Slashdot Mirror
Sanders Campaign Accused of Trademark Bullying By Web Site (buzzfeed.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Buzzfeed is reporting that "An online merchant has accused the Bernie Sanders campaign of 'trademark bullying'. after a Bernie 2016, Inc. attorney sent him a cease and desist letter regarding t-shirts, mugs, and sweatshirts depicting the candidate with historic communist leaders..." The t-shirt's designer tells Buzzfeed "He didn't seem to be the type of candidate, the type of guy, who would do something like this... I would think Bernie, or one of his staff members will step in and put an end to it. It appears to be pretty silly."
In January Ars Technica reported that lawyers for the Sanders campaign had demanded their logo be removed from pages on Wikipedia -- before later withdrawing that DMCA notice.
In January Ars Technica reported that lawyers for the Sanders campaign had demanded their logo be removed from pages on Wikipedia -- before later withdrawing that DMCA notice.
It's called branding, and any public figure needs to control their brand regardless of how honest or honorable the offender might declare themselves. You can't just let people do whatever they want with your brand, even if that brand is yourself. Otherwise Trump will do it as the precedent has been set. Really, some T-Shirt guy is mad because he's trying to profit off of something he has no right to? This isn't even a story.
There are a lot of posts here defending Sanders. I guarantee that if Trump's campaign did anything like this, Slashdot would be crucifying Trump. Of course, Trump doesn't do those things at all. He's happy to argue with anyone and take whatever punches are thrown his way. For a candidate who has a lot of support from nerds, Sanders sure does like to abuse trademark law and the DMCA.
Well, apparently in the summary there is no link to the source. I thought our new Slashdot overlords were going to do that from now on? So I took it upon myself to do so, to let everyone judge for themselves. Don't want to see the original graphic that sparked this discussion? Why not? Afraid of the truth?
Here is Liberty Maniacs main page at libertymaniacs.com. The link to the shirt that Bernie's Brownshirts are trying to shut down is here. The other shirts on the site are mocking Donald Trump "We Shall Overcomb", the NSA "the only part of the government that listens", a T-shirt depicting police officers beating the shit out of a citizen, another Trump "Idiocracy", Trump again mocking his hair, "Carlin was Right", "I'm Ready for Oligarchy", a stormtrooper with the words "Support the Troops", a picture of that one guy in the crowd with his arms crossed refusing to Heil Hitler, and Hillary for Prison. Oh, and the Sanders "Bernie is my Comrade" parody.
Seriously, if anyone has a problem with this site, I really don't see it. Most of the merchandise is clearly mocking the Right, with only two there that the Left could possibly be offended about. And honestly those are probably just there to cover their bases and not lose any sales. The Sanders one is pretty uncreative, I mean it's an obvious joke to add his face to the famous "parade of Marxists" seeing as Bernie's own views are quite close to theirs. Don't believe me, ask real-live Marxists what they think about him. Spoiler alert: he's not far enough left for their taste. Anyone who wants to suppress T-shirt is just a thin-skinned asshole who can dish out the mockery but not take it. Guess what: that sort of thing cuts both ways. Feel the Bern!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Join the Communist Party USA right here. Website hosted right in the USA. Clearly, these people should be in prison, but aren't. Sounds like you're just making up bullshit, how on Earth did you get +5 Informative?
So why haven't these been shut down? How many of them asked Trump's permission before using his likeness? Let me guess: free speech for me, but not for thee, right?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
This guy is making a profit, by using someone elses' likeness without their permission, making false political statements about them, and could actually be harming Sanders' campaign... and he doesn't seem to understand that he's being wrong at all. The guy making the T-shirts is a douchebag - he is exactly the reason why the law exists, and he should be shut down. Asshat
Except that nobody claimed copyright at all. This was a trademark letter. A completely different law with literally NOTHING in common.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Umm no. If he was a journalist perhaps. But selling goods based on his likeness, no.
"It must be remembered that the line between trademark bullying and rightful enforcement practices is not always black and white. In light of the fact that mark owners are shouldered with the affirmative obligation to personally police violations of their intellectual property rights; aggressive enforcement campaigns do not necessarily rise to the level of abusive bullying tactics as previously described by the USPTO. By failing to control third party use, a mark owner’s rights may be substantially restricted."
"Thus, when encountering a questionable letter regarding the violation of another’s rights in a mark, the recipient must discern the following: 1) whether the enforcer’s mark is actually being used in commerce; 2) the similarities of the marks at issue; 3) the specifically delineated goods and services used in connection with the alleged senior user’s mark; and 4) the trade channels and consumers that encounter the mark alleging superior rights."
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015...
Put it to you this way, the NFL would have something to say if they guy did the something with the NFL.
I certainly agree that they are. The sale of T-shirts is not protected by the first amendment. But others have successfully made millions off of parody so lets set that aside a moment as well.
The nature of trademark is such that if one doesn't attempt to defend it when violations are brought to one's attention it dilutes the trademark. It isn't like copyright or patents where you can selectively enforce.
Yeah, he hasn't said anything misogynistic, except for all the times he has:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
(best video example: https://youtu.be/d32577Hom08)
(other video examples: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...)
Oh, but I'm sure that's all truncated statements, and out of context? As for racism, a lot of his comments about hispanics are at best borderline. But I have a hard time as a white guy telling a hispanic who is legitimately offended by a borderline racist remark that the remark is not racist.
Any way you cut it, this guy is a gaping asshole, and has no business being sworn in as President. It's a job for a serious person.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Please reference the statute that says that being a Communist or showing support for Communism is a federal crime.
Hint: you won't be able to, because such a law doesn't exist. And, if it did exist, it would be thrown out immediately for being unconstitutional, as it would clearly violate the first amendment's right to free assembly.
There is absolutely no law banning communism, just like there is no law saying you can't put a white sheet over your head and march down the street with the KKK.
How in the fuck is this scored Insightful?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You are almost right on all of your points, but miss out on facts:
- It is correct that criticizing Meg Kelly is not in and of itself misogynistic, but asserting that her (valid) question was wrong because she was having her period is.
- Wanting to enforce migration laws more forcefully is not necessarily racist. But Trump has been entirely focused on latin-american immigration, to the exclusion of all else. Mostly he has been talking directly about Mexicans... which is odd since there is a near-zero net migration between the US and Mexico (really, it is slightly tilted in favor of people leaving for Mexico). That was already the trend before President Obama became the most vigorous enforcer of migration laws ever (counting "removals" and "returns", like previous administrations did). Given the singular focus on a specific country of origin which has a neutral net migration rate it is difficult to see this as anything but racist.
- The debate about excluding Muslims has been entirely focused on their religion, to the point where at least one presidential candidate has called for explicitly letting in Syrian Christians while excluding their Muslim neighbors. Our constitution explicitly prohibits the government from having laws that favor or dis-favor any religion. So while it might not be explicitly racist or xenophobic (but the rhetoric makes the latter hard to argue), it is explicitly un-American in the most basic way.
You can't just trademark your likeness and shut down all political parody or it would soon cease to exist.
Correct. Political parody is explicitly protected as fair comment - this explicit protection was established in the famous Larry Flynt "free speech" trial over a fake ad in Hustler magazine with a fake interview with Moral Majority founder discussing his first sexual encounter as a Campari liqueur fueled romp with his mother in an outhouse. It had nothing to do with Jerry Falwell's trademark/IP rights to his name or likeness, and everything to do with political discourse, of which parody is considered a valid form. Incidentally, parody can be considered "fair use" in most contexts with public figures, not just political ones.
And yet...
Parody for political commentary is protected as part of the public right to discourse. Making money doing so is not. So, no, Bernie Sanders can't sue you for making a picture of him doing bong hits with Che Guevara and posting it online. (Or he could sue, but he wouldn't win, at least on free speech grounds.) But if you started selling the images - then you would run afoul of his personality rights, by which using someone's name or likeness to make money is something he could sue for and win, because money making ventures are considered outside the realm of pure free discourse and becomes "exploitative."
So bottom line - make fun of a political figure with their likeness? No problem. Try to make money doing it? Yeah, problem.
One last note... you don't have to sue anyone and everyone who uses your trademark in order to defend it. You do, however, have to demonstrate that you are defending it in cases where there is a significant likelihood that it may cause confusion. For example, if you trademarked Slurm brand soda, and someone else produced Slurm brand automobiles, you don't have to sue them if you don't plan to make automobiles yourself. You do have to sue if they are infringing on your trademark in an area where you want to say that you hold yourself as having the rights to. (There are some exceptions with really well known brands like Coca Cola, but Apple doesn't have to sue every Apple Fruit Stand or Apple Moving & Storage business in the country because it's not diluting their trademark on computers and electronics.)
"95% of all Slashdot