Glenn Beck Not Allowed To Rape And Murder An Internet Meme

from the nice-try dept

Back in September, we wrote about Glenn Beck's misguided attempt to gain control over the domain name used as part of an internet meme that is critical of Glenn Beck, GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com (it's a dead site now, keep reading). If you're unfamiliar with the meme, it's mocking a favorite tactic of various cable news talk show hosts, to "ask questions" that are accusatory in nature, whether or not there's any substance to back them up. Glenn Beck didn't accuse the site of defamation or anything, but filed a domain name complaint, saying that it violated his trademark. As we noted at the time, the trademark claim was really questionable -- and, of course, only served to draw more attention to the site and the internet meme.

The site brought on lawyer Marc Randazza who filed one of the most brilliant responses (pdf) to a legal threat that you'll ever see. It's quite amusing. Randazza takes the old "moron in a hurry" test up one level, using the "abject imbecile" test. And then there was this:

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent's website wondering "where did all the race baiting content go?" We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent's website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent's website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck's very rhetorical style. Beck's skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down.

Apparently, Randazza's letter worked wonders. The WIPO Arbitration Panel has rejected the attempt to take the domain, saying that it was a legitimate use of Beck's name:

In the present context, this Panel considers that if Internet users view the disputed domain name in combination with a visit to Respondent's website, the "total effect" is that of political commentary by Respondent, capable of protection as political speech by the First Amendment under the Hustler Magazine standard. Respondent appears to the Panel to be engaged in a parody of the style or methodology that Respondent appears genuinely to believe is employed by Complainant in the provision of political commentary, and for that reason Respondent can be said to be making a political statement. This constitutes a legitimate non-commercial use of Complainant's mark under the Policy.

Either way, now that the site's owner has prevailed, he apparently feels he has made his point, and has agreed to voluntarily hand over the domain (pdf), along with an explanation in the First Amendment and how not to respond to internet memes:

It bears observing that by bringing the WIPO complaint, you took what was merely one small critique meme, in a sea of internet memes, and turned it into a super-meme. Then, in pressing forward (by not withdrawing the complaint and instead filing additional briefs), you turned the super-meme into an object lesson in First Amendment principles.

It also bears noting, in this matter and for the future, that you are entirely in control of whether or not you are the subject of this particular kind of criticism. I chose to criticize you using the well-tested method of satire because of its effectiveness. But, humor aside, your rhetorical style is no laughing matter. In this context of this WIPO case, you denigrated the letter of First Amendment law. In the context of your television show and your notoriety, you routinely and shamelessly denigrate the spirit of the First Amendment....

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mattel Now Using Song In Commercial... Which It Once Sued Over Copyright Infringement

from the change-of-heart? dept

Back in 1997, the band Aqua released a song called "Barbie Girl," that was actually somewhat critical of "Barbie doll" culture. Mattel, famous for its rather aggressive intellectual property stance, wasted little time in suing the band, claiming the song infringed on the company's rights. In 2002, everyone's favorite appeals court judge (seriously, the guy never fails to entertain) Alex Kozinski told Mattel too bad, parody songs are a part of what you get for being a cultural icon -- and included the classic line: "The parties are advised to chill."

It took seven years since that decision, but apparently Mattel had decided to heed Judge Kozinski's suggestion. Reader Sallo alerts us to the news that Mattel has actually licensed the song for a commercial -- though, they "adjusted" some of the lyrics to make it a little more pro-Barbie, rather than mocking-Barbie. Still, that's quite a jump: from suing the band for infringement to actually licensing and using the song in just a few years.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Chamber Of Commerce Uses DMCA Claim Against Yes Men Prank Site

from the this-won't-end-well dept

There was a lot of news a few days back when notorious pranksters, Yes Men, set up a fake press conference pretending to be the US Chamber of Commerce, announcing that it had changed its controversial stance on climate change -- which had recently driven some large companies, including PG&E and Apple, to leave the CoC. The fake press conference, along with a fake website and fake press release, apparently fooled some in the media -- including Reuters -- until someone from the real Chamber of Commerce burst into the room and confronted the pranksters. The video is great:

Part of the hoax was a fake website at www.chamber-of-commerce.us, and apparently the real Chamber of Commerce has sent a DMCA takedown on the site. The EFF is responding in support of Yes Men, saying that the site is a parody, which is protected fair use. While I think that the Chamber of Commerce is pretty dumb to issue the takedown -- only giving the Yes Men more attention -- I'm not sure that the parody defense will stick here. While the site is for the purpose of criticism, the site is most certainly not an obvious parody. It's designed to look real. Thus, the bigger issue may actually be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement, as the site could certainly confuse users, but there are other ways to deal with such things that don't involve a DMCA takedown.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

North Face Goes After South Butt Over Trademark Infringement

from the morons-in-a-hurry-in-heavy-fleeces dept

Another day, another story of a company reacting overly aggressively with a trademark infringement claim. North Face, the well known clothing company, apparently is not at all pleased with a student who created a parody line of clothing called "South Butt." The lawyer representing the student had a great quote:

"I did try to explain with a great deal of candor to counsel for the North Face that the general public is aware of the difference between a face and a butt."

