As usual, very funny, Damien! I enjoy your posts most of all.
In the title "OscarWatch" there is a "r"( for "registered trade-mark )after "Oscar". What's AMPAS' problem? You, yourself, used it without a problem, after you and Mason checked it out.
AMPAS threatens OscarWatch with a lawsuit
Our lawyers had long negotiations with the Academy about the use of the word "Oscar" for Inside Oscar. It was finally agreed that we could use the word if we added a trademark symbol next to it. This was the beginning of this now ubiquitous practice.
This reminds me of when Warner Bros tried to stop the Marx Brothers from using the title "A Night In Casablanca." Groucho wrote a letter, stating in part:
"Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.
It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.
I just don’t understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.
You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about “Warner Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”)
Now Jack, how about you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well it’s not. It was used long before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks—Jack of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day."
Long before the golden statuette there was Oscar Wilde and King Oscar of Prussia.
This reminds me of when Warner Bros tried to stop the Marx Brothers from using the title "A Night In Casablanca." Groucho wrote a letter, stating in part:
"Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.
It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.
I just don’t understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.
You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about “Warner Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”)
Now Jack, how about you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well it’s not. It was used long before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks—Jack of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day."
Long before the golden statuette there was Oscar Wilde and King Oscar of Prussia.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Hmm, I wonder what the legal standing of the Academy is. Especially if Stone has a copyright/trademark notice on her website. Since it's just a title, I don't know how much of a standing the Academy has...after all, and Damien should speak on this, countless books have the word Oscar in the title, including Inside Oscar...
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Oscar the statue, meet Oscar the Grouch.
Lawyers for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences last week ordered the editor of the seven-year-old Oscarwatch.com web site to give up the name or face a lawsuit.
At issue: The Academy owns the "Oscar" trademark and warned founding editor Sasha Stone that she has no legal right to the name and that her website "is likely to confuse visitors searching the Academy's site."
Stone, who has run Oscarwatch.com from her Los Angeles home since just after her daughter's 1999 birth, said she can't afford a lawyer and is uncertain what her next step will be. A message seeking comment from the Academy was not returned.
The Academy has taken similar measures dating back a decade, including moving in 2000 against some 50 websites that incorporated Oscar or Academy in their site names. But this is the first time the Academy has gone after Stone's site, she said.
Stone speculated she was targeted to preclude other potential users of "Oscar" from citing her as an example in challenging the Academy's trademark. Yet the name is already part of the common language, she said.
"I really do think I can argue this thing - people do use the name all the time Oscarwatching is its own word, really," she said. "But I probably just can't afford it. I think I'll just have to comply."
Stone said she makes about $20,000 a year from her site, which was one of the first to focus almost exclusively on the Oscars and offers a movie-junkie's take on the annual jockeying for filmdom's top honor. The Oscars will be handed out Feb. 25.
Stone said she may wind up changing the name of the site but fears that years of building up traffic and a readership will be threatened.
Stone said she was surprised to get the demand after years of running the site, and in a media world in which Oscar has become an accepted shorthand for the annual awards in book titles, journalism and other outlets.
"They have left me alone for years," Stone said. "I don't know what the deal is with them."
Lawyers for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences last week ordered the editor of the seven-year-old Oscarwatch.com web site to give up the name or face a lawsuit.
At issue: The Academy owns the "Oscar" trademark and warned founding editor Sasha Stone that she has no legal right to the name and that her website "is likely to confuse visitors searching the Academy's site."
Stone, who has run Oscarwatch.com from her Los Angeles home since just after her daughter's 1999 birth, said she can't afford a lawyer and is uncertain what her next step will be. A message seeking comment from the Academy was not returned.
The Academy has taken similar measures dating back a decade, including moving in 2000 against some 50 websites that incorporated Oscar or Academy in their site names. But this is the first time the Academy has gone after Stone's site, she said.
Stone speculated she was targeted to preclude other potential users of "Oscar" from citing her as an example in challenging the Academy's trademark. Yet the name is already part of the common language, she said.
"I really do think I can argue this thing - people do use the name all the time Oscarwatching is its own word, really," she said. "But I probably just can't afford it. I think I'll just have to comply."
Stone said she makes about $20,000 a year from her site, which was one of the first to focus almost exclusively on the Oscars and offers a movie-junkie's take on the annual jockeying for filmdom's top honor. The Oscars will be handed out Feb. 25.
Stone said she may wind up changing the name of the site but fears that years of building up traffic and a readership will be threatened.
Stone said she was surprised to get the demand after years of running the site, and in a media world in which Oscar has become an accepted shorthand for the annual awards in book titles, journalism and other outlets.
"They have left me alone for years," Stone said. "I don't know what the deal is with them."