Skip to comments.
"We distort. You comply" - T-Shirts comparing Bill O'Reilly to Hitler (Blatant trademark violations)
Salon ^
| June 26, 2003
| Katharine Mieszkowski
Posted on 06/27/2003 10:46:06 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 last
To: chudogg
Hey there is such thing as a conservative lawyer. I am in the process of becoming one.
To: Dont Mention the War
I guess this is a warning to any FReepers who want to sell "Communist News Network" tee shirts......
42
posted on
06/28/2003 8:27:30 AM PDT
by
dark_lord
(The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
To: Dont Mention the War
Yes, TRADEMARK law. (insert midddle of night cop out here).
In the hypothetical CNN T-Shirt case, do you believe that consumer confusion would exist as to whether or not they were a "CNN" product.
43
posted on
06/28/2003 8:54:38 AM PDT
by
per loin
To: Dont Mention the War
It's parody
And these ambulance chasers need to be slapped in the side of the head. I don't care if it is right or left.
Ambulance chasers SUCK.
44
posted on
06/28/2003 8:57:39 AM PDT
by
Dan from Michigan
(Liberals - "The suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked")
To: Dont Mention the War
Although the T-shirt peddlers say that they're just trying to make enough money from the shirts to keep their tiny alternative media site up and running, could they be prosecuted for profiting from Fox's trademark?
This seems like the key to me. Is profit actually being made? Could one argue that making enough to run a Website constitutes profit?
45
posted on
06/29/2003 3:17:00 PM PDT
by
Xenalyte
(I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
To: Michael121
And that is the difference, alter a Logo of a private company and it is stealing. Parody a politician and it is protected. Both are different. I think you're getting at something fairly significant here - and the resolution is not at all obvious. First off, I personally think the defendant is in the right here - the logos are clearly political in nature, and I think they should fall clearly under 1st amendment protection. Whether or not that will happen, of course, is a different question.
Now, the analogy I'd like to make is to the case that Nike is currently involved with in, I think, Oregon or California. They responded to some attack ads about their business practices with their own version of the story. The people who put out the attack ads found some error or other, and sued under a law banning false advertising, claiming that it was commercial, not political, speech. I disagree with them, again, but their case rests on the idea that a private, commercial company only engages in commercial speech.
And that seems to be at the root of this case as well. Fox is, I assume, trying to maintain that they are a commercial company, and this parody is commercial, not political, speech. Especially for a news outlet, I find this tenuous - maybe laughable. Fox and CNN regularly engage in political speech, so do a host of other companies. When they do, they deserve the protection we afford such speech. But they should also take the blows, that other people can engage in such against them.
These t-shirts are attacking Fox and CNN's political views. The original writer may not find them clever, but personally, I did. I don't agree with them, but I thought they were amusing. More, I thought they were very clearly political themselves. Thus, I think they deserve a very high degree of protection.
Drew Garrett
46
posted on
06/29/2003 3:51:13 PM PDT
by
agarrett
To: chudogg
"Somebody tell the moderators!"
Yeah! We don't like cussing around here!
47
posted on
06/29/2003 8:12:00 PM PDT
by
PatrioticAmerican
(If the only way an American can get elected is through Mexican votes, we have a war to be waged.)
To: agarrett
FOX is not a politician, or political party. It is a business. They report news, they have commentators they do not run for office. It is theft of their copyrighted material, plain and simple. The Shirt boys are tying to capitalize on someone else's artistic creation.
Whether FOX News engages in reporting political speech does not mean they are speaking politically. They were not elected to serve. If one individual personality does something like get a DUI then it can be reported. They are considered public figures to an extent. But the network is not.
To: StarFan; Dutchy; Gracey; Alamo-Girl; RottiBiz; lonevoice; bamabaseballmom; FoxGirl; Mr. Bob; ...
FoxFan ping!
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent FoxFan list.
49
posted on
06/30/2003 7:15:30 PM PDT
by
nutmeg
To: nutmeg
Thanks for the heads up!
To: Dont Mention the War
Here's the Salon Stock Deathwatch.
Seems right for them to be profiling liberal bottom feeders.
51
posted on
07/07/2003 1:38:17 PM PDT
by
weegee
To: per loin
Bill O'Reilly is a thinskinned, loudmouthed, hypocritical dishonest bully who can dish it out but can't take it.
But that is typical of those humorless reich wingnuts.
The Fox Fascists may win in court - President Karl Rove and his Ayatollahs have pretty well eviscerated the Bill of Rights, so censoring free speech they don't like will be nothing new for them.
The t-shirt is original and funny, and paints a true picture of O'Reilly and his O'Reilly brownshirts.
To: Dont Mention the War
While I am not a professional lawyer, I might ask:
What's the difference between this and "Sore-Loserman"?
If you're gonna dish it out, ya gotta be ready to take it.
53
posted on
07/09/2003 5:51:52 AM PDT
by
djf
To: djf
What's the difference between this and "Sore-Loserman"?Try reading the thread first. Particularly (but not only by any means) post 35.
If you're gonna dish it out, ya gotta be ready to take it.
I posted this on June 28, and I'm still here.
To: Dont Mention the War
Hahaha...I think it's funny. I don't agree with them, but they are damn creative.
55
posted on
07/09/2003 5:59:56 AM PDT
by
krb
(the statement on the other side of this tagline is false)
To: wishywashy
To: wishywashy
Sign up in 2000, make all of four posts, with one of them being that? Sheesh.
To: Dont Mention the War
Sometimes I don't have time to read a thread, I reply to the article.
I have never heard that "We report, you decide" was trademarked in any way, and in fact I was quite opposed to MickeyD's trademarking "We love to see you smile".
And all FoxNews need do is come up with about three more of their stupid graphics, and they could corner the entire English language. I want content. Not some kids idea of creativity. To be fair, all the news networks suffer this problem.
I at least want those who share my ideals to have a spine.
58
posted on
07/09/2003 6:15:56 AM PDT
by
djf
To: Dont Mention the War
Sorry. I side with the teeshirt company.
It's a parody, and political speech, even if they are doing it for money.
Faux News - We distort, you comply. I think it's pretty cute. Fox looks pretty silly with this action. If they had a brain they'd have let it die. Now I may buy myself a teeshirt.
59
posted on
07/09/2003 6:30:37 AM PDT
by
jimt
Comment #60 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 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