[HN Gopher] Sorry, Gas Companies - Parody Isn't Infringement (Ev...
___________________________________________________________________
Sorry, Gas Companies - Parody Isn't Infringement (Even If It Creeps
You Out)
Author : hn_acker
Score : 198 points
Date : 2024-10-31 12:37 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Weird for Netlify to mistake trademark law for copyright law.
| amiga386 wrote:
| Weird for Netlify to be cowed by someone with deep pockets and,
| in the absence of a volte-face from those deep pockets, making
| the bullied party go through unnecessary steps, just in case
| the deep pockets became angrier and threatened Netlify some
| more.
|
| Ultimately the bullied party upped-and-left Netlify, after
| which Netlify wiped its brow and said "phew! that was a close
| one! i nearly got caught up in a dispute!"
|
| Netlify sound like cowards. I don't think they'd have my back
| if anyone objected to a website I hosted with them. I shouldn't
| purchase their services. Also, I should look at the track
| record of anyone else I'm thinking of using for hosting; do
| they have a good reputation for defending their clients' rights
| and telling barratrous lawyers to GTFO?
| tdeck wrote:
| This website is a gem.
|
| From the FAQ: Where does my money go?
|
| Your purchase is supporting Life-Positive projects that increase
| life among HLV individuals across the United States. These
| projects include massage, sauna, and vital fluid transfer.
| kreyenborgi wrote:
| https://repaer.earth/programs/ omg the balloon there at the
| bottom hahaha :(((
| bdowling wrote:
| Why do they have to use actual companies' exact names and logos
| to make their parody, which someone could confuse for a real
| product? Can't they use slight variations (e.g., McDowels to
| parody McDonalds)? Wouldn't everyone still know who they were
| referring to?
|
| Edit: Yes, this is satire, not parody, and satire needs to
| clearly identify its target to work properly. Here, however, the
| target of the satire appears to be carbon offset sellers, as a
| farcical "life offset" seller. The companies in question are
| linked as mere "supporters" of the satirical service; they don't
| appear to be the direct target of the satire.
| naught0 wrote:
| They shouldn't have to. Is silencing criticism with the threat
| of a frivolous lawsuit preferable to you?
|
| They feature human babies in test tubes on this page:
| https://repaer.earth/about
|
| To me, it's obvious parody
| bastawhiz wrote:
| People use parody names because they're afraid of getting sued,
| not because they have to. If the purpose of your website is
| activism, why water it down?
| bluGill wrote:
| Because trademark law is complex and you can be sued for
| using real trademarks if anyone could think this was real and
| not a parody. Generally using obvious parody names gets the
| point across better anyway.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| It's actually not that complex. They're not misrepresenting
| themselves as the brands. They're not in the same industry
| as the brands. The standard is not "if anyone could think
| this was real".
| serf wrote:
| there are behaviors that are avoided not simply because
| they're allowed or disallowed, but because they'll likely
| generate trouble regardless of the outcome.
|
| poking at a corporation for the sake of legal
| infringement is still likely to require a lawyer in place
| to defend against the non-sense, even if it won't hold in
| court. There is a lot of stuff like this -- you generally
| don't poke sleeping bears even if you're sure they won't
| awaken.
| tdhoot wrote:
| I wouldn't be so sure. Jack Daniels sued (and won)
| against a maker of dog toys that looked like Jack Daniels
| but were named "Bad Spaniels". Turns out trademark law
| actually is complex.
|
| https://www.today.com/food/news/jack-daniels-dog-toy-
| supreme...
| amiga386 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel%27s_Properties,
| _In...
|
| Jack Daniels won because the maker of the dog toys were
| selling them, and wanted a trademark themselves.
|
| Here we're talking about activists making non-commercial
| parody usage; the EFF's letter already mentions the
| Lanham Act, and let us add to that the Trademark Dilution
| Revision Act of 2006 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade
| mark_Dilution_Revision_Ac...) which adds an express fair-
| use defense for noncommercial use.
| myrmidon wrote:
| Because it would ruin the whole _point_.
|
| Satire aims to evoke an emotional response, to point out moral
| failures and inconsistencies as crassly as possible.
|
| Social criticism that first and foremost avoids offending
| anyone is a waste of paper in my opinion always.
| echelon wrote:
| It's still trademark infringement and both the activists and
| the middlemen (Netlify, in this case) can be sued.
|
| This "satire" all comes across as "I'm 14 and this is deep."
| We get the joke. Just use a fictitious logo.
| myrmidon wrote:
| No it's not. There are trademark exemptions for
| satire/parody, and have been for a long time.
|
| Sure the companies could have sued, but chances would have
| been about exactly 0% for those companies to win the case
| against the EFF on the back of their trademarks, and they
| knew that very well (my opinion), that case would've
| probably just been dismissed immediately.
| sitkack wrote:
| Please give up in private and not spread your apathy across
| the internet.
| echelon wrote:
| Just because you believe in the cause of _these_
| activists, doesn 't mean this isn't a two-way street.
|
| Watering down trademarks opens the can of worms for all
| forms of trademark abuse by all kinds of parties:
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/proud-boys-trump-march-
| dc-co...
| int_19h wrote:
| This isn't an example of parody or satire.
| skeaker wrote:
| You not finding it amusing doesn't mean it should be
| illegal.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| A suggestion for California would be to update it's SLAPP law
| to include fraudulent DCMA take down actions. Best would be
| make both the carrier and the entity filing the DCMA
| complaint equally liable.
| sowbug wrote:
| Imagine _The Onion_ but using only fake company names in its
| articles.
|
| See also "satire is dead" meme.
| xbar wrote:
| Limiting parody by preventing trademarks is a terrible way to
| limit free speech. It is a slippery slope.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Would the film _Idiocracy_ have been as funny if instead of
| making fun of Costco, Starbucks, and Carls Jr., they referred
| to them as Costinc, Sunbucks, and Carlos Sr.?
|
| Parody doesn't necessarily require that you make significant
| alterations to a symbol or name. Only imbeciles would think
| that the fictional "Fuck you - I'm eating" slogan actually
| represents the Carls Jr. company in real life.
| hshshshshsh wrote:
| > Why do they have to use actual companies' exact names and
| logos to make their parody, which someone could confuse for a
| real product?
|
| So what?
| shrubble wrote:
| They neglected to use the phrase "precious bodily fluids" in
| their Plasma Pals explanation, which is mildly disappointing.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _Frustratingly, Netlify made us go through the full DMCA
| counternotice process--including a 10-business-day waiting period
| to have the site restored--even though this was never a DMCA
| claim._
|
| DMCA is a scourge.
|
| I think the whole thing is dumb, but at the very least there
| should be some form of punishment for bogus DMCA claims, and
| purposefully labyrinthine DMCA processes.
|
| Edit: Just to be _abundantly_ clear. My comment is a _general_
| comment on the DMCA, because the DMCA is mentioned quite a bit in
| the article, and the EFF was forced (erroneously) to follow the
| DMCA counter-notice process.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| This isn't DMCA, it's just Netlify having a silly process.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _Netlify made us go through the full DMCA counternotice
| process_
| tczMUFlmoNk wrote:
| _> --even though this was never a DMCA claim. (The DMCA is
| copyright law, not trademark, and TotalEnergies didn't even
| meet the notice requirements that Netlify claims to
| follow.)_
| ziddoap wrote:
| With so many mentions of DMCA in the article, and the
| fact that the EFF had to go through a labyrinthine DMCA
| counter-notice process, you'd think I'd be allowed to
| comment about the DMCA...
|
| Apparently not. Sorry.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| > you'd think I'd be allowed to comment about the DMCA
|
| You are, you're just wrong
| ziddoap wrote:
| Okay, thanks for your valuable insight. Your comments
| have really contributed to the conversation.
| xnorswap wrote:
| Pedants will rage but you're spot on. The DMCA is a
| terrible law that has ended up causing lots of knock on
| bad effects, because there isn't enough incentive to
| prevent bad actors abusing it, and not enough incentive
| for companies not to do what Netlify did in this case.
|
| The DMCA law did not _compel_ netlify to act this way,
| but the effects of DMCA did _cause_ netlify to act that
| way.
| IanCal wrote:
| If I make you go through the DMCA counternotice process for
| buying apples from me, that's not a problem with DMCA, it's
| me having an absurd process around purchasing apples. I
| don't see how people weirdly requiring this process shows
| an issue with DMCA.
| stackghost wrote:
| Good grief. Is it not obvious that the DMCA's very
| existence has created a shield that enables such
| shenanigans?
| piltdownman wrote:
| Only in the same totemistic, cargo-cult quality that GDPR
| has for basic data operations tangential to PII.
|
| In short, without explicit punitive penalties enshrined
| in the legislation itself, you will never be able to stop
| Corporations wielding consumer-facing legislation in an
| asymmetric and bad faith manner. This is as true of GDPR
| and AML/KYC legislation as it is of DMCA and similar
| abuses of copyright and IP laws by lobbyists.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It seems to me that these processes are generally
| following the intent of the DMCA process, which is very
| different from spiteful responses to GDPR.
|
| I think a closer analogy to GDPR would be companies
| turning off tracking for a bunch of people outside the
| EU, and I would lay most of the blame/praise for that at
| the feet of GDPR.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| It is a problem with the DMCA because the DMCA makes
| companies do this to CYA because your apple purchase
| might be circumventing copyright and it's easier just to
| assume it applies to everything than to narrow it to
| actual copyright violations. It is a very bad law, it
| should never have been written, and it, not Obamacare,
| should be repealed.
| lesuorac wrote:
| You can call a spade an apple but it doesn't make it an
| apple.
|
| In order to have a DMCA counter notice there needs to be a
| DMCA notice. Their complaint is that there never was a DMCA
| notice so its not responsible to apply a counter notice
| policy as you are not countering a notice.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| It could just as easily say "the full Turboencabultor
| Counternotice process" but that doesn't mean it has
| anything to do with anything.
| xbar wrote:
| Netlify will not spend money to figure out a more lightweight
| process in order to stay further from the edges of DMCA. DMCA
| is too scary to play with, so just they transfer the cost and
| risk by making the affected party file the form.
| bluGill wrote:
| The difference is if this isn't DMCA then Netlify is liable
| to the EFF for breach of contract.
| anamexis wrote:
| What contract does Netlify have with the EFF?
| piltdownman wrote:
| There's no contract to be in breach of.
|
| What's likely to happen is SLAPP-esque legislation to
| stop platforms utilising its user base as its product,
| whilst simultaneously disenfranchising them from the
| moderation layer.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I think one of the worst repercussions of the DMCA (there are
| so many), is how it seems to have perversely motivated tech
| companies to implement their own _even worse_ bespoke
| processes for handling complaints--processes that are not
| actually DMCA. Like, DMCA is awful, but the process YouTube
| and others put you through is even worse, less transparent,
| and tend to put more, rather than less burden on the target
| /victim.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| The processes are deliberately complex so that most people
| will just give up. Then YouTube doesn't even have to
| consider the claim.
| toast0 wrote:
| > I think the whole thing is dumb, but at the very least there
| should be some form of punishment for bogus DMCA claims, and
| purposefully labyrinthine DMCA processes.
|
| This isn't a copyright claim, so DMCA doesn't apply, but the
| DMCA rewards labyrinthine DMCA processes by granting the
| provider immunity. Following notice / counter-notice timelines
| in the law means the host is not liable to either of the other
| parties for the takedown or the restoration.
|
| Might be nice if there was a faster process to restoration if
| the customer vows to indemnify the host though.
| wbl wrote:
| No, it doesn't because trademark isn't copyright.
| bluGill wrote:
| Is this really DMCA? Most take downs are not actually DMCA,
| they are different process that looks a lot like the DMCA. This
| is an important question because if this isn't actually a DMCA
| request but something similar than the EFF can go after the
| host for breach of contract by not serving their legal content
| (or the EFF signed a bad contract that allows the host to take
| down their content arbitrarily - though even then the courts
| may say this content should not have been covered). If this
| actually is the DMCA, then the notice is made under penalty of
| perjury and the EFF should press charges against whoever sent
| the notice - doing their best to get an example made of this
| person (probably a lawyer who should be removed from the bar
| for their actions once it is shown they committed perjury as
| part of their legal duties and thus are not ethical)
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > I think the whole thing is dumb
|
| It's not, it's very smart. You probably are misidentifying the
| goal of the people that created it.
| ziddoap wrote:
| I don't care about the goal, I care about how it is actually
| used in practice.
| ccvannorman wrote:
| "goal" in this case meaning not "good for the economy, most
| businesses, and everyday people" - I think the implicit
| goal being "give asymmetrical power to larger and more
| entrenched organizations, at the detriment of literally
| everyone else, to help maintain and consolidate power."
| I've gotta admit DMCA has been extremely beneficial as a
| regulatory capture method.
| stackghost wrote:
| The way it's currently used in practice is exactly how it
| was intended.
