industry, but is never challenged because most film studios are too risk adverse towards litigation costs.
What they don't realize is that in the long run, they pay far more to maintain a 'legal affairs' department to get bogus 'rights' and 'clearence' of products and brand names that happen to appear in their films. As a result, a grotesque business culture is sustained and nutured whereby fair use and free speech is ignored at the expense of corporate interests. That business culture from the entertainment industry has bled over into aspects of the legal culture - which is why fair use is under unprecedented assualt. But if more filmmakers insisted on standing up to this and forcing courts to take a look at it at the appellate level - I am confident that it could be rolled back. But thus far, nobody wants to do it.
To quote Judge P. Boren from the California Court of Appeals:
"The industry custom of obtaining 'clearance' establishes nothing, other than the unfortunate reality that many filmmakers may deem it wise to pay a small sum up front for a written consent to avoid later having to spend a small fortune to defend unmeritorious lawsuits such as this one."
[Polydoros v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (1997) 67 Cal.App.4th 318]
[Comment at 04/07/2007 12:56 AM by Justin Levine]
Coca Cola should be happy with this film. Jesus would never drink such a toxic product, so this is an unmerited endorsement -by proxy. If they were smart, they would shut up and capitalize on the holy pitch.
[Comment at 02/08/2008 11:31 PM by Dana Saur]
Most Recent Comments
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry
at 05/08/2015 08:35 AM by Dan Dobkin
Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace
at 04/10/2015 10:44 AM by Stephan Kinsella
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default
at 04/10/2015 10:34 AM by Stephan Kinsella
Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without
at 01/08/2015 08:58 PM by Sheogorath
Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do
at 11/17/2014 04:48 AM by David K. Levine
Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous
at 10/29/2014 10:49 AM by Alexander Baker
Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.
at 09/20/2014 03:19 PM by Alexander Baker
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:
at 06/28/2014 10:03 AM by Doris
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,
at 06/28/2014 10:00 AM by Doris
What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic
at 05/05/2014 01:03 PM by Sheogorath
Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the
at 04/07/2014 04:47 AM by Dan McCracken
Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples
at 01/13/2014 06:13 AM by Anonymous
Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be
at 11/28/2013 05:03 PM by Stephanie Smith
at 11/28/2013 09:23 AM by Anonymous
at 11/28/2013 09:22 AM by Anonymous
Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you
at 11/24/2013 10:48 AM by SpaceCorp Technologies
at 11/20/2013 03:18 PM by Anonymous
Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since
at 11/02/2013 08:09 PM by Anonymous
Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? I wondered about TFP, because I had heard that TFP was increasing. Apparently, it depends on who
at 11/02/2013 08:08 PM by Anonymous
Music without copyright I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They are very convincing and will
at 09/23/2013 07:46 AM by audience response software