AmEx vs. rec.humor.funny 423
An anonymous reader writes "I worried that Brad Templeton's humorous reply in rec.humour.funny to the MasterCard threat might put an end to my daily read. I never heard the outcome, but since the column continues and he is using the same response to a suit from American Express, it must have been OK. This guy has more b*lls than I."
slashdotted (Score:5, Informative)
link2 [google.com]
Both sites already slow, here they are (Score:5, Informative)
bt@templetons.com (Brad Templeton)
http://www.templetons.com/brad
(topical, chuckle, true)
Two years ago, rec.humor.funny published a sick satire of the Mastercard "Priceless" ads (There are some things money can't buy, for everything else there's Mastercard) based around the Columbine tragedy. I won't repeat it here, since it was pretty sick and offensive, though you can find it on the web site at:
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/99/Apr/columb
Today we received a "cease and desist" letter from Mastercard's lawyers demanding that the parody be removed from our web site, falsely claiming it violates their trademarks and copyrights, in spite of the well established rules protecting satire and parody from such attacks.
The letter can be found at
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/price.html
Here, however, is my response...
Web site hosting for anybody: $10/month and up
Threatening letters to people who satirize you, hoping
they won't know the law: $500
Reputation as giant corporation required to intimidate
small publishers: $billions
Supreme court decisions protecting parody and
satire from accusations of copyright and
trademark infringement... Priceless
There are some rights money can't buy. For everything else, there's Mastercard's lawyers.
============
April 13, 2004
American Express threatens me over joke on web site
On my rec.humor.funny web site, I maintain the newsgroup archives, including this 13 year old joke entitled American Expressway.
Today I got one of those bullying "cease and desist" letters from American Express's law firm, ordering me to take down the joke for trademark infringement. Here's the text of the cease and desist
Do these guys know who they are trying to bully? I guess not, here's my response to them:
You can "Screw More" with an American Express Lawyer
Do you know me?
I built a famous company with a famous name, and then satirists made fun of me by taking advantage of the constitutional protections afforded parody when it comes to trademark law?
That's why I retained Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd, the "American Express Lawyers." Should you ever feel your reputation lost or stolen by free speech and satire, just one call gets LVM to write a threatening cease and desist letter -- usually on the same day -- citing all sorts of important sounding laws but ignoring the realities of parody. Most innocent web sites will cave in, not knowing their rights. LVM will pretend it has never read cases like L.L. Bean, Inc. v. High Society and dozens of others. There's no preset limit on the number of people you can threaten, so you can bully as much as you wish.
After all, Being Giant and Intimidating has its Privileges.
American Express Lawyers: Don't leave your home page without them.
For more examples of such games, check out our joint project with the Berkman center to document them: Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. And yes, Mastercard pulled the same stunt several years ago.
Posted by Brad at April 13, 2004 03:17 PM | TrackBack
Google Groups mirror of the post (hopefully) (Score:2, Informative)
The Joke (Score:3, Informative)
Lawyers email address public (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Both sites already slow, here they are (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Brad needs a lawyer (Score:2, Informative)
A judge ruled in his favor when ACOG tried to sue him again.
Original MasterCard Joke (Score:3, Informative)
Trademark for "Priceless" (Score:5, Informative)
Goods and Services IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: Financial services, namely, providing credit card, debit card, charge card and stored value smart card services, prepaid telephone calling card services, cash disbursement, and transaction authorization and settlement services. FIRST USE: 19980200. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19980200
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75658792
Filing Date March 11, 1999
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition November 30, 1999
Registration Number 2370508
Registration Date July 25, 2000
Owner (REGISTRANT) MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED CORPORATION DELAWARE 2000 Purchase Street Purchase NEW YORK 105772509
Attorney of Record COLM J DOBBYN
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Re:He's safe (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and you are really talking about libel, which is written. Slander is verbal.
Please get your terminology straight before talking out of your ass.
Looks like they're on a suing tour... (Score:4, Informative)
- Humorless lawyers suing Ralph Nader... and losing [salon.com]
Should you laugh or cry at this?
TESS Info for trademark #2370508 [uspto.gov]
It's not the the result which matters in America (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Brad needs a lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Back when Fox News tried to C&D Al Franken's book, I assumed, like everybody else in the world, that Fox's lawyers were actually graduates of law schools that teach things like that, but we were all wrong. Fox, being one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, evidently has a legal staff who all got their law degrees at Joe's Garage and Lawer Stuff Skool. You should hear Al Franken's own description of what happened when they went to court - the judge literally laughed when he told that not only don't they have a case, but if they persist they're very likely to find out that "Fair and Balanced" isn't trademarkable.
