Comments on: No copyright in the fact of your existence http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=no-copyright-in-the-fact-of-your-existence Blog on trademark, copyright, Internet law and free speech Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:56:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Laura Lee http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815&cpage=1#comment-291149 Laura Lee Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:30:02 +0000 http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815#comment-291149 They probably also chose lighting that looked good, clothing that looked good, tables, chairs, carpeting... To pay a licensing fee to every object that a camera passes would make it impossible to make films. Life has stuff in it. They probably also chose lighting that looked good, clothing that looked good, tables, chairs, carpeting… To pay a licensing fee to every object that a camera passes would make it impossible to make films. Life has stuff in it.

]]> By: Brent Britton http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815&cpage=1#comment-289217 Brent Britton Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:24:51 +0000 http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815#comment-289217 Still... a product placement opportunity lost. Still… a product placement opportunity lost.

]]> By: Blawg Review # 193 « Charon QC…the blawg http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815&cpage=1#comment-289101 Blawg Review # 193 « Charon QC…the blawg Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:38:31 +0000 http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815#comment-289101 [...] and beliefs.  I am no mere trifle, but thankfully, as US attorney Ron Coleman, author of the Likelihood of Confusion blog, will attest…  there may be “No copyright in the fact of your [...] [...] and beliefs.  I am no mere trifle, but thankfully, as US attorney Ron Coleman, author of the Likelihood of Confusion blog, will attest…  there may be “No copyright in the fact of your [...]

]]> By: Ron Coleman http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815&cpage=1#comment-288667 Ron Coleman Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:00:33 +0000 http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815#comment-288667 Because what you described is neither copyright <strong>infringement</strong> or trademark <strong>infringement</strong>. Because what you described is neither copyright infringement or trademark infringement.

]]> By: James Lindon http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815&cpage=1#comment-288533 James Lindon Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:41:25 +0000 http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815#comment-288533 What I wonder is why the movie set included the pinball machine. It may be just "background" but they probably picked a machine they thought looked good. Why should they not pay the pinball machine creators? What I wonder is why the movie set included the pinball machine. It may be just “background” but they probably picked a machine they thought looked good. Why should they not pay the pinball machine creators?

]]> By: MarcW http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815&cpage=1#comment-288437 MarcW Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:38:54 +0000 http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815#comment-288437 Does this mean people are going to stop sending me generic release forms every time my company's classic video game appears on screen for sixteen frames in a movie somewhere? Frankly, I won't miss 'em. It stopped being cool after about the sixth one. Does this mean people are going to stop sending me generic release forms every time my company’s classic video game appears on screen for sixteen frames in a movie somewhere?

Frankly, I won’t miss ‘em. It stopped being cool after about the sixth one.

]]> By: CopyrightLaw http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815&cpage=1#comment-388472 CopyrightLaw Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:54:46 +0000 http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815#comment-388472 <span class="topsy_trackback_comment"><span class="topsy_twitter_username"><span class="topsy_trackback_content">“No copyright in the fact of your existence” http://tinyurl.com/9l7jpv</span></span> “No copyright in the fact of your existence” http://tinyurl.com/9l7jpv

]]> By: David Nieporent http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815&cpage=1#comment-288068 David Nieporent Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:41:24 +0000 http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1815#comment-288068 Wait, you address the copyright claim. But what about the <i>trademark</i> claim? The copyright claim is "merely" trivial, but it seems to me that the trademark claim is utterly frivolous, and also could have, and should have, resulted in a fee award to the defendants. I know that the Lanham Act is interpreted to provide for fee awards only in "exceptional" cases, but this case presents a pretty egregious abuse of trademark litigation. Wait, you address the copyright claim. But what about the trademark claim? The copyright claim is “merely” trivial, but it seems to me that the trademark claim is utterly frivolous, and also could have, and should have, resulted in a fee award to the defendants. I know that the Lanham Act is interpreted to provide for fee awards only in “exceptional” cases, but this case presents a pretty egregious abuse of trademark litigation.

]]>