And, indeed, that's the central question in most trademark lawsuits. Are the customers confused into thinking that they're buying one product, rather than the other. It would be pretty difficult for North Face to claim with a straight face that those buying South Butt clothing don't realize it's a different company...

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jeremy Piven Sends Cease & Desist To Stop Play From Mocking Him

from the is-your-ego-that-fragile? dept

I've been a fan of the actor Jeremy Piven for years, but apparently he's a bit quick on the legal trigger. His lawyers have sent a cease-and-desist letter to a playhouse that has been showing a mocking play called "The Piven Monologues." Apparently, Piven had pulled out of a planned gig on Broadway in a revival of David Mamet's excellent play "Speed the Plow" (a role that Piven would be great in, actually). Piven claimed he couldn't do it because of "mercury poisoning" from eating too much sushi -- an odd excuse to be sure. Mamet supposedly was heard to comment: "My understanding is that he is leaving show business to pursue a career as a thermometer," leading some playwrights to put together a quick play more or less mocking and parodying the whole situation. Piven's lawyers are claiming that it's defamatory, but it's difficult to see how anyone would take anything in such a play seriously, as it's obviously a spoof. But, in these days of aggressive litigation and people thinking they get to control every use of their own brand or name, is it any surprise that Piven would lawyer up?

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Glenn Beck Didn't Rape And Murder Anyone... But He Doesn't Want Websites Discussing It

from the well,-this-should-be-fun dept

Ok, first off, I'll say this: I don't watch 24-hour cable news shows. In the rare moments when I catch any of the talking heads for any of those networks (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC), it makes me somewhat crazy, because none of them seem to have the slightest common sense. Frankly, they're all just a bunch of entertainers who appear to either be completely clueless, or exaggerate and lie for effect. I have little time for such people -- no matter what ideological bent they happen to come from. One of the popular tactics of such shows, is to use the ever popular "report on a rumor" setup, which lets them insinuate something, without ever officially stepping up and saying it themselves. The simplest form is the "some are saying..." lead in that lets these folks spend plenty of time discussing things without ever actually investigating if they're true. But, at times it goes much deeper into finding some random conspiracy theorist, and building them up into a "movement." It seems to happen pretty regularly, and it's rather silly.

In the last couple of weeks, a random internet meme apparently sprung up to highlight this sort of reporting, initiated in a comment on the ever-excellent Fark, it involved a commenter questioning: "Why haven't we had an official response to the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?" The idea, which seems plain to many involved, is not to actually suggest that Glenn Beck did such a thing -- but to highlight this tactic of making a totally bogus rumor into "news" by stating it, and wondering why there hasn't been a denial. A bunch of folks have picked up on this claim and run with it (apparently greatly upsetting some loyal Beck fans), turning it into one of those internet memes with legs.

Someone -- quite anonymous -- then set up a website to chronicle all of this, called (appropriately, given the meme): GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com. The site itself is clear that it's a parody, attempting to highlight this sort of "news" tactic, and the fact that it's often employed by Beck:

This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven't yet seen proof that he didn't. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation.

It turns out that Glenn Beck isn't happy about this either. He's filed a domain name dispute over the domain name, claiming that it violates his trademark: Now, you might see some sort of claim over defamation (but, even that seems iffy, given that it's clearly a parody), but a trademark claim seems really iffy -- and not particularly smart. First, the site in question doesn't have any commerce. It does link to another site that sells stuff, which is how Beck tries to claim that it's a commercial site. For a trademark violation to occur, the name needs to be used in commerce. It's also supposed to be confusing -- but as plenty of "gripes sites" have shown, it's perfectly reasonable to use a trademarked term in a domain name (and, hell, Beck's name isn't even fully registered yet) as a part of a gripe/protest/parody, when it's clearly not run by the actual mark holder.

As for why it's not particularly smart -- whether he wins or loses -- is because he just called a whole bunch of attention to some silly internet meme that clearly wants attention. Beck would have been better off just ignoring it. Instead, in legitimizing it by trying to take it down, many more people become aware of the meme -- and may start calling attention to situations where Beck (and others) make use of such tactics.