| pwg wrote:
| > but at the very least there should be some form of punishment
| for bogus DMCA claims
|
| As numerous other comments accurately point out, this was never
| a DMCA claim.
|
| However, for actual bogus DMCA claims, there is a "form of
| punishment" written into the law. The sender of an actual DMCA
| claim has to swear under penalty of perjury that they are the
| proper rights holder and that the claim they are making is
| truthful and accurate.
|
| The punishment would then be the recipient suing the sender for
| perjuring themselves in the sending of the bogus complaint. The
| problem is that is a very hard case to prove, and requires the
| expense of a lawsuit, so it is seldom ever taken by those who
| receive bogus complaints.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > However, for actual bogus DMCA claims, there is a "form of
| punishment" written into the law. The sender of an actual
| DMCA claim has to swear under penalty of perjury that they
| are the proper rights holder and that the claim they are
| making is truthful and accurate.
|
| Perjury only applies to the "proper rights holder" part.
|
| Being very reckless about sending out claims has no
| punishment.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I think this parody website is great, and I'm glad EFF went to
| bat for them, but (and I hope this doesn't sound semi-
| conspiratorial) I think this may have been the website creator's
| goal all along. If it was, congrats, I think you played the
| energy companies well.
|
| That is, my thought is that the website deliberately used real
| company logos and links (it would have been easy to use fake,
| similar-parody names) because they knew they'd be likely to
| receive C&Ds from these companies whose knee jerk response would
| be to demand their logos be removed. Then bam, the companies seem
| clearly in the wrong legally, the EFF goes to bat for them and
| also writes a long blog post like this, and instant Streisand
| Effect. I mean, I would have never heard about this website if it
| weren't posted here. FWIW I think this was a good strategy on the
| part of the website creators, so kudos.
| bdowling wrote:
| Streisand effect bait?
| nneonneo wrote:
| The parody website in question: https://repaer.earth/
|
| It uses real logos from three gas companies, two of which tried
| (unsuccessfully) to have their logos removed.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| There's been a lot of talk about free speech on social media. A
| lot of it is bad faith political talk, but still, there is a lot
| of scrutiny of free speech on social media. Rightfully so, it's
| important for people to be able to speak in the modern "town
| square", but it's also important for people to run their own
| websites how they please.
|
| We're targeting the wrong layer with our concerns about free
| speech. We should regulate hosting providers and enforce free
| speech on hosting providers, not on social media websites. People
| should have a right to host their content somewhere, but not the
| right to violate Twitter's ToS.
|
| Unfortunately, relatively nobody cares about hosting. If Twitter
| bans a journalist people get upset, if Netlify caves to a slight
| bit of pressure takes a journalist's website down, nobody cares.
| amiga386 wrote:
| People should care: https://protectthestack.org/
| RunSet wrote:
| That parody website responds like it is mining crypto in the
| background.
|
| Not going viral when I can't share it in good conscience.
| pipes wrote:
| I don't get this. If it was a person they were claiming was
| associated with their fictious programme surely that person could
| sue for defamation?
| glitcher wrote:
| From my understanding parody is not defamation.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Right, plenty of the artists parodied by Weird Al are
| individuals. Any permission sought (or denials respected) are
| purely for goodwill, not legally required.
|
| That said, Weird Al hasn't actually distributed unmodified
| trademarks of other entities, to my knowledge. Even if that
| would generally be problematic, the context of a "featured
| partners" list as in TFA probably falls below a threshold of
| likelihood of confusion which arises in other unauthorized
| uses of trademarks.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| No, wrong. The approval of that target of the parody
| (Amish, McDonalds, CIA etc) are not legally required.
|
| Case law suggests that he is required to (and he does),
| license artist's music.
|
| He's not parodying Miley Cyrus in 'Party in the CIA'. He's
| parodying the CIA. Because the lyrics and track aren't the
| subject, licensing of the track is required.
|
| Similarly, If Repaer used a licensed font on the site,
| they'd have to license it.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Right. Protected uses are protected because they were
| _necessary_. The Weird Al track that comes to mind which
| could be protected (but does not need the protection
| because Al always secures permission for these works) is
| "Smells Like Nirvana" because that specifically needs to
| use Nirvana's track "Smells Like Teen Spirit" because
| it's a (well meant, like a comedy roast) critique of
| Nirvana and their song. "It's hard to bargle nawdle zouss
| / With all these marbles in my mouth" is _about_ Nirvana
| and about Smells Like Teen Spirit.
