Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Consumerist: The “Left Shark” phenomenon that overtook the world after Katy Perry’s Super Bowl halftime show has long since exited the cultural dialog, and yet the battle rages on over whether or not the pop star can claim a trademark on the uncoordinated, anthropomorphic fish.
5 comments:
Katie Pyne
said...
Trademarking is a tricky subject. On one hand, you want to protect the work of the individuals that created it. Every day, one factor or another compromises the integrity of artists, whether it is record labels, big corporations, or just inter-band squabbles. However, in the case of 'Left Shark,' it shouldn't be a case. It all comes down to the creation of the product. Katy Perry and Co. did not plan on their fish friend having absolutely no coordination. If anything, it was a lapse of judgment on their part. The creation of the folly known specifically as "Left Shark' came from spectators of the Super Bowl who immediately took to the Internet, which is probably why the patent was rejected. Going further, is it even possible to trademark a costume? Sure, if the costume was attributed to a character, but at this point in time, I think Katy Perry's team is sharking up a non-existent tree for a couple bucks they probably don't need.
I agree a lot with Katie Pyne’s opinion on what Katy Perry’s lawyers are doing. This to me sounds like it can boil down to someone somewhere trying to ensure they profit off an accident that made people laugh and enjoy life a bit more. Or maybe it’s Katy Perry trying to mend her bruised ego about how absolutely ridiculous that portion of the half time show was. Either way, it wasn’t something they planned on, and whatever attempt to profit on it now is a complete knee jerk reaction. Maybe if she tried to create more left stark stuff, maybe a song called left shark about the event, or a line of clothing, or maybe toys, then she’d have the right to trademark left shark. However, it remains clear that she would much rather let the fun loving people of the internet do that for her, so she can profit at their expense.
Katy Perry wanting to trademark a bad performance isn’t something you normally here about. Especially when it comes not on her performance, but one of the extras that were performing with her. The left shark as he has come to be known due to his inability to remember the choreography became something of an internet sensation. People think that you can put your mark on anything and claim it as your own. Trying to trademark the use of ‘left shark’ and various other phrases is just penny grabbing. They didn’t come up with it, the people of the internet came up with it. To the people it belongs. I do remember hearing about other people who were trying to make some money by selling mini left sharks, but were told to stop due to copyright infringement. It has become increasingly difficult to maintain what you can and can’t do, due to how easily everything is accessible.
I think it is funny that there are legal arguments about such a stupid thing that some people thought was funny on the Internet. Just because that one dancer was not in sync with the rest of the choreography, an entire character was created. I do not think that Katy Perry should have the rights to the costume or the name because she did not design it herself and she also did not come up with the name. Left Shark is such a simple name that describes a shark on the left side of something, which would make it very difficult to copyright because many people will say it referring to other things but will also use it in the context of the Super Bowl performance. It has become a silly nickname or joke to people about their coordination. I think this fight for a trademark on the “Left Shark” is ridiculous and Katy Perry should not gain the rights over it.
Within hours of the Super Bowl Halftime Show airing, I saw uncountable numbers of tributes, gifs and fun laughing about the Left Shark, which lasted for weeks. Soon I began to see costumes and stories about the Left Shark. It just got completely blown out of proportion. And now to see that Katie Perry’s company wants to force trademark claims on this shark is kind of really ridiculous. Sure, it becomes an internet phenomenon, but there hasn’t really been much about it for months. That, and how the shark was originally just a backup dancer- it was nothing important until the dancer forgot the choreography. Trademarking has a lot to do with protecting the rights of the original artist, but is Katie perry really the original artist in the Internet Phenomenon? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the backup dancer to want to claim the rights since her was the one who messed up in a way to make the show famous? Now, this could lead to a lot of interesting, and bad shows if the dancer did claim the trademark, it could possibly lead to other backup dancers purposefully messing up in a show in hopes of being able to trademark their performance.
5 comments:
Trademarking is a tricky subject. On one hand, you want to protect the work of the individuals that created it. Every day, one factor or another compromises the integrity of artists, whether it is record labels, big corporations, or just inter-band squabbles. However, in the case of 'Left Shark,' it shouldn't be a case. It all comes down to the creation of the product. Katy Perry and Co. did not plan on their fish friend having absolutely no coordination. If anything, it was a lapse of judgment on their part. The creation of the folly known specifically as "Left Shark' came from spectators of the Super Bowl who immediately took to the Internet, which is probably why the patent was rejected. Going further, is it even possible to trademark a costume? Sure, if the costume was attributed to a character, but at this point in time, I think Katy Perry's team is sharking up a non-existent tree for a couple bucks they probably don't need.
I agree a lot with Katie Pyne’s opinion on what Katy Perry’s lawyers are doing. This to me sounds like it can boil down to someone somewhere trying to ensure they profit off an accident that made people laugh and enjoy life a bit more. Or maybe it’s Katy Perry trying to mend her bruised ego about how absolutely ridiculous that portion of the half time show was. Either way, it wasn’t something they planned on, and whatever attempt to profit on it now is a complete knee jerk reaction. Maybe if she tried to create more left stark stuff, maybe a song called left shark about the event, or a line of clothing, or maybe toys, then she’d have the right to trademark left shark. However, it remains clear that she would much rather let the fun loving people of the internet do that for her, so she can profit at their expense.
Katy Perry wanting to trademark a bad performance isn’t something you normally here about. Especially when it comes not on her performance, but one of the extras that were performing with her. The left shark as he has come to be known due to his inability to remember the choreography became something of an internet sensation. People think that you can put your mark on anything and claim it as your own. Trying to trademark the use of ‘left shark’ and various other phrases is just penny grabbing. They didn’t come up with it, the people of the internet came up with it. To the people it belongs. I do remember hearing about other people who were trying to make some money by selling mini left sharks, but were told to stop due to copyright infringement. It has become increasingly difficult to maintain what you can and can’t do, due to how easily everything is accessible.
I think it is funny that there are legal arguments about such a stupid thing that some people thought was funny on the Internet. Just because that one dancer was not in sync with the rest of the choreography, an entire character was created. I do not think that Katy Perry should have the rights to the costume or the name because she did not design it herself and she also did not come up with the name. Left Shark is such a simple name that describes a shark on the left side of something, which would make it very difficult to copyright because many people will say it referring to other things but will also use it in the context of the Super Bowl performance. It has become a silly nickname or joke to people about their coordination. I think this fight for a trademark on the “Left Shark” is ridiculous and Katy Perry should not gain the rights over it.
Within hours of the Super Bowl Halftime Show airing, I saw uncountable numbers of tributes, gifs and fun laughing about the Left Shark, which lasted for weeks. Soon I began to see costumes and stories about the Left Shark. It just got completely blown out of proportion. And now to see that Katie Perry’s company wants to force trademark claims on this shark is kind of really ridiculous. Sure, it becomes an internet phenomenon, but there hasn’t really been much about it for months. That, and how the shark was originally just a backup dancer- it was nothing important until the dancer forgot the choreography. Trademarking has a lot to do with protecting the rights of the original artist, but is Katie perry really the original artist in the Internet Phenomenon? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the backup dancer to want to claim the rights since her was the one who messed up in a way to make the show famous? Now, this could lead to a lot of interesting, and bad shows if the dancer did claim the trademark, it could possibly lead to other backup dancers purposefully messing up in a show in hopes of being able to trademark their performance.
Post a Comment