Isn't this old news? (Score:0, Informative)
What is it exactly about this message that makes it relevant now?
Cooper
--
This truth probably doesn't come as shocking news to any of you,
and if it does then you're stupid and I hate you.
- Everything Can Be Beaten -
Re:He's safe (Score:5, Informative)
As the Supreme Court majority opinion in "2 Live Crew vs. Rose-Acuff Music" said:
Re:Looks like they're on a suing tour... (Score:4, Informative)
For the Attrition case, this page [attrition.org] tells the whole story. Put simply, Mastercard ends up looking stupid.
The Amex Joke (they sued over this?!?) (Score:5, Informative)
The MC joke was tasteless, and i can see MC execs wanting to kill the joke, as it simply isn't funny. The Amex joke below seems almost complimentary, as it implies that having the AmEx card gives you special privilages. I suppose that if a popular celebrity gave them a free endorsement, they would issue a cease-and-desist letter. No wonder AmEx is the card chosen by the select few who don't want their card to be accepted in many stores.
You are invited to become a member of the American Expressway, one of the newest and most innovative road systems in America. There are many advantages to the American Expressway over the standard tollways, parkways, highways and freeways but by far the biggest advantage is:
No Preset Speed Limit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instead your personal speed limit is determined by your vehicle, your personal resourcefulness and your past speeding patterns. When you enter the expressway your personal id number is transmitted to Central Control to tabulate your tolls and record your initial speed (all AE members may travel at 55 with no restrictions). If you decide to pursue a greater speed then an authorization will be sent to Central Control and our highly specialized, non deterministic and little understood AI algorithm will decide if you are approved for your new speed. If you are not then a Service Technician (formally known as a State Trooper) may stop you to ask a few questions to verify that you were capable of handling your new limit (Do you increase throttle to induce oversteer in a decreasing radius turn?), that you have adequate resources (Is that a Crosley Wombat V16?) and that you are not too far out of your previous speeding pattern (Have you ever driven at 180 mph before?).
Membership has it's Privileges
To apply for membership call 1 800 HAUL ASS
Posting Date. (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/01/Apr/mcrhf.
Re:B*lls?? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:He's safe (Score:5, Informative)
i can't read the linked story now b/c it's slashdotted...
but, there's an interesting wrinkle in the protection of satires: there was a case in the nineties (an o.j. simpson parody in the form of 'cat in the hat'). the case hinged on the fact that satire only lets you use the work you are parodying. i.e., you can't use one work to parody something else.
now, parodying the mastercard stuff is probably ok, since it's the stupid, touchy-feely nature of the ads that's being parodied. but it's important to know that satire isn't a magic wand that lets you do anything you want.
-esme
Re:Isn't this old news? (Score:5, Informative)
The MasterCard joke was, yes, but the AmEx wasn't. See, it's two links up there... :*)
What is it exactly about this message that makes it relevant now?
The fact that AmEx sent a similar letter April 13, 2004.
Here's the Supreme Court Ruling: (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speec h/ hustler.html
No. 86-1278
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
485 U.S. 46
Argued December 2, 1987
Decided February 24, 1988
Syllabus
Respondent, a nationally known minister and commentator on politics and public affairs, filed a diversity action in Federal District Court against petitioners, a nationally circulated magazine and its publisher, to recover damages for, inter alia, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication of an advertisement "parody" which, among other things, portrayed respondent as having engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts . . . or events," but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress claim, stating that he should be awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners' contention that the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress. Rejecting as irrelevant the contention that, because the jury found that the parody did not describe actual facts, the ad was an opinion protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the court ruled that the issue was whether the ad's publication was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. "Outrageousness" [47] in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57.
797 F. 2d 1270, reversed.
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, AND SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 57. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Hustler Magazine, Inc., is a magazine of nationwide circulation. Respondent Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister who has been active as a commentator on politics and public affairs, sued petitioner and its publisher, petitioner Larry Flynt, to recover damages for invasion of [48] privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against respondent on the privacy claim, and submitted the other two claims to a jury. The jury found for petitioners on the defamation cl
Brad Templeton (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What to do? What to do? (Score:4, Informative)
The third reason, however, is the most important. As I understand it, if you give someone legal advice, it both makes you civilly liable for any bad consequences of taking it (IE, you get sued next if they lose the case), and may constitute the criminal offense of practicing law without a license if you are not admitted to the Legal Bar for the jurisdiction your advisee is in. I've heard Arizona is an exception to the second half of that, but I don't know the truth of this.
Many lawyers offer a free initial consultation; if you have a problem, taking advantage of that sounds like a good place to start.
Brad *doesn't* need a lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
As I pointed out elsewhere [slashdot.org] Brad is well aware of his rights (early online publisher, author of "10 Big Myths about copyright explained [templetons.com]", Chairman of the Board of the EFF [slashdot.org] ), rather folks need to be more aware of their own rights.
Also for all the lip service paid to EFF on /. it's pretty telling that this story was up for an hour, your posting was +5, and nobody here had a clue as to who Brad is...
Re:Posting Date. (Score:4, Informative)
Ooo, swing and a miss.
Most websites owner sort things chronologically, meaning a sorting of descention. Applied, that would be sorted by: Year, Month, Day, Hour, Min, Sec.
So in your example above, the 01 would be year.
Re:He's safe (Score:3, Informative)
For example, Penny Arcade's parody [scalzi.com] of American McGee and Strawberry Shortcake.
Its not self censorship (Score:4, Informative)
Many sites (slashdot excluded) and certain types of client filtering software implement a naive filtering algorithm which block out easily recognized profanities ("fuck", "shit", etc)- perhaps even blocking the whole page or post.
Using alternate spellings does not in any way make the word unintelligble, but it does make it more resitant to automated censorship.
So, personally, I dont have any problem with the practice.
mirror / cache here! (Score:3, Informative)
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:EbL5xyjk04AJ
Google cache of original in Groups:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22American+Exp
Re:What's the point of IANAL disclaimers? (Score:3, Informative)
The privilege may not exist in the circumstances you describe, hence the disclaimer.
(Note - this is not legal advice.)
Re:Both sites already slow, here they are (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that's just what expensive corporate lawyers would like you to believe.
It is true that a trademark can be lost if it is not vigorously protected from infringement. However, since satire isn't an infringement, there is nothing to protect it from when satire happens.
The various bullying C&D letters sent out are nothing more or less than willful bullying.
If there is any doubt about the nature of a trademark's use, the various lawyers could just as easily send out a letter noting the existance of the parody, and reminding the author or publisher of the parody that while parody is perfectly legal, they should take steps to assure that they do not cross the line by going into (for example) the banking and credit business using that parody. There is no need to threaten gloom and doom or willfully ignore important portions of trademark law other than to bully the recipiant of the letter.
Re:Both sites already slow, here they are (Score:5, Informative)
Second - Trademark infringement can only come when another company uses your trademark in business. Just using the name of a company in a joke is not trademark infringement any more than me typing MasterCard right here is not infringement.
Third - Contrary to the moron AC below Kleenex still holds its trademark. You will never see Scotties Kleenex - they are called Scotties Tissues. People can refer to common items (like band aids, kleenex, vasoline, etc) but when a company sells a similar product they can not use that name. Just go to a grocery store and that is plain to see.
Fourth - This has nothing to do with trademarks. this is about Copyrights. You don't trademark a commercial. It is copyrighted. Parody is allowed under copyright law and this is surely a parody.
Re:Both sites already slow, here they are (Score:3, Informative)
That has nothing to do with not protecting trademarks. It has to do with losing a war.
Let jAmEx/MasterTard know you hate 'em! (Score:5, Informative)
I also suggest calling/emailing everyone you can at MasterCard for their consistent badgering of parodies - most recently (and notably) Ralph Nader's ad.
Here's some MC contact info. Anybody got some for AmEx?
Tell 'em you don't appreciate companies that attempt, over and over again, to bully others into compliance with THEIR wishes, against the letter and spirit of the law, and you won't stand for
it. Call 'em again and again. They like hearing from irate consumers.
Some folks are claiming this is "old news", but it's been going on for some time, and resurfaces every once in a while - send these folks a message NOW, and maybe they'll finally figure it out.
MasterCard Executive e-mail addresses:
Sharon Gamsin Vice President, Global Communications
sgamsin@mastercard.com
Phone: 914.249.5622
Chris Monteiro Vice President, Global Marketing Communications
chris_monteiro@mastercard.com
Ph
Ayde Ayala Global Communications Coordinator
ayde_ayala@mastercard.com
Phone: 914.249.5388
Marc Levy Director, Global Marketing Communications
marc_levy@mastercard.com
Phone: 914.249.3233
PR/Media Inquiries:
Christina Costa
Ph: +1 914 249 4606
Email: christina costa@mastercard.com
North America:
Michael Madden
Tel: +1 914 249 1354
Email: Michael Madden@mastercard.com
(Media Contact only)
MasterCard International
Christina Costa
1-914-249-4606
christina_costa@mastercard
Sony Walkman. In Austria (Score:2, Informative)
Read about it here [wired.com] and here [brandchannel.com].
