The fate of any one pizza company is of so little importance to me that it is impossible to express just how little I care whether they make good pizzas or not.

The fate of any one family is of so little importance to me that it is impossible to express just how little I care whether or not they have a restaurant.

Or something.

Shawn, the "Freedom of Expression" thing was on On The Media this week. It's not online yet, but here's the blurb:

Illegal Art

AT&T used the phrase “Freedom of Expression” as a slogan in a print ad campaign and in doing so gave Kembrew McLeod an opportunity he couldn’t pass up. Asserting that readers might link the AT&T campaign to his long running anti-corporate publication called “Freedom of Expression”, McCloud sent a “cease and desist” letter to AT&T. He has the phrase trademarked, and his trademark certificate is part of an art exhibit called, “Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age”. Kembrew McLeod joins Brooke to discuss the art exhibit that may prove that artists can still make good use of fair use.

The fate of any one pizza company is of so little importance to me that it is impossible to express just how little I care whether they make good pizzas or not.

But the fate of an oil company touches your heart?

The only valid purpose of legal protection of a trademark is to prevent confusion.

This may be your political preference, but it is not a correct representation of trademark law in this country, at least.

Any reasonable accomdation that can be allowed to let somebody else use the trademark they want, but still clearly avoid confusion should be made. And both trademark and copyright should be viewed as legal protections - not property rights.

Property rights ARE legal protections. That's all they are. They are a right to a certain legal protection.

But the fate of an oil company touches your heart?

Not the oil company, the use of the flag. The story doesn't so much touch my heart as piss me off imensely.

OK, I was premature. I thought the suit had been upheld. Apparently it is a not too gross exagerration of other cases. The suit is still pending.

[link]

Zoe, suppose you wrote a book and became and beloved famous author. You wouldn't want some person who didn't care about writing to put your name on a book to take advantage of your work and your ideas would you? That's what copyright and trademrk laws are for. To protect the creators--the people who do the actual work--whether that work is writing a book or making pizza. I think creators and innovators deserve to be protected and their work respected. Of course corporations will take advantage of the laws, but they protect individuals as well.

OK, from the little I have been able to glean, it seems he has registered "freedom of expression": likely as a trademark in a certain area, like publishing a magazine. Just the way that parents has been trademarked for Parents magazine, but parents is not a trademark. It would not be upheld as protectable as against AT&T: it's not even a strong mark, and it never will be.

eta: I have not found proof of his registration, however; he merely claims it and NYT has reported it as such. I still find it less than credible that that phrase is markable, but there have been lots of registered marks that did not pass a court challenge.

I'm all for getting stinking rich but I'm trying to remember the real rules too. Not crushing the little people is one and not making enemies of entire nation states by dissing their flag is probably another one.

Zoe, suppose you wrote a book and became and beloved famous author. You wouldn't want some person who didn't care about writing to put your name on a book to take anbdvatage of your work and your ideas would you?

No.