Hollywood Reporter: When the Mayans foretold of a 2012 disaster, were they referring to a Hollywood "trademarklawpocalypse"? Consider these recent legal fights: The owner of William Faulkner's intellectual property rights sued Sony Pictures Classics on Oct. 25 over two lines used in Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris. Anheuser-Busch, maker of Budweiser, objected on legal grounds to Denzel Washington's overconsumption of its beer in Paramount's Flight. And publishing house Rizzoli demanded in October that NBC stop using "Rizzoli" as Ray Romano's character name on Parenthood.
2 comments:
Well sounds like this is only going to become a bigger and bigger issue over the next few years. Being such a grey area does not sound like anything can be clear cut and exact. So what to do, I got no clue.
The argument over the movie "Flight" is a interesting one, dealing with Budweiser. Does it really paint the image of Budweiser negatively? Budweiser is a beer, is a alcoholic productive, alcohol is the source for many negatives activities in the world. But does showing Budweiser paint Budweiser negatively, I know personally I believe I would just lump that scene of Denzel drinking a Bud in with all other beers. That beer is what this alcoholic character was drinking.
The Hobbit is a interesting argument as well. Are people REALLY going to get the two mixed up? Really? Simply over the word Hobbit.
Few weeks ago, a article was talking about fashion (maybe costume) designer wanting to trade mark their designs. Should there be hard lines drawn or can there be hard lines drawn?
How much of this all about money, about the bottom line. VS how much is this about making sure credit is given to where credit is due. I 100% agree that fashion/costume designers should be given the credit but what happens past credit?
Feel like this will be a case by case legal battle, unit the end of the world.
So
I think that the author of this piece is struggling to understand trademark and intellectual property law. As I'm reading, I think the idea he is talking about is correct- that trademark law has become more stringent (and more ridiculous) recently, but then I realize that the examples he gives are not always regarding Trademarks. It lends a lot less credibility to the story. For instance, the idea of trademarking a product's design or mechanical use is more in the realm of patent or general IP law than a trademark for the name or slogan of a design. (Even that is a simplistic explanation).
I wish that fixing this is going to be as easy as avoiding doomsday. But it's not. Turns out, many of the Hollywood players don't want it fixed- its giving them more money. Neither do a lot of the trademark owners for the same reason. But change it needs to.
Post a Comment