205 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Fox & Friends Not Guilty Of Defamation For Repeating Parody -- Just Gullibility

from the not-malice dept

MediaShift points out that the folks at the TV show Fox & Friends have been found not guilty of defamation, after they repeated quotes from a parody news article that they assumed were true (though, even they admitted that the quotes sounded as if they could be from a parody). Basically, it turns out they were just gullible, not defamatory -- mainly because there was no specific malicious intent in repeating the parody info. While the court admitted that the gullibility was negligent and distasteful, that didn't rise to the level of malicious. If anything, the reputation hurt most by this incident isn't that of the guy suing for defamation... but that of the hosts of Fox & Friends.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Decides That Calling Someone A Douchebag Is Okay... So Long As It's Funny

from the laugh,-people dept

Last year, a series of lawsuits were filed over the publishing of a book based on the hit website Hot Chicks with Douchebags. Some of the "hot chicks" and at least one of the "douchebags" claimed it was libelous. However, in a rather entertaining ruling, a judge has dismissed the case filed by three of the women, noting that after he "carefully scrutinized" the book, he determined that the use of the term "douchebag" along with the various photographs was "used for humorous social commentary" -- making it perfectly legal. So, kids, remember when calling someone names, make sure to do so in a way that is funny and used for social commentary. Otherwise you might not only look like a douchebag, but you might end up in court.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cooking Mama Shows How To Respond To Critical Parody

from the thanks-for-the-promotion! dept

We've seen plenty of organizations react poorly and sue when someone creates a parody of what they do. Parody is protected under fair use rules, but that doesn't always stop lawsuits. And, some were apparently wondering if Cooking Mama, a popular video game for Nintendo platforms would get offended and sue over a critical video from PETA. Cooking Mama is apparently a game where you simulate preparing a meal. The PETA version used artwork from the original game and created Cooking Mama: Mama Kills Animals, with the rather overt position. Some had thought that the company behind the game, Majesco, might sue. But, Jeff Leyser points out, the company took the high road, responding to the parody game and essentially said "thanks for the free publicity," while noting that the game has options for vegetarian meals.

"Food lover and culinary cutie Cooking Mama is a virtual chef who believes that good home cooked food, properly prepared from the best ingredients, can bring people together around the table and make the world a happier place. That's why Mama is taking a stand with oven mitts raised high against the latest PETA objection targeting her freshly released videogame, Cooking Mama World Kitchen, that shipped this week for Wii from Majesco Entertainment Company. Mama wants people to know that World Kitchen includes 51 recipes from around the world, ranging from vegetarian fare like miso soup and rice cakes to international delicacies like ginger pork and octopus dumplings."

See? It's not that difficult to respond without resorting to a lawsuit.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Parody Is Still Fair Use Last We Checked

from the but-it-won't-stop-the-lawsuits dept

The EFF is representing a NYC activist who is protesting redevelopment efforts for New York City's Union Square. The woman, Savitri Durkee, set up a website parodying the website of Union Square Partnership, a group that is pushing to heavily redevelop Union Square. Such a parody is certainly a reasonable and lawful way of making a point and protesting USP's actions. However, USP basically fired off multiple shots against Durkee to get the site taken down, starting with a DMCA takedown notice to Durkee's hosting company, followed by a copyright lawsuit against Durkee and a claim with WIPO that the domain name Durkee used violated their IP, and demanding that it be handed over to USP. As the EFF notes, parody is protected under fair use doctrine, and it seems quite clear that USP is doing all this to stifle Durkee's right to speak out against USP's redevelopment efforts.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wal-Mart's Trademarked Smiley Face Turned Upside Down; Parody Isn't A Trademark Violation

from the not-so-smiley-now? dept

Paul Alan Levy writes "In a new decision, a federal judge in Atlanta has rejected a claim by Wal-Mart that parody t-shirts and bumper stickers sold over CafePress.com, using the phrases "walocaust," and "wal-qaeda," violate its trademark. The court ruled that the fact that the parodies are sold on t-shirts does not detract from the non-commercial nature of the expression, which takes them outside the scope of trademark dilution law, and requires a treatment of infringement claims that is sensitive to free speech rights. The court also rejected out of hand Wal-Mart's outrageous claim that has trademark rights in the yellow "smiley-face" that the parodist used in one of his anti-Wal-Mart designs."

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Fox Sue Congress For Simpsons Parody?

from the d'oh! dept

If you follow politics outside of the tech world you've probably seen plenty of talk in the last week or so about the battle over SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The details of the debate really aren't worth getting into on a tech/business news site, but a bunch of Republican Congressmen put out what can only be considered a parody press release using characters from the TV show The Simpsons to try to highlight their side of the debate. This was so random and bizarre that a few people actually wondered if the Republican site had been hacked. That turned out not to be the case, but apparently none of the Representatives who put together the mock press release sought the approval of Twentieth Century Fox, who apparently is not at all happy that Simpsons characters are being used in this manner: "Twentieth Century Fox was unaware of the illegal use of characters from The Simpsons in this press release. Let me assure you, Fox did not authorize this use. Characters from The Simpsons may not be used in this manner…" Some would argue that parody is covered by fair use, but that may only be true if the parody is of The Simpsons itself, rather than using them for a parody of something else. Either way, while Congress has been bending over backwards to give the entertainment industry everything it wishes when it comes to keeping control over their creative works, it seems that even those same Representatives can think of cases where it made perfect sense to them to make use of characters without having to first license them. Somehow, why do I get the feeling this lesson won't stick and these same Reps will have no problem putting in place more stringent copyright laws that eat away at fair use?

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..