Chuck Norris' tears can't cure cancer

[cinema guy]

An author has published a book of Chuck Norris facts, gleaned from the internet. The Chuckster was pissed off, but instead of turning the offending writer into a human pretzel, he has taken the prosaic route and sued. http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswi..._template.html

[draggar]

Chuck Norris doesn't support Mike Huckabee, he allows Mike to support him.

[Kara]

What's interesting about this is that he has read, and made positive comments about Chuck Norrris Facts in the past. He even has a list on the main page of that site of his favorites.

I guess now that someone is publishing a book about it and he's not getting paid, he's pissed off.

[Broomjockey]

I think it's more someone making money off his name. Also, with copyrights, you have to defend it every time it's infringed, or you lose the rights. He probably worked something out with the website, but not with author-guy. Hence, lawsuit.

[Crazeyal]

It's all about defending the rights. Allowing people to joke is one thing. Allowing people to get PAID, and getting none of it, can allow REAL thieves to creep in.

[wolfie]

Same sort of thing as when Disney sued a daycare centre because they had pictures of Mickey and friends on the walls - since it was a commercial establishment, Disney had to sue when they found out about the unauthorized use of their characters or risk losing the copyright.

Later, Hanna Barberra got some good publicity by offering the daycare a royalty-free license to paint Scooby Doo and friends on the walls - they were also protecting their copyright, because they were explicitly authorizing someone (who hadn't previously been using the characters without authorization) to use their characters.

[Pedersen]

Sorry folks, I'm forced to reply on this, due to the nature of what's being discussed.

Two distinct areas are being intermingled, and that needs to change.

Copyright: You do not have to enforce your copyrights in order to maintain them. Failure to enforce them will make it harder to collect damages in court at a later date, to be sure, but the copyrights are still retained by you.

Trademarks: Failure to enforce the trademark will result in loss of said trademark. It's one of the reasons why aspirin is not a trademarked term. It's worth noting that Kleenex nearly lost its trademark in the US, due to failure to enforce. Xerox had a hard time maintaining theirs, as well.

Please, keep them straight in conversations. We have enough with trademark and copyright infringement, let's not make them worse by conflating the terms.
Thank you!

[Broomjockey]

Copyright: You do not have to enforce your copyrights in order to maintain them. Failure to enforce them will make it harder to collect damages in court at a later date, to be sure, but the copyrights are still retained by you.

Trademarks: Failure to enforce the trademark will result in loss of said trademark. It's one of the reasons why aspirin is not a trademarked term. It's worth noting that Kleenex nearly lost its trademark in the US, due to failure to enforce. Xerox had a hard time maintaining theirs, as well.

>_< Crapmonkies! I can't believe I did that. I *meant* trademark, as that would be what Chuck Norris's name would be, as that's the business name he goes by, whether it is his real name or just stagename. I *know* the difference, and I still gibbed it up. That's what I get for posting from work.

[blas]

So is it copyright infringement that I have a.....brand logo so to speak, tattooed on myself?

[Rapscallion]

I think that would possibly be covered under fair use, as long as you aren't trying to profit from it.

Rapscallion

[lordlundar]

Actually, yo do have to enforce a copyright or you lose it. The thermos is the prime example of this. Aladdin manufacturing failed to do so with their thermos brand, so now it's common use and they get nothing for it.

[Pedersen]

So is it copyright infringement that I have a.....brand logo so to speak, tattooed on myself?

Technically, no. It's trademark infringement. What they could do about it, though, is anybody's guess.

Actually, yo do have to enforce a copyright or you lose it. The thermos is the prime example of this. Aladdin manufacturing failed to do so with their thermos brand, so now it's common use and they get nothing for it.

Actually, no, that is wrong. They lost the trademark, not the copyright.

Copyright protects the expression of an idea. Hence why you copyright a book, or a song, or a work of art.

Trademark protects a brand. For instance, using your example above: People bought a thermos, not a Thermos(tm) brand device. And they called it a thermos in multiple media (movies, television, books, etc). Since Aladdin didn't enforce the trademark, they lost it.

Wait, more reading at Wikipedia shows that Aladdin wasn't the original owners, but rather Thermos GmbH, a German company. Note that, in that article, it is referred to as a genericized trademark. That means it's no longer a protected mark.

[lordlundar]

Ah, I stand corrected.