The little web site that has Fox News fuming

Media Life ^ | 7.1.03 | Jim Jazwiecki

[mhking]

I'm glad you guys are posting now, but where were you all when I posted the original thread?

I missed it, I'm afraid - I'm just now (yesterday and today) catching up from my one week sojourn to the northlands for my brother's wedding. So I'm afraid I can give you no solid excuse...

[weegee]

This Media Life thread includes the notion that Salon was once one of their "best of the web" sites.

Naw, no bias there...

Media Life's Best of the Best (Marketplace)

[kjam22]

and legal bullying of the little guy is not something that conservatives in general find to be attractive.

Oh ... I don't know. I would find it attractive. It doesn't happen often. Liberal organizations have been having their way with conservatives in this countries courts... I hope Fox takes this guy's last penny.

[ChefKeith]

FYI PING

[Dont Mention the War]

I missed it, I'm afraid - I'm just now (yesterday and today) catching up from my one week sojourn to the northlands for my brother's wedding. So I'm afraid I can give you no solid excuse...

Well, I didn't mean to imply you should have been on 24 hour duty watching out for posts from me, of course. I was just commenting (probably not very well) on how easily one or two responses early in a thread can have an overwhelming effect on how the rest of the thread plays out. I post my Fox News trademark thread, a couple of asses post "you're an idiot" one-liners, and the entire thread turns into an accusation that I'm asking for the suppression of the First Amendment. Then this thread is posted and someone posts the facts pretty early, and the truth gets out, for the most part.

Weird online community dynamics...

[mhking]

Subtle but important: it's not the copyright, but the trademark that is being protected. Different sets of laws apply.

Yes, different ones apply, but both need to be protected here.

[End Times Sentinel]

you forgot the left's centerfold babe, Helen Thomas.

 

 

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

[isthisnickcool]

Media Life recently spoke with Agitproperties webmaster Richard Luckett about the brouhaha.

T-Shirts can be fun. I wonder if Richard Luckett will print me one that says:

I was busted in Texas in 1977 for amphetamine possession and I'll I got was this lousy t-shirt and five years probation.

I bet he wouldn't print me one like that. But if he would I'd give it to him to wear.

Mr. Luckett understands that people like Bush, Coulter, Hannity, etc. are in the public eye and are ripe for ridicule and parody. But now he is in the public eye too.

[Dont Mention the War]

Could there really be folks at FOX this "logically-challenged"?

They have NO CHOICE. All trademark violations brought to the attention of the company that owns the trademark must be contested, or the company will LOSE THE TRADEMARK. Imagine the Fox News Channel logo showing up on CNN's air as CNN tries to confuse people into watching them instead of the real FNC. That's exactly what could happen - and does all the time - when companies don't fight to protect their trademarks and a court tosses them into the "public domain."

[ko_kyi]

I don't agree with the shirts, but parody/political satire is protected.

O'Reilly as a public figure has a venue to take care of himself.

[Deb]

FOX News won me for life when they became the only network to show footage of the Palestinian "corpse" that fell off his funeral stretcher, then jmped back on, pulled the sheet over his face and was carried on his way. You'll never see anything like that on MSNBC or anywhere else.

Sometimes "conservative bias" is just the truth.

[Freedom2specul8]

Thanks..bookmarked to read later.

[mhking]

I don't agree with the shirts, but parody/political satire is protected.

The fact that they are using a combination of Fox's name along with a modification of their trademarked logo specifically for profit could be argued as an abuse of the concept of "fair use."

O'Reilly is a different case. He's fair game in terms of what the shirt depicts.

[ko_kyi]

I have a good friend who runs a news parody website, and he did a spoof on UPS. They sent him a lawyerly letter too.

That was just for laughs, he had no ax to grind, so he took the spoof logo down. While he probably would have won in court, he had no desire or money to deal with them. Companies know this, and usually all it takes is a letter. If the guy decides to run with it he might just win, but it will cost him a lot of cash.

[Straight Vermonter]

FNC has to protect it's copyright. This doesn't fall under fair use.

Sorry, but SCOTUS unanimously disagrees with you. Look here.

[Old Professer]

More power to him; arguing about whetther major media is left-biased or right-biased makes about as much sense as lying down in bed with two 500 pound drunks alongside you.

[Old Professer]

Nonsense. The spurious use whether intentional or otherwise neither invalidates the mark nor diminishes it; have you never heard of perception?

[Burkeman1]

LOL! Never saw that one.

[=Intervention=]

Hear, hear...as to the meat of this story -- yawn. So some dude makes shirts dogging Fox? So what? They can handle themselves and the guy can't be too much of a leftie 'cause he's using CAPITALISM to advance his cause. Wake me when it's over...

[weegee]

Guess this guy doesn't watch CNN "the most trusted name in news." LOL

How many times an hour do commercial free propaganda radio shows like NPR's "ALL things considered" and Pacifica's "DEMOCRACY now" invoke their misleading names?

It's all a part of their mantra.