h a l f b a k e r yRecalculations place it at 0.4999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Antiparazzi: A line of clothing covered with printed copyright notices. If you go out jogging, throw on an Antiparazzi sweatshirt. At a nude beach, wear an Antiparazzi cap. If photographed by the media, photographers will find it difficult to get a shot without including the notice. A first line of
defense for the famous, infamous, or simply camera-shy.
[The fine print: Antiparazzi has copyrighted/trademarked the visual appearance of all of its clothing, which are absolutely covered with notices. Reproductions or representations are prohibited. Antiparazzi never gives permission for reproductions, and will sue anyone that publishes any picture containing its copyrighted clothing without permission.
It works like so -- an artist may sell a piece of artwork, but retain the copyright. Even the owner of the work cannot take a picture of it and then sell the picture. What is protected here is the garment, not you. The editor could crop out the garment, sure, but that would ruin the photograph.]
Get your own trademark
http://tess.uspto.g...ss&state=itfdso.1.1
Search here first [pluterday, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Legal note: Only original works can be copyrighted. You yourself are not an original work in that sense of the term. |
|
| |
[Dimandja & snarfyguy] What is copyrighted is the garment. And, Antiparazzi never gives permission for reproduction. |
|
| |
I'm not sure copyright is the right avenue here, I think Trademark law is more what you want. I know Charlie Chaplin, W.C. Fields and other iconic celebrities have trademarked their images in the past. |
|
| |
Vaguely related:
Posh spice has been trying to copyright the word 'Posh', and Peterborough United FC's nickname is The Posh. I believe she was intending to take them to court to ban them from using that as their nickname, even though they've beeen using it for 80 years. |
|
| |
Again, a likely confusion of copyright with trademark. |
|
| |
What about Sport? Spice? Girls? |
|
| |
//thumb® wax®//
Helpfully checking.... either "thumbwax" or "thumb wax" are available for trademark in the US, but not the individual words "thumb" or "wax". And, oh, you have to specify a category for the trademark. Shall I put you down for "baked products"? |
|
| |
I'd like to use ® as my trademark. Where do I sign? |
|
| |
[Off topic] I read somewhere about a man that bought up trademarks for dirt cheap in countries where companies like Coca Cola, had not yet thought to expand to. He supposedly made several million, selling these trademarks back to them. |
|
| |
I have a feeling that once I finish the time machine, I am going to find out that it was actually me buying them up. I will then live to a ripe old age as a very wealthy man, and die quietly in my sleep before I was even born. |
|
| |
I'm wondering who pluterday is in "RL" to have such worries... |
|
| |
[yamahito] Ms. Pluter is in the "camera-shy" category... |
|
| |
Worryingly, I think that I'm sort of on the same wavelength as Rods. The management in my office decided that it would be a great idea, as a publicity thing, to publish an organisation chart with everyone's picture on it. I declined to get involved but they kept on pestering me so I informed them that I was perfectly willing to negotiate a deal over image rights if they really wanted me to appear that badly. They haven't come back to me on the proposal yet but I live in hope.
The real antidote to paparazzi is, of course, to not buy newspapers. |
|
| |
the editor could crop out the image, but a better way for the editor to print your picture would be just to blur the antipaparazzi notices, thus the invention wont work at all. |
|
| |