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.
I tried to argue this, but the site is so clearly full of douchbags and jerkoffs that I don't even care.
Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing) Neither is "socialist") Random website he knows fuck all about uses his name and image without endorsement or permission, and... TRADEMARK BULLYING.
Fuck, no.
The douchebag is strong here: and that's not with the Bernie campaign.
Either way its not a story.
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.
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!
I would say, in that regard, he has good staff. They said, they acted on their own. As the record stands, Sanders can rightfully claim innocence in the matter, and they would possibly take all the blame, if it goes wrong.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Actually we have proof to the contrary. The article explicitly states that the lawfirm did this without the instruction or consent of the campaign that hired them. The seller actually said he is confident that Bernie would put a stop to it as soon as he is informed.
It will be telling to see if that prediction turns out to be accurate.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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
Trademarks MUST be enforced. You snooze, you loose. This is standard. This is the law. If they do not react, they loose their trademark. e.g. Walkman used to be a trademark, but they did not react, so now it isn't anymore.
This is a bout trademark and that I can get behind. If it were copyright, that would be completely different.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It depends on if you're talking about the officers or the enlisted men.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Pretty much everybody but the very top brass
So basically all the Gomer Pyle's then.
That's how we got this whole "women in combat" and "gay integration" thing. Needless to say it will go away instantly with a Republican president.
Didn't go away with the second Bush, considering women have been piloting combat aircraft since 1993.
And Women flying AH64 Apaches who kill from above with 30mm cannons and Hellfires.
And gay people have been fighting for this country ever since this country was founded.
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.
You must have contempt for the people in the military to think that they would fire on their brothers and sisters who simply want the constitution to be upheld.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I give a shit. Me, right here.
You asked, I answered. Why do I give a shit? Because political speech, and parody, are protected under the first amendment.
I have no idea what the rest of your post is on about, but you might see a doctor about adjusting your medication.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
It's important that stories like this are widely publicized so that the public can see the true face of Sanders before it's too late.
Yes, the "true face" of Sanders is what you are fiercely concerned with. In fact, it's evident that anything which might reinforce your preconceived notions is more important for you to regurgitate on your own jumbo screen - even if it handily shows you are completely misinformed.
Senator Sanders had nothing to do with this incident other than having the competence to hire a law firm which is diligent in doing their job.
The fact is - the only thing the law firm is defending is the Sander's campaign's logo and if you had even a passing understanding of copyright law, you would understand that this is something they have to do.
But keep screwing that chicken in the hopes that maybe someday you'll get eggs.
The first amendment only protects you from government. Sanders campaign is not a government entity and can act as they are acting within their rights. It's up to a court to decide the outcome, and THAT COURT can not prevent speech, but can uphold trademark.
I may not be a huge Sanders fan, but Sanders frankly is comedy gold. So if you are going for funny, it ain't that hard. But placing pictures of him next to Stalin like they were buddies isn't even the slightest bit funny. Even if you're trying to poke fun at your own ignorance for not being able to tell the difference between anybody to the left of you and a Communist, that's just sad, not funny. So clearly, humor was not the goal here.
This isn't comedy; its straight up character assassination. If his lawyers don't try to go after it while he's running for high office, they aren't doing their jobs.
"Your paltry pistol ain't doing shit against a military arsenal."
A "military arsenal" which performs well against other large armies in the open field but has not done well against armed civilian populations. It managed a costly draw against North Korea, lost to the Viet Cong, and lost even to the ragtag Taliban.
Parodies are protected speech
Not quite. Parodies are an affirmative defense.
An affirmative defense that the First Amendment requires courts to recognize. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a second successive extension of a subsisting copyright term in Eldred v. Ashcroft, it also held that fair use and the unprotectability of ideas constitute the implementation of the First Amendment in copyright law. So you're both right: free speech is protected, and an affirmative defense is how this protection is asserted.
Check out this gem of American history: the Communist Control Act of 1954
From the article: "In 1973 a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional".
What's disappointing is Bernie's campaign in general. First, it's really shitty that the media has pretty much nullified much of his efforts but the gaffes are pretty rough to accept. He's not done a very good job at campaigning, not at all. I first noticed it when he allowed the microphone to be taken and the BLM folks to interrupt him.
I really like him - I've even met him. I'm very likely to still vote for him. I've sent his campaign some money. But, even with what the media has done to his campaign - he's NOT helping. Well, more accurately, the folks he has supporting him and working for him are not helping. It's much easier to campaign in small States and he really does seem an ill fit for the national campaign trail.
