Lifestyle

TOPICS:

11/28/07

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

103 | 104 | 105

 ... 954

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8

Next

Squire

Squire

I'm lost
November 2003

NOV 22, 2007 12:41 PM

Vestril said:

Squire said:

Sid said:
In music copyright law class, I learned that you cannot copyright or claim rights to a song name or album name. It looks like RHCPs are shit out of luck on this one. Sucks to be them.



This case has nothing to do with copyrights. Unfair competition, dilution of value, and unjust enrichment are classic direct and derivative trademark claims. Theoretically, anything can be TM'd: A word, name, design, logo, sound, shape, configuration, or even a fragrance.

To prove TM infringement, RHCP must basically demonstrate that the term is a "source indicator." To do so, they have to present evidence that most people associate the term "Californication" with the RHCP. And it wouldn't hurt to demonstrate that the show and the album are very similar products (both popular media/entertainment mediums) and a consumer would think they are somehow related. To a Wisconsin boy, "Californication" is a pretty arbitrary/fanciful term that I would initially associate with RHCP. When I first saw the name of the show, I thought of the RHCP album. So they are far from shit out of luck.

smile



I didn't think of them at all until someone else brought it up, then I thought "oh, that band that used to be popular." I don't think I could have come up with their name on my own.



Right. So in order to demonstrate customer perception, Showtime would want as many people, who like you do not associate "Californication" with RHCP, to respond to that effect in a consumer test/survey that asks what "Californication" means to them. And RHCP would want responses from the "someone else[s]" to whom you refer in order to demonstrate the potential for confusing the album and the show as being somehow related/from the same source.

Clio

Clio

SUICIDEGIRL

Netherlands

NOV 22, 2007 01:19 PM

Suck or not, this has nothing to do with the case whatsoever. I'd sue the show too.

Eimi

Eimi

SUICIDEGIRL

Australia

NOV 22, 2007 03:40 PM

welchjsn said:
well, i started reading this thinking that the coolerking would be a good read as usual. but i must say this article sucked ass. i really dont give two shits why you dont like the rhcp. i was really hoping to see real justifaction as to why you thought it was a lame move by rhcp. oh well, here is hoping the next article is worth reading.



i 100% agree, thankyou!

Tinkly

Tinkly

United Kingdom
October 2007

NOV 22, 2007 03:57 PM

So you dont like them, we get it, some of us do, I am proud to say I have a very very varied taste in music and will happily listen to pretty much anything for its musical value, RHCP are one of my all time favourite bands, who have spanned generations and grown there own unique style, Surley 20 odd years of as a popular band is a testament to that. I consider myself lucky to have seen them several times all over the world,and I think many millions of people would agree with me, I also understand that there are many millions that wont.
We have to remember that ALL artists (even if you dont like them) are a brand, they have to sell all the new material to fans and prospective fans and keep themselves in the public eye as must as possible least we forget them on the other hand If they belive that the brand has been compromised should they not be allowed the right to defend it?

I pity anyone who agrees with everything that goes on around them, lets let the rich folks get on with making there lawyers rich folks to.

lolly

lolly

Madison, WI
April 2004

NOV 22, 2007 07:39 PM

Like others have said, if it were just the name, then fine, but yeah the name and a character named Dani California is enough for a trademark suit, which is different from a copyright suit. And one that they can most likely win.

BABYSNAKES

BABYSNAKES

Baltimore, MD
April 2006

NOV 23, 2007 06:07 AM

Booooo Hoooooo "We are the Red Hot Chili Peppers and we dont have enough money; so we are taking yours" Blah! Silly old men! tongue

reeceR

reeceR

I'm lost
October 2005

NOV 24, 2007 08:28 PM

I would argue that in their record deal with Warner it probably gives the label permission to protect its assets and trademarks. I'm sure the Red Hot Chili Peppers have some say in this but I bet they don't have all of it. MEANING: look to WarnerBrosRecords.

Appetite

Appetite

Chapel Hill, NC
March 2007

NOV 25, 2007 12:08 PM

Jeez, if you wanted to critique/bash their music so extensively maybe wait till another album comes around so you can have something of substance to actually write about. This article is 95 percent filler. You don't really expand upon what the title indicates the article should be about. At least offer some solid facts or something.

