Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
The Author's Guild is warning that the proposed "Trademark Dilution Revision Act" is set to eliminate noncommercial use of trademarks. What this means is that an author couldn't, for example, have a character walk into a named fast-food chain outlet without acknowledging the (TM) and possibly even paying for its use. As the AG point out, trademarked names, brands, slogans and suchlike are important parts of modern cultural discourse. The noncommercial use exemption to trademark exclusivity needs to be preserved.
Did the Author's Guild bother to read the bill? Because they sure don't act like it, nor to they bother to elucidate anyone reading their site as to what the bill actually says. Did they simply overlook the parts that expressly exclude fair uses in various situation from coverage under the bill? Do they find them inadequate? If they do, I'd be interested in hearing why. And ALan, as for your characterization of the bill as "eliminat[ing] noncommercial uses of a trademark," I'm curious how you came to that conclusion? The bill refers only to use in commerce of a famous marks, so (a) it doesn't appear to cover noncommercial uses at all, (b) it applies only to famous marks.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm no fan of the bill, as it appears unnecessary, a give-away to big businesses, and likely to cause trouble at the very margins, but the text of the bill simply doesn't appear to do what the AG claims it does.
1. pmp on February 17, 2006 1:58 PM writes...
Did the Author's Guild bother to read the bill? Because they sure don't act like it, nor to they bother to elucidate anyone reading their site as to what the bill actually says. Did they simply overlook the parts that expressly exclude fair uses in various situation from coverage under the bill? Do they find them inadequate? If they do, I'd be interested in hearing why. And ALan, as for your characterization of the bill as "eliminat[ing] noncommercial uses of a trademark," I'm curious how you came to that conclusion? The bill refers only to use in commerce of a famous marks, so (a) it doesn't appear to cover noncommercial uses at all, (b) it applies only to famous marks.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm no fan of the bill, as it appears unnecessary, a give-away to big businesses, and likely to cause trouble at the very margins, but the text of the bill simply doesn't appear to do what the AG claims it does.
Permalink to Comment2. drwex on February 18, 2006 7:52 PM writes...
I didn't make a claim as to what the bill says. I said that the Author's Guild are warning that... My comment was on their warning.
Permalink to Comment