USOC asks Bush to pull campaign ad

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

So if a political party wishes to use any protected copyrighted material in an advertisement, it's ok whether it's legal or not?

That's the question. In effect you say damn the law. OK we know where you stand on this issue.

That's my take as well - I don't see any principled distinction between this and, say, using a clip from "Saving Private Ryan" without studio permission, or claiming the candidate had helped IBM improve its business, without the company's permission.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So if a political party wishes to use any protected copyrighted material in an advertisement, it's ok whether it's legal or not?

That's the question. In effect you say damn the law. OK we know where you stand on this issue.

*sigh* You assume too much again. I did not "in effect" say what you are assuming.

There seem to be multiple issues here, so I can understand why it's hard for an old man to keep up

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

So if a political party wishes to use any protected copyrighted material in an advertisement, it's ok whether it's legal or not?

That's the question. In effect you say damn the law. OK we know where you stand on this issue.

That's my take as well - I don't see any principled distinction between this and, say, using a clip from "Saving Private Ryan" without studio permission, or claiming the candidate had helped IBM improve its business, without the company's permission.

Like I said in a different post - the images are a different matter. I was talking about the term and the politics issues. I'm still waiting to hear whether or not the images were the property of the Olympics, but no one has provided that yet. I guess I'll just wait...

CkG

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith







Damn, cut bait and run. Of all the things you decided to defend this is the dumbest.




He won't. His ad nauseum defense of his (mis) use of the apostrophe is still a staff favorite on the faculty bulletin board.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith







Damn, cut bait and run. Of all the things you decided to defend this is the dumbest.




He won't. His ad nauseum defense of his (mis) use of the apostrophe is still a staff favorite on the faculty bulletin board.

eh?
And I'm sure they all feel like big E-men too :roll:

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So if a political party wishes to use any protected copyrighted material in an advertisement, it's ok whether it's legal or not?

That's the question. In effect you say damn the law. OK we know where you stand on this issue.

*sigh* You assume too much again. I did not "in effect" say what you are assuming.

There seem to be multiple issues here, so I can understand why it's hard for an old man to keep up

CkG

Like I said before this old man can kick your azz, and in fact am doing that right now.

I say in effect because you look at things in a trial lawyer like manner. If I said something was tantamount to angels dancing on the head of a pin you would ask "how many?"

I merely head you off.

Everyone else sees it

 

[TuxDave]

This is sad. Ok, here's my arguments one by one.

1) This was a political ad.
2) The usage of the word olympics and the images of a swimmer and flags will give the impression that they were both referring to the Olympics. This within reasonable boundaries.
3) Even if the images are not taken from the olympic events, if the combination of words and images appears to the common person as an Olympic event, it is within the authority of the USOC, not the advertiser. (That's why products that take existing logos and photoshops them are illegal. If they pose resemblance to the original product such that a consumer will believe they are associated, then the original product holding the trademark has jurisdiction over the case)

The combination of 1 and 3 allows the USOC to deny the Bush campaign from using this ad.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So if a political party wishes to use any protected copyrighted material in an advertisement, it's ok whether it's legal or not?

That's the question. In effect you say damn the law. OK we know where you stand on this issue.

*sigh* You assume too much again. I did not "in effect" say what you are assuming.

There seem to be multiple issues here, so I can understand why it's hard for an old man to keep up

CkG

Like I said before this old man can kick your azz, and in fact am doing that right now.

I say in effect because you look at things in a trial lawyer like manner. If I said something was tantamount to angels dancing on the head of a pin you would ask "how many?"

I merely head you off.

Everyone else sees it

No, actually you assumed more than what was there. No where did I state or imply that it was "OK" to disregard the law.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Who here agrees that Cad had his ass handed to him?

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup: