Re: Store wars

Terry Pulliam Burd <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.storewars.org/flash/index.html

[..] Whoever wrote the script needs to up his meds <veg>

I'm thinking his meds need adjusting but not up!

The Ranger

In article <[email hidden]>,

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

Quoted message said:

OMG, that is absolutely hilarious. How did they ever get permission
from George Lucas to do this?

I loved it. But permission wouldn't be required. It's obviously
a parody, which is constitutionally protected speech. The first
amendment has always trumped trademark protection when tested in
court. Parody in particular is a form of fair use protected by law.

Some examples in these links:

http://www.townsend.com/resource/publication.asp?o=3534
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5012.html
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/hilden/20031209.html

-A

"axlq" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

Quoted message said:

OMG, that is absolutely hilarious. How did they ever get permission
from George Lucas to do this?

I loved it. But permission wouldn't be required. It's obviously
a parody, which is constitutionally protected speech. The first
amendment has always trumped trademark protection when tested in
court. Parody in particular is a form of fair use protected by law.

You must be right, or the cast of Saturday Night Live would've been tied up
in legal battles beginning with the first show. :-)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 04:38:14 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (axlq)

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

Quoted message said:

OMG, that is absolutely hilarious. How did they ever get permission
from George Lucas to do this?

I loved it. But permission wouldn't be required. It's obviously
a parody, which is constitutionally protected speech. The first
amendment has always trumped trademark protection when tested in
court. Parody in particular is a form of fair use protected by law.

Ah, yes, the "fair use" doctrine. However, IMHO, this is way, way
beyond "fair use." "Fair use" doesn't include parodies being used for
commercial purposes, as does this commercial organic-touting website.
As to SNL which was raised in a later post, SNL only does small
snippets that parody larger productions. This is a far, far larger
scale and has a storyline, start to finish, that parodies Star Wars. I
don't think you can use the "fair use" doctrine here. Not
constitutionally protected speech, AFAICS.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd...paralegal to a lawyer whose expertise
is constitutional law
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

Yes, it is a clear case of the organic industry trying to perpetuate a
lie. They can't prove that organic foods are better for you so they try
to scare you into believing all other foods are bad. A very clever and
witty use of advertising though. It certainly has lots of people
talking about and remembering the advert. Still they should be made to
cough up royalties to George Lucas and Co. as they are clearly using
the Star Wars concept for advertising.

castaway said:

Yes, it is a clear case of the organic industry trying to perpetuate a
lie. They can't prove that organic foods are better for you so they try
to scare you into believing all other foods are bad. A very clever and
witty use of advertising though. It certainly has lots of people
talking about and remembering the advert. Still they should be made to
cough up royalties to George Lucas and Co. as they are clearly using
the Star Wars concept for advertising.

George Lucas might have shares in the industry or something ?🙂 The
credits say: "Inspired by George Lucas", so I guess they got some sort
of permission....

It is a very clever advertising campaign, though.
Cathy

--
I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute of it

In article <[email hidden]>,

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:55:07 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

This was funny.

http://www.storewars.org/flash/index.html

OMG, that is absolutely hilarious. How did they ever get permission
from George Lucas to do this? Whoever wrote the script needs to up his
meds <veg>

I agree. That's funny! I am no lawyer, but I doubt the Organic Trade
Association would need permission from Lucas, but even if the OTA did, I
can't imagine why Lucas would deny the permission since this parody is
free advertising for his movies.

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 04:38:14 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (axlq)

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Terry Pulliam Burd said:

>
OMG, that is absolutely hilarious. How did they ever get permission
from George Lucas to do this?

I loved it. But permission wouldn't be required. It's obviously
a parody, which is constitutionally protected speech. The first
amendment has always trumped trademark protection when tested in
court. Parody in particular is a form of fair use protected by law.

Ah, yes, the "fair use" doctrine. However, IMHO, this is way, way
beyond "fair use." "Fair use" doesn't include parodies being used for
commercial purposes, as does this commercial organic-touting website.
As to SNL which was raised in a later post, SNL only does small
snippets that parody larger productions. This is a far, far larger
scale and has a storyline, start to finish, that parodies Star Wars. I
don't think you can use the "fair use" doctrine here. Not
constitutionally protected speech, AFAICS.

I wondered about that. I imagine if a company started to use Disney
or Looney Tunes characters in their advertisements (which the Store
Wars clearly is) it would be a little clearer.

I would have hoped that they would have asked for and received
permission. If not, it's my understanding that they really put the
Star Wars people in the position of going after them (if they find
out) even if they don't want to, because they have to protect their
property. If they don't go after them it opens the door for other
commercial uses, some of which may not be so cute.

Nonetheless, it is delightful :>

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

"castaway" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes, it is a clear case of the organic industry trying to perpetuate a
lie. They can't prove that organic foods are better for you so they try
to scare you into believing all other foods are bad. A very clever and
witty use of advertising though. It certainly has lots of people
talking about and remembering the advert. Still they should be made to
cough up royalties to George Lucas and Co. as they are clearly using
the Star Wars concept for advertising.

ROFL!!!!

On Tue, 17 May 2005 20:04:50 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
<[email hidden]> connected the dots and wrote:

~On Tue, 17 May 2005 04:38:14 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (axlq)
~wrote:
~
~>In article <[email hidden]>,
~>Terry Pulliam Burd <[email hidden]> wrote:
~>>>
~>>OMG, that is absolutely hilarious. How did they ever get permission
~>>from George Lucas to do this?
~>
~>I loved it. But permission wouldn't be required. It's obviously
~>a parody, which is constitutionally protected speech. The first
~>amendment has always trumped trademark protection when tested in
~>court. Parody in particular is a form of fair use protected by law.
~
~Ah, yes, the "fair use" doctrine. However, IMHO, this is way, way
~beyond "fair use." "Fair use" doesn't include parodies being used for
~commercial purposes, as does this commercial organic-touting website.
~As to SNL which was raised in a later post, SNL only does small
~snippets that parody larger productions. This is a far, far larger
~scale and has a storyline, start to finish, that parodies Star Wars.
I
~don't think you can use the "fair use" doctrine here. Not
~constitutionally protected speech, AFAICS.
~
~Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd...paralegal to a lawyer whose expertise
~is constitutional law

It got me because the same day I saw it, they had a local Hasbro
person on the radio talking about how they have the rights to the toys
etc, and are making Mr PotatoHead a "Darth Tater" costume or version.
Sounds copyrighted to me...

maxine in ri