Fox News has sued Al Franken for trademark infringement alleging that the title of his new book: "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," violates their trademark on the phrase "fair and balanced." Yesterday, Franken issued a statement thanking Fox for the publicity. Exactly. Idiots.
I have an autographed copy of Franken's Rush Limbaugh book. I love Al Franken, but his funny level has dropped precipitously. I saw him one day shrieking like a girl during some bookstore's roundtable discussion. OTOH, this suit is pointless and some of the potshots at Franken in the suit are embarassing.
Its like some high stakes game of name calling. Franken does it for a living and he has evidently pissed off someone who has a lot of money to blow in court. What a waste of everyone's time.
Good luck on the GMAT, Ty. Does this mean you finally bought a TV? :P
How can you trademark 'Fair and Balanced'?
That's like trying to copyright "It was a dark and stormy night."
I heard this story yesterday and my first thought was "Franken wrote a new book?" So I guess Fox is now helping Franken sell books. That's very nice of them.
Franken's next book. "How the Right Wing media made me lots of money"
It's a corporate slogan so I can see how it's enforcable if, say, another news outlet started calling themselves Fair and Balanced" all the time. I'm sure CNN would unleash the hounds if Fox started saying "THIS is FOX News!"Originally Posted by Jakub
Even if it's decided they could trademark it... how could the Fox lawyers not see this is parody and that Franken is a humorist? Don't they realize that Franken craves this sort of thing? Did they miss the day they covered fair use in law school? I'm no lawyer but precedent won't be hard to find.
You say it as a joke, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if that WAS the title of his next book.
I wouldn't either, actually. "Rupert Murdoch is a Big Fat Idiot" would work too. Maybe Fox is doing this because they need the publicity? Meanwhile, Ann Coulter got a 3 million $ advance on her next comedy book.
:lol: MBA costs are replacing the TV, I am afraid. I spent just long enough researching and pacing that a more important cost has come along. I guess not being an impulse buyer where electronics are concerned is a good thing, but I should would have liked to be watching a TiVoed movie/TV show every night on a 32" Sony Wega HDTV.
DOn't you guys remember when Pat Riley snatched up "3-peat" before the Bulls won? I think every usage after they one that 3rd championship put money in Riley's pocket.
Yes. Of course, Riley trademarked the phrase for the exact purpose in which it was used by the Bulls, so there was really no question of coverage there. In Franken's case, the title of his book is obviously a parody, thus coming under fair use protection. And even it wasn't fair use, what is the realistic possiblity of confusion between his book and Fox's TV news broadcasts?
Well, no, the problem is it's such a common phrase.It's a corporate slogan so I can see how it's enforcable if, say, another news outlet started calling themselves Fair and Balanced" all the time. I'm sure CNN would unleash the hounds if Fox started saying "THIS is FOX News!"
"This is CNN" is completely different from "This is the news tonight". Unfortunately, it seems bureaucrats seem to have forgotten.
Here's a handy Slate explainer on copyright and trademark law. The long and short of it is that you can trademark the use of common phrases (the explainer itself is on "Let's Roll") but only in connection with specific uses, barring their use by others for similar purposes.
The "mailbag" linked in the article goes into a little more detail.
Troy
No Jakub, if a news organization started saying "Fair and Balanced" all the time to describe their coverage, Fox would would within their rights to sue them. You can trademark a common phrase for specific usage. Sort of like how Ion Storm trademarked "Suck it Down."
Maybe on GamerDad I'll start selling "Suck it Down" Daikatanna bibs and pacifiers (Sparky? Want to work on that for me?). See if they come after me.
Oh, I agree that both Fox's suit and the trademarking of the phrase are silly. I only brought that up to refresh people's memories.Yes. Of course, Riley trademarked the phrase for the exact purpose in which it was used by the Bulls, so there was really no question of coverage there. In Franken's case, the title of his book is obviously a parody, thus coming under fair use protection. And even it wasn't fair use, what is the realistic possiblity of confusion between his book and Fox's TV news broadcasts?
i'd buy one. It would go with the cute klingon one someone bought joe that says Grok is good. No joke.Maybe on GamerDad I'll start selling "Suck it Down" Daikatanna bibs and pacifiers (Sparky? Want to work on that for me?). See if they come after me.
They've already abandoned the Suck It Down trademark.
Shut Up Bill O'Reilly and FOX.
You don't know what you're talking about!
Shut up. Shut Up! SHUT UP!
A federal judge on Friday denied Fox News Channel's request for an injunction to block liberal humorist Al Franken's new book, whose title mocks the Fox slogan "fair and balanced." U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said
Fox's claim was "wholly without merit, both factually and legally."
Hmmm. How is FOX News looking, right now, to the far right Dittohead types? Perhaps they expected to lose.By contrast, Fox took pains to promote its own programming in the suit, citing a subscriber base of 80 million viewers and repeatedly noting the network is the top ratings winner among cable news channels.
Who's zoomin' who here?
I read this one on Yahoo:
"There are hard cases and there are easy cases. This is an easy case," said U.S. District Judge Denny Chin, who added that the motion for an injunction was "wholly without merit."
He must watch CNN.
Way to read the thread there Case! :wink:
Hey, it was just after the Friday night LAN party! I was tired! I came, I posted, I went to bed!
:lol:
The odd thing is, this suit might make sense even if Fox fully expected to lose from the outset.
Trademarks, unlike copyrights, must be defended or they can be lost. A company that regularly acquiesces to the use of its mark can find that it has lost the exclusive right to use that mark. Companies are expected to police the use of their trademarks and raise objections to potentially infringing uses. That's why you occasionally read articles about Disney suing some small local day-care center that uses Disney characters in their advertising.
Fox is well-known as a vigorous enforcer of its intellectual property rights. It's shut down countless Simpsons fan sites, and I still have a copy of the Alien Quake Total Conversion that was given a Fox-induced early death.
It is entirely possible that Fox realizes it would lose its suit against Franken, but pursued it anyway as a precautionary measure against future uses of the "fair and balanced" trademark. They don't want some joker coming along later and saying "you lost your mark because you haven't been contesting its use." That's probably an overly cautious position for Fox to take, but given their history in the IP arena, it is by no means a surprising position.
In short, this suit in isolation may seem foolish, but may make sense if you take a longer view. Fox isn't as dumb as you may think.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote