Let’s assume an attorney showed up on FreeRepublic, and adopted a copyrighted screen name like, say, ‘Winnie the Pooh.’ Normally that's not a big concern, but let’s assume the attorney subsequently agreed to represent a client with a somewhat questionable reputation – someone like Jack Kavorkian or Bill Clinton. And then let’s assume that the attorney started representing Mr. Kavorkian (or Mr. Clinton ;>) in a professional manner, on FreeRepublic, while using the screen name ‘Winnie the Pooh.’
Here’s the question: Do you think the owner of the ‘Winnie the Pooh’ copyright might object? After all, the copyright owner makes money off the name ‘Winnie the Pooh’ – books, movies, ‘action figures,’ etc. I’m sure the owner would be interested in a license fee, at the very least, if an attorney set up a de facto ‘Winnie the Pooh Online Law Office.’ Or perhaps the copyright owner would simply pursue legal action. Especially if the owner had his own team of attorneys on retainer, and considered the unapproved association with Jack Kavorkian (or Mr. Clinton ;>) to be harmful. And especially if the attorney’s FreeRepublic home page was one of the top two listings provided by Google when an online search for ‘Winnie the Pooh’ was conducted.
Actually, you don’t need to answer. The scenario isn’t very realistic. Most attorneys would recognize the risks involved: they might be spotted by a representative of the copyright owner who happens to post at FreeRepublic, or reported to the copyright owner by a ‘Winnie the Pooh’ fan (an especially likely event, if they had attempted to intimidate any ‘Winnie the Pooh’ fans ;>). The risks would outweigh the benefits, don’t you think?
;>)
Excellent point.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Wasn't being serious anyway.