- Status
The names on their own were never the main issue... It was the association that was made, mainly through the use of images, which were then strengthened by the use of the name that was commonly associated with them. Can anyone argue that the use of the names and images were not meant to evoke an association to the film and story? The use of the name Gandalf, a nonspecific name on its own and not copyrighted, with a random picture wouldn't have been as big a deal, but still could have been deemed questionable. The key to the whole thing is willful intent to make the association with copyrighted material, regardless of potential for profit. I could get a cease and desist letter for my current avatar, and I would immediately remove it. The likelihood of it happening is probably pretty slim, since I am not using it for profit, but it could still happen.
Last edited:
There's a movie called Legend too (starring a very young Tom Cruise), but you can't copyright common words just because you use them in a movie title.
juice fanatic" data-source="post: 8270270" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">Todd the E juice fanatic said:Kate Beckinsale is my dream girl...
Yeah she's damn hot, I mean, have you SEEN her as a vampire in those other movies? Whatever they are called. Smokin'.
The author is dead. WB purchased the rights to this when they started making movies. JRR Tolkien (the author) has no feelings on the use of the name, images, etc. I conceded that the poster could be notified by WB, and even given a cease and desist letter. That does not change the fact that WB would not pursue the matter if an individual poster did this. Here is why.
Of course they would have legal right to try to stop you. But to what end? They could pursue a hundred of these, and if the people receiving cease and desist letters change the avatars, and there is no consideration gained by the poster, what will WB pursue it for? It would cause them great expense for minimal (if any) gain. The fact that there is no monetary damage makes the pursuit of the case against a poster on ECF a loser for WB. In my book, that is as relevant as it gets. I would say, therefore, that it applies to this situation.
There is no legal precedent to hold HHV liable for an unassociated third parties actions. There is no case law I am aware of to back your assertion to the contrary. Sure, a judge could create this precedent if he felt like it, but that is extremely unlikely, since there is a high likelihood of it being overturned on appeal. Corporations generally do not make a case of extremely unlikely payoffs with low end pay outs.
The cease and desist to HHV had teeth because there were merits to the arguments that HHV enjoyed value added to their product through the use of this name. Therefore, there was consideration. It became a worthwhile matter to pursue for WB. Wisely, HHV immediately and publicly complied with the cease and desist letter. Without a violation of the cease and desist letter after it's receipt (I have no idea of the specific language of it) it will be difficult for WB to pursue this matter successfully.
I stand on the merits of what I stated, despite your interesting response that it is a "wall of WRONG". I am also open to changing part of that opinion if someone can cite case law holding a vendor responsible for the copyright infringements of an unassociated third party.
Nothing personal here, I just disagree with your positions, PanSiren. Have a great evening at work!
Nothing personal here, I just disagree with your positions, PanSiren. Have a great evening at work!
Underworld.....uh huh...Smokin hot ...!!...let's start our own e juice vendor
I think she is even hotter in the new "Total Recall", believe it or not.
Haven't seen it but I don't doubt it, she seems to just get hotter and hotter.
I can verity this as being true. I have a case held up in court for a doodie I passed several months back.
Sent from my LGL55C using Tapatalk 2
- Status
Similar threads
