Skip to main content

View Diary: Louisiana Threatens To Sue MoveOn Over Billboard (257 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the courts in question... (7+ / 0-)

     Are we talking state or federal courts? Remember if it's a US constitutional question one can take it through the federal courts.

    •  Yes, I'm talking state courts here... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, The Marti

      US District Courts seem to be a bit more willing to follow the law rather than simply following the money, but the right wing's efforts to keep President Obama's nominees off of the federal bench isn't helping things.

      "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

      by blue in NC on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 08:56:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Trademarks are federally registered. (0+ / 0-)

      Registered with the United States Patent and Trademark office. This is not in any way a constitutional question if the State of Louisiana has applied for and been granted a trademark for the phrase in question. Then it would be up to the State to file a complaint with the feds against Move On for its use of the phrase.

      MoveOn could have effectively conveyed its message without using the trademark.

      •  fair use. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StellaRay

        Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
        Creators of parody may be faced with questions of copyright infringement. In this 1994 decision, the Supreme Court held that a commercial parody may be a “fair use” in accordance with Section 107 of the Copyright Act, as a defense against an accusation of copyright infringement.

        A fair-use analysis, according to the Court, involves four factors: “1) purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is commercially motivated or instead is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2) nature of the copyrighted work; 3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in the newly created work in relation to the copyrighted work; and 4) effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

        •  I think a judge (0+ / 0-)

          could rule against this being fair use on the basis of #1---MoveOn is political not educational advertising, and #3---The portion of newly created work in this case is 100%, right down to the type face. #4 is dicey too. It could be argued well that the MoveOn board was harmful to the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 07:48:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  political speech is the most protected. (0+ / 0-)

            commercial speech has lower levels of protection.

            •  When it comes to corporations (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              patbahn

              protecting their products and trademarks, believe me, they have very high levels of protection.

              In this case, it's the state threatening to sue, not a corporation. Both litigants would be non profits. But w/a trademark behind them, the state's chances in front of many a judge, particularly in LA,  would be good, for the reasons I pointed out in the Fair Use guidelines.

              None of this is simple, either or stuff.

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:58:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  it would be a federal matter, (0+ / 0-)

      Copyright and trademark are a federal jurisdiction.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site