|
| If you replace Smells Like Teen Spirit with Cliff
| Richards' "Saviours Day" it does not work, Cliff is not
| going to confuse and annoy your parents, his utterances
| aren't incomprehensible, and so on. The choice of song is
| necessary, which would justify protection.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| > He's parodying the CIA.
|
| I'm not sure about that. The definition of parody hinges
| on imitating an author or work (sometimes a whole genre),
| rather than on satirizing/critiquing subject matter
| unrelated to the author/work being imitated. He could
| write a song satirizing/critiquing the CIA and if it
| happens to imitate a song/style of Miley, then it's a
| parody of the latter, not of the former. Or a parody of
| nothing at all, in the strictest definition, since he's
| not satirizing/critiquing that which he's imitating.
|
| When it comes to music copyright, certain aspects are
| copyrightable (therefore requiring license to use) and
| other aspects are not. Words and melody are (so Weird Al
| would need to license Miley's melody if he doesn't modify
| it sufficiently), but rhythm/chords/timbre/style/etc. are
| not (so Weird Al wouldn't need to license anything if he
| is merely copying those things from Miley). I think Al
| makes some songs with a copied melody requiring
| licensing, and some songs without that in which case no
| permission of any kind is legally necessary.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| Common misconception. As Philip points out, Al is only
| covered if he's making fun of the original song. "Smells
| like Nirvana" is a good example of a parody that didn't
| need approval (but Weird Al did anyway cuz he's a nice guy)
| hunter2_ wrote:
| > Al is only covered if he's making fun of the original
| song
|
| My only nitpick is to remove the word "only" because
| there is at least one other possibility where he's
| "covered" in the sense of not legally needing permission:
| whenever his work falls short of copying the words and/or
| melody of the original song. If he modifies the melody
| enough (there's no specific threshold, but let's say he
| avoids a run of 4+ notes with intervals identical to the
| original work) and also doesn't copy lyrics or any other
| copyrightable aspects, then he's covered. It's very
| possible to achieve a song that makes your audience know
| exactly what you're going for, without copying any of the
| copyrightable aspects: you can take the chords, rhythms,
| instrumentation, accent, etc.
|
| In the case of Smells Like Nirvana, he takes the
| copyrighted melody, which would require permission but
| for the exception you pointed out.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| 'SPAM' and 'All About the Pentiums' hinge on trademark
| usage that isn't part of the song being parodied.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| If he is not including a SPAM logo or a Pentium logo on
| his products, then it's not trademark usage. These names
| are not themselves marks when spoken/written/etc. even if
| marks exist that contain these names.
|
| If he _is_ printing such marks on his products, then it
| comes down to the "likelihood of confusion" test: will a
| consumer be misled to believe that the SKU Al is selling
| contains the official meat or silicon? That would be
| trademark infringement. In TFA, the natural gas
| trademarks are merely listed as "featured partners" so
| there's not much likelihood of confusion where a consumer
| would be misled into thinking that they'll get genuine
| natural gas from this unauthorized merchant, in my
| estimation.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| I kind of side with the gas companies on this one. They objected
| to their real names and logos being used to market a parody site.
| Their companies weren't being parodied; they were simply added to
| the site intact (to lure search engines to list their site? to
| add legitimacy?)
|
| The article doesn't touch this issue, they just mock the gas
| companies. Not a real article, just another slam piece couched as
| journalism.
| chmod775 wrote:
| > Their companies weren't being parodied
|
| They _obviously_ were. It 's a parody of carbon offsets.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Obviously they weren't. As you so correctly point out, it was
| a parody of a government program.
| avazhi wrote:
| Not a US lawyer but would love to hear from anybody that is:
| could the gas companies sue for defamation for this?
|
| In Australia I suspect defamation or misleading and deceptive
| conduct under our ACL might be possible avenues for the gas
| companies, although under the ACL the impugned conduct must be
| 'in trade or commerce' so that could be one problem with going
| after an 'activist group'.
| rmholt wrote:
| Tried to do some online research (heh) and it would appear that
| satire of public figures is just straight up protected by the
| first amendment.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
| OkGoDoIt wrote:
| The site is amusing, and sure it feels fairly obvious that it's
| parody/satire in this context, but also I went through the FAQ
| and fine print and I don't see any admission that it's
| parody/satire. They seem to hold very true to the joke to the
| point that it does feel a bit worrying. At what point does
| parody/satire become misinformation and defamation? If my mom
| landed on this site after it was emailed to her from one of her
| Fox News-loving elderly friends, I'm not sure she would have
| enough context to realize it wasn't real. It seems like it would
| be better if they at least had a disclaimer or notice or
| something on the bottom of the site.