Maybe there really aren't any other "Californication" titles out there in the world of pop culture.

cleverthings

cleverthings

United Kingdom
February 2006

NOV 26, 2007 05:31 PM

Squire said:

Vestril said:

Squire said:

Sid said:
In music copyright law class, I learned that you cannot copyright or claim rights to a song name or album name. It looks like RHCPs are shit out of luck on this one. Sucks to be them.



This case has nothing to do with copyrights. Unfair competition, dilution of value, and unjust enrichment are classic direct and derivative trademark claims. Theoretically, anything can be TM'd: A word, name, design, logo, sound, shape, configuration, or even a fragrance.

To prove TM infringement, RHCP must basically demonstrate that the term is a "source indicator." To do so, they have to present evidence that most people associate the term "Californication" with the RHCP. And it wouldn't hurt to demonstrate that the show and the album are very similar products (both popular media/entertainment mediums) and a consumer would think they are somehow related. To a Wisconsin boy, "Californication" is a pretty arbitrary/fanciful term that I would initially associate with RHCP. When I first saw the name of the show, I thought of the RHCP album. So they are far from shit out of luck.

smile



I didn't think of them at all until someone else brought it up, then I thought "oh, that band that used to be popular." I don't think I could have come up with their name on my own.



Right. So in order to demonstrate customer perception, Showtime would want as many people, who like you do not associate "Californication" with RHCP, to respond to that effect in a consumer test/survey that asks what "Californication" means to them. And RHCP would want responses from the "someone else[s]" to whom you refer in order to demonstrate the potential for confusing the album and the show as being somehow related/from the same source.



Thank you, Squire, for all of your posts clarifying the legal situation in such a tolerant manner. YAY YOU!!! I am glad I read through the comments before immediately jumping in to do the same explanation. No need - you've done it. smile Yay.

sushisplooge

sushisplooge

Los Angeles, CA
October 2007

NOV 26, 2007 06:59 PM

reeceR said:
I would argue that in their record deal with Warner it probably gives the label permission to protect its assets and trademarks. I'm sure the Red Hot Chili Peppers have some say in this but I bet they don't have all of it. MEANING: look to WarnerBrosRecords.



i agree... usually big record labels are looking out for their own interests and not really looking at the bands... maybe rhcp is actually pissed about this, or maybe it is wbr. i dunno... unfortunately this article lacks facts and steers more in the direction of the band sucking...

browngirl

browngirl

Philadelphia, PA
April 2007

NOV 27, 2007 01:16 AM

ajaxappleengle said:
Really, you folks are pissed at the lack of content in this article? I certainly hope that Suicidegirls is not your main source for news. Isn't every article here just a step above blogging anyway? I kinda like the Chilli Peppers, but I got a chuckle out of it. I mean, you all do realise this is just an opinion piece, right? And does Green Day really need to be passionately argued about? Are you all that retarted?



+ a jillion

SixBoxes said:


At least half the fricking commenters on this article said:

I hated this article. It wasted my time. Fuck you TheCoolerKing for wasting my time. My time was wasted so bad I decided to waste more time by bitching about it instead of just moving along, refusing to comment and give the false impression that TCK's articles are well received by bumping the comment total. I am now going to post a nonsensical insult.




*dies laughing* i love you & i love TCK

fluffyPuff

fluffyPuff

Los Angeles, CA
November 2007

NOV 27, 2007 09:06 AM

This article has all the logic and reasoning you would expect from a 13 year-old. Learn to write and make a real point mother fucker.

Davegeek

davegeek

Trail, BC
December 2005

NOV 27, 2007 11:06 AM

fluffyPuff said:
This article has all the logic and reasoning you would expect from a 13 year-old. Learn to write and make a real point mother fucker.



And please stop fucking my mother.

TheCoolerKing

TheCoolerKing

NEWSWIRE

Los Angeles, CA

NOV 27, 2007 12:34 PM

Davegeek said:

fluffyPuff said:
This article has all the logic and reasoning you would expect from a 13 year-old. Learn to write and make a real point mother fucker.



And please stop fucking my mother.


First guy - No

Second guy- Well... okay, I guess.

Davegeek

davegeek

Trail, BC
December 2005

NOV 27, 2007 01:24 PM

Thank you. She's getting sore.

Luddite

Luddite

Anderson, CA
December 2005

NOV 27, 2007 04:17 PM

I'd figure I'd jump in with something:

No!

Shut up!

You are!!

the following was addressed to anyone who wants to field it

Davegeek

davegeek

Trail, BC
December 2005

NOV 28, 2007 02:54 PM

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8

Next