Or search google for sony walkman trademark case austria [google.com]
Re: Loyeerin' fer the rest of us... (Score:2, Informative)
From the C&D letter: "This material (the "Infringing Material ") blatantly copies the sequential display of a series of items belonging to one or more individuals, showing, the "price" of each item, and, at the end, infringes, with impunity (emph supplied), the MASTERCARD Mark and the Priceless Marks."
from one of 3 nearly identical cites at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impunity
Granting -- since IANAL and have NO desire to be one (henceforward: IANALAHNDTBO) -- legalese may give some counterintuitive meaning to impunity, one might still wonder if the pinheads really did graduate only from "Billy-Bob's Loyeering Skool" (after flunking hs english?)Please distinguish among "interesing," "insightful" and "informative." The latter two require substantiation!
Re:Both sites already slow, here they are (Score:4, Informative)
Re:He's safe (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Both sites already slow, here they are (Score:3, Informative)
Well, depends somewhat on where you live. In the south in the US, it takes place quite often. Kleenex is generic for any type tissue you could blow your nose on...even toilet paper might apply if that's all you had. Down here..Coke is synonymous with any carbonated beverage. If someone asks you "Hey, you want a coke"...it is usually followed by "What flavor?"
BandAid...any adhesive bandage you put on a cut.
I once had a girlfriend from Iowa in highschool....took me awhile to figure out what the hell she was talking about when she said she'd like some 'pop'. Hahaha...
Why it's necessary to publicise this (Score:5, Informative)
As some of you know, I am with the EFF, and so I don't lack for legal advice on cyberspace free speech issues. That's not the question.
This letter is an example of a new phenomenon I call "spammigation." Automated bulk legal action. I suspect Amex told their lawyers to just threaten everybody using an Amex trademark on a web page without authorization. Or perhaps the lawyers convinced Amex this was a good idea. In worse cases, DirecTV sues everybody who bought a smart card writer, and the RIAA sues hundreds of Kazaa users at once.
They send threats or sue because they know they are the big guy and the little guy will almost always cave in. It's easy and cheap. For a typical web site owner, it's too expensive to even figure out if you are within your rights, certainly too expensive to get a lawyer. So people just take their web sites down.
Every so often they get somebody like me who knows his rights, and I predict they have no desire to fight me once they see who I am and that I can defend my rights. So I'm not in much danger personally. The people in danger are the other people who got this letter and didn't know the truth.
So I make fun of them to ridicule them, to point out what they are doing, and to inform people that they don't have to give in to impressive sounding threats on their parodies. By doing it in an amusing way, people pay more attention to it.
They do need to defend their mark, but parodies are not infringing so they don't need to send C&D letters on those. They do it because they are lazy, or because they want to be very sweeping, or perhaps because the lawyers want to bill the client for more hours, who knows? It's a foolish strategy, but they do it.
And another reason for the publicity is that it teaches them to be more careful, and not to just threaten willy-nilly. I want it to come back and bite them. Last time, Mastercard got people cutting up their mastercards, and the law firm doesn't want the client calling to say "what the hell did you do, customers are cancelling accounts!"
So write Amex if you don't like them bullying. Tell them and the lawyers there is a cost to bullying in the modern age.
(If you don't get
Re:What's the point of IANAL disclaimers? (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL, but I am a paralegal, and I can answer this one, although obviously this is not legal advice.
The "this is not legal advice unless you're paying me" disclaimer is there to avoid malpractice liablity. If you, as a lawyer, give someone some bad or misleading legal advice, and that person suffers financial harm, they can sue you.
It's exactly the same reason all online doctors post little more than "see your doctor immediately." If you said "I slept funny and I'm having some minor neck pain," and a doctor replied, "Ah, that's nothing, take two Asprin," and you ended up paralyzed because you hadn't fully described your symptoms... that doctor may well be liable for malpractice. And you can sue.
However, it is *not* malpractice to make a legally unfounded threat. A threat is not considered legal advice. There's a huge legal difference between saying "Put on a pink dress or I'll sue you!" and "As a lawyer, I advise you to wear a pink dress to your court appearance." The first is protected speech; the second is an actionable tort.
Like the recently settled Pan-IP patent case (Score:4, Informative)
For C&D letters Chilling Effects is our group defense [chillingeffects.org], as is the EFF [eff.org] in general.
Even legal journals have to (self-censorship) (Score:3, Informative)