Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Rebecca Tushnet
False advertising and more
Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet
Email subscription
ABA Blawg 100
Posts
Subscribe via RSS or LinkedIn
"Bright young [wo]man"/"Yo, who the F is this?"
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(312)
-
▼
October
(16)
- Politics and the right of publicity
- Welch's claim against insurers squelched
- Somebody should start the Pom litigation blog
- Ale House still generic; other claims no help either
- Fruity Oaty Bars and false advertising
- Fraudsters' liability upheld
- Format wars: EcoDisc v. standard DVD
- Broken monitor, broken promise
- Bad horse
- Organization for Transformative Works fundraising ...
- Review: Clay Shirky, Cognitive Surplus
- Bondsman. James Bondsman.
- Latest political ad with copyright implications
- New article on user-generated ads, 230, and the En...
- Variances in attribution norms
- Judge to energy drink sellers: out of my courtroom...
-
▼
October
(16)
Labels
- 1201 (19)
- 1202 (2)
- 230 (96)
- acpa (16)
- advertising (283)
- antitrust (49)
- arbitration (3)
- art law (36)
- attribution (28)
- b (1)
- blogging (23)
- california (536)
- can-spam (1)
- cfaa (12)
- cfps (48)
- class actions (277)
- cmi (19)
- comics (37)
- commercial speech (269)
- conferences (917)
- consumer protection (946)
- content moderation (3)
- contracts (100)
- copying (195)
- copyright (1653)
- counterfeiting (1)
- creative commons (12)
- cultural property (10)
- cybersquatting (1)
- damages (159)
- dastar (196)
- defamation (202)
- derivative works (2)
- design patent (57)
- dilution (257)
- disclosures (95)
- disparagement (29)
- dmca (202)
- drm (72)
- evidence (1)
- false advertising (3075)
- false association (12)
- false designation of origin (6)
- false endorsement (13)
- fan fiction (87)
- fanworks (190)
- fda (273)
- fees (35)
- first amendment (442)
- ftc (184)
- g (1)
- geographic indications (43)
- go (1)
- google (89)
- insurance (72)
- interviews (5)
- jobs (2)
- jurisdiction (5)
- libraries (18)
- misappropriation (10)
- moral rights (18)
- music (136)
- my lawsuits (16)
- my writings (113)
- net neutrality (5)
- parody (27)
- patent (224)
- patents (136)
- peer production (27)
- preclusion (1)
- preemption (268)
- presentations (118)
- privacy (113)
- procedure (145)
- property (18)
- reading list (307)
- remedies (275)
- right of publicity (263)
- secondary liability (178)
- securities (8)
- standing (354)
- surveys (106)
- teaching (38)
- tortious interference (114)
- trade secrets (81)
- trademark (2040)
- traditional knowledge (11)
- unconscionability (5)
- unfairness (62)
- warranties (14)
Things I've read
Creative Commons/disclaimer
Text on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Pictures and works quoted may be subject to other parties' copyrights.
I speak for myself. On this blog, I do not and cannot speak for Harvard Law School, the Organization for Transformative Works and/or AO3.
8 comments:
I don't see there being any question about fair use, but I'm sure the Ohio Democratic party would welcome the attention a copyright lawsuit over this ad would bring.
It's been pulled due to a "copyright claim." So maybe more entertainment is on the way?
The claim was from Arginate Studios LLC. I can't find out much about it but the CEO's LinkedIn page is here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jrobeano
I'm guessing it's the production company that made the Kasich ad. The copyright owners of the other film clips have slightly more of a case, but there's no way it's not fair use to excerpt the original ad in order to respond to it.
EFF made a post about this. Looks like there might be fireworks.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/10/copyright-abuse-ohio-governor-election
OK, I was wrong. Arginate is the producer of a film that was entered in an Ohio film contest in which the actor appeared. The film in question was available on Vimeo but seems to have been removed. Check out the comments here: http://vimeo.com/15634804. The Ohio filmmaker community appears to have some Shasta-County-rancher-like beliefs about the content of the law. You hit the film, you own it, so to speak. If only the rules were that simple...
Hmmm, a world where politicians can no longer use actors in ads because of the danger a past role may be used to undermine the current campaign...the actor may, and probably should, sue, but I like the practical implications.
Bruce said:
"I'm guessing it's the production company that made the Kasich ad. The copyright owners of the other film clips have slightly more of a case, but there's no way it's not fair use to excerpt the original ad in order to respond to it."
We, the filmmakers of Columbus agree with the fair use of the campaign to use the original ad in its attack. However, we condemn the use of private, copyrighted film footage that our friends created with no political intentions. Our friends have the exclusive right of performance and distribution and its appearance on the internet is an expression of that right. The Ohio Democratic Party has no exercisable right to the footage, and the filmmakers demand that it be removed from any of their posts and that the filmmaking community receive a public apology.
Roaming is back up:
http://www.vimeo.com/15547886
You may also find this article interesting:
http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2010/10/14/democrats-republicans-use-actor-to-inadvertently-dramatize-the-wrong-point
Arginate is a small studio, a group of friends really.
The clips from Roaming used by the ODP show two actresses who wanted nothing to do with political advertisements. Arginate wanted to protect them from being a part of a political advertisement. Unfortunately, they are too small and maybe "fair use" is too big.
Post a Comment