|
| On a related note, I hosted The Empire Strips Back parody Star
| Wars burlesque show at my theater, and they had to have
| disclaimers everywhere explicitly saying it was a parody
| production. They got sued and won in court but the disclaimers
| were an important part of that.
|
| Of course if the main concern is the misuse of the DMCA to get
| this taken down by claiming copyright infringement, that's
| clearly an abuse of the DMCA. But if the companies involved sued
| for defamation/slander/whatever, I think there's at least a
| legitimate concern here.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| The original _A Modest Proposal_ [1] also didn't include any
| admission it was parody/satire, and held very true to the joke
| to the point that it seemed worrying. The more uncomfortable it
| makes you, the more it sticks.
|
| Also, the DMCA was not involved (though it's not clear that
| Netlify was aware of that).
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
| hobs wrote:
| The disclaimers were an important part of that likely because
| it made it even easier to establish than using some sort of
| "reasonable person" argument - that doesn't make it the
| standard required though.
| neilv wrote:
| I'm not thrilled with Netlify's behavior as claimed by this EFF
| post, but I'd like to speak on a different concern:
|
| Couldn't this activism have been just as effective, if done
| without libel?
|
| We're in the AI counterfeiting era now. It's time to be more
| conscientious about false accusations.
|
| "It's OK when _I_ do it, because it 's protected parody/satire!
| But when _other people_ do it, to smear my business, or my
| friend, or my favored political candidate, by name, and they
| claim it 's parody/satire, it's _not_ OK, because... uh...
| reasons! "
|
| If we think we're entitled to do it, can we complain when
| millions of others then also do it?
| chatmasta wrote:
| Who says the same people are advancing the conflicting
| arguments? I can only speak for myself, but my position is
| consistent here.
|
| (btw, what is the name of this logical fallacy that assigns two
| beliefs from a population to the population as a whole? It
| seems like a variant of No True Scottsman but maybe there's a
| more precise label for it?)
| neilv wrote:
| I'm not an expert writer, but I thought it was an OK way to
| say "these two beliefs we've heard are conflicting; don't
| hold them both", as part of an argument to say that we need
| to rethink and think more clearly about "parody"
|
| Obviously, we _collectively_ have those conflicting beliefs.
|
| And I suggest that collectively resolving these is going to
| be forced by AI fakes and social media.
| feoren wrote:
| No. Poking the hornet's nest is an effective and sometimes
| necessary part of activism. The whole reason we've heard of
| these guys is because they poked those companies. That's why
| they used their real logos. Using fake logos makes no sense
| there, and if they had done that, neither of us would have
| heard this story.
|
| It's a bit like the argument "sure, Black Lives Matter, but do
| they have to be kneeling during a football game?" Protests are
| fine, as long as they never inconvenience anyone, are never
| loud or obnoxious, are never seen nor heard nor felt. Well,
| then, they're not protests, they're LARPing.
|
| I get the feeling that in practice, those "uh... reasons" will
| turn out to be _blatant_. As in: one is obviously an attempt to
| scam and defraud people, and the other is an obvious parody.
| And obviousness matters: the crux is whether it 's likely to
| deceive a "reasonable person" or not. You can like or hate that
| criteria, but that's been consistent since trademarks were
| invented.
| neilv wrote:
| * It's OK to fabricate about a company doing some ridiculous
| thing, because it's activism, and they are getting attention
| to their cause.
|
| * It's _not_ OK to fabricate about some politician doing some
| ridiculous thing, because that 's lying, to manipulate?
|
| How is the latter case not also activism, and getting
| attention to their cause?
| olliej wrote:
| I still don't understand how these fraudulent DMCA claims aren't
| outright criminal - I thought even the garbage state of the law
| at least made objectively false claims requires a statement under
| penalty of perjury that you have a good faith belief in the
| accuracy of the claims.
|
| Filing a DMCA claim over a trademark violation is a direct
| admission that that statement is false because the requirement is
| you identify the copyright violation and that you are the owner
| or representative of the owner of that copyright.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-31 23:01 UTC)