He's going to be yet another politician that I've voted for who hasn't a shot in hell at winning. I find that oddly comforting. I've only voted for the winning candidate, in the presidential election, once - and I've voted every chance I got since 1978.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
To be fair, that's because you're using the wrong definition of lost. But yes, the military/government would have a very hard time dealing with an armed insurrection. Politically, it simply would be impossible. They can not, for example, drop a bunch of Hellfire missiles into downtown Boston and expect the rest of the planet to not intervene.
At any rate, Korea, Viet Nam, and even the Taliban lost the military war vs. the US. You're using the wrong definition when you say the US lost those conflicts.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I stretch the First Amendment no thinner than the the U.S. Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft stretched it. The Court held that fair use is the statutory implementation of a First Amendment limit on the scope of copyright.
I really like your binary thinking.
It is possible that the red scare was an overreaction AND that the CPUSA was funded by a hostile power that had openly declared their intent.
There is no longer any doubt that CPUSA was getting funds from Stalin. Those records are all open today.
Which didn't make anybody in CPUSA a Rusky agent, but did make them a full idiot.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
At this point, I should mention that I have a photograph of myself standing next to the first President Bush. I am not a Republican.
I also have a picture of myself, in my Dress Blues, standing right next to President Carter. I am not a Democrat.
There are pictures of me with drug dealers, artists, common criminals, and even a few other famous people.
There's even a picture of me with a cousin of a man named Aidid. I can assure you, I am not a war lord. I was, on the other hand, in Somalia at the time - purely tourism and educational. I'd sent a bit of money and then was curious about it as I'd not known much more than Black Hawk Down and the news around that from back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. So, I went and it was rather eye opening but that's a story for another day.
Then, I'll go so far as to say that Sanders is nominally a member of the Democrats. You can look that up. However, he's quite squarely (politically) in the camp that would be known as the SP-USA/SPA, or whatever they're calling themselves this week - the Socialist Party of America/United States of America. I seem to recall there being a blurb about an American Socialist Party - which is another animal entirely, or so I understand. I am only passingly familiar with the first and not the latter and have no idea if they ever got off the ground but I had a "friend" who was ranting about them for quite a number of years.
At any rate, you can't just assign things to Sanders that aren't true and then try to insist that others be honest. Well, you can, but that's not actually very intellectually honest - now is it? No, Sanders is a member of the Democratic Party. That's the facts and that is only the facts. However, if he were in a more representative party then he'd almost certainly be in the Socialist Party of America though, it'd be in ill-fit with the latest changes within the party, he'd actually fit into the Libertarian Party as a Socialist Libertarian.
You can't just say that he's a member of a party and leave it at that - and expect to have an honest conversation or debate. That's not a valid debate tactic - though it's likely to win against those who aren't actually able to think logically and reason themselves to a good rebuttal. So, I'll give you that - credit where credit is due. However, you're not debating idiots. Well, okay... I'm unfamiliar with the parent poster so it's possible that you are. It's not likely, however.
That said, I shan't spam but I'm in the process of working on a site that encourages and tries to facilitate intelligent discourse *and* civil discussion. It's still very much in the beta stage but if you're interested then let me know by email or whatnot. I do not necessarily agree with your political views but it'd be a pretty boring site if we all agreed, now wouldn't it?
However, I'd agree that Communism is the most murderous of political ideologies in modern times. It might even be the most murderous ever - though I'm not sure if that holds true if we go by percentages. There were some REALLY aggressive tyrants in ye olden days who did some serious damage to population numbers in their respective regions. They may have Communism beaten in a per capita sense but surely not in totality.
I'd agree that Sanders is Socialist but not Communist. He even does us the favor of identifying as a Socialist - and I'm disheartened that he sticks with the Democrats as opposed to being more honest. I'd actually respect him a bit more if he were to represent the Socialist Party of America instead of riding the coattails of the Democrats.
So, I agree that that group might be Communists and such is immaterial.
I do not agree that he is a member of that group, currently or in the past. (So far as I know, he's never been a member. Association with is not membership or even implied acceptance or agreement.)
Communism is very murderous and an absolutely horrific idea in groups larger than, maybe, 150 to 200 people.
Oh sure, Communism sounds good on paper but it's bullshit in reality. It would only work if everyone agreed and that's not going to happen so it has to rely on force. Any governance by means of force is generally going to allow fewer liberties than are just. Fortunately, Sanders is not a Communist.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."