Up and Coming Posters

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 9:27 am

Jim_Mc,

I'm a generous guy. Here's the code:

Mack.Hoover · Post by **Mack.Hoover** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 9:39 am

Chuck, In fact I did think of placing you with the Marks, but was running out of rhiming words...lark dark park hark shark quark.

Maybe Chuck (with a little luck).

No, no, not the rotting fruit!
...duck..

fiddling_tenor · Post by **fiddling_tenor** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 10:10 am

What!? I'm part of a conspiracy? LOL! I've finally arrived!!

And jim_mc: yes, there is a difference between referring to a brand and actually using a trademarked logo--even causally.

Well this thread has helped me add a few posts to my tally, wonder if I'm still 480...

Time for a walk.

Peace!

Jeferson · Post by **Jeferson** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 10:57 am

On 2002-10-08 10:50, fiddling_tenor wrote:
On a related note: I wage an ongoing battle with my kids' schools regarding the showing of entertainment videos during the school day.
1. The kids aren't there to be entertained, but to learn.
2. Every video is licensed for home-viewing only (says so in the graphic everyone fast-forwards through).
3. Video distributors are paying closer attention to when and where their videos are shown.
4. Two or three years ago, a day-care facility in Harrisburg, PA was fined 10,000 per infraction for showing the Disney videos the kids brought in from home. The day-care owner lost because his facility was considered by the court to be a public venue.

Tom, a couple of issues are raised here. Regarding kids watching entertainment videos at school, hopefully you're pursuing the issue with your kids' teachers and getting answers/results that make sense.

Regarding legalities, every jurisdiction is different, I suppose. In BC, where I teach, our provincial government has paid some sort of fee that allows for the legal use of such videos in the school system. In our staff room, there is a list of entertainment companies (Disney is one of them) that have authorized us to show their videos. The government issued the list with instructions that we keep track of what is shown. Under that list is a sign-up sheet where teachers are to record which videos are shown and when. In our school's 17 classrooms last year, for example, a total of 26 videos were shown and written down on the list. I showed one at a class party in December and another at an end of year party in June.

I'm sure the industry pursues similar agreements with American school boards. My own thoughts are that there is a place for such videos at school, but that it should be a very tiny place reserved for special occasions.

Let me know if you'd like a copy of our agreement.

Jef

fiddling_tenor · Post by **fiddling_tenor** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 1:33 pm

I'm sure the industry pursues similar agreements with American school boards. My own thoughts are that there is a place for such videos at school, but that it should be a very tiny place reserved for special occasions.
Jef

Jef:
If the industry does, I have yet to talk to a teacher who knew of it (13 years and still going)

I also agree with your last statement, providing parents retain the right to opt out if they feel a movie is inappropriate for their own child.

My wife's nursery school used dalmations as a theme one year. At the end of the year, she wanted to show Disney's animated "101 Dalmations." Buena Vista, then distrbutors for Disney's videotapes, approved if she would remit $250 per child in license fees.

Needless to say, she opted out.

Ah well...

-Tom

_________________
Tom Gallagher
a whistling tenor, just fiddling around
fiddlingtenor@usa.com
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to say something and remove all doubt" --atributed to Abraham Lincoln

[ This Message was edited by: fiddling_tenor on 2002-10-08 15:34 ]

fiddling_tenor · Post by **fiddling_tenor** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 1:40 pm

Okay, I just figured out how to find the stats for the Board.

I'm member 480, but rank 114 in the post derby.

Got a long way to go.

serpent · Post by **serpent** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 1:56 pm

On 2002-10-08 10:40, Mack.Hoover wrote:
Serpent's sincerely sorry (he states).
Loren lies low; he lurkingly waits.
(etc...)

Most cool!

Bill Whedon

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:03 pm

But come one and all you chiffers, and post;
And we'll give the prize to the one with the most.

And I claim the Hoover

Does this mean I actually have to order a Hoover??? Sigh.... only 700something posts to go and my cable Internet ends a week or two from now.......

And I didn't even make the poem. I feel...so.....Swaggart-like!
Lord, I have SINNED!!!

contrite not-so-daily Weekender

jim_mc · Post by **jim_mc** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:06 pm

Well, it's 4:00 pm EDT and nary a process server at my door. I had been thinking about shouting out for Melvin Belly, Esq. and putting him on retainer, but don't know if that's still necessary.

Hey, I just said "nary". A couple of "haths" and you guys will mistake me for

Or maybe not.

tuaz · Post by **tuaz** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 9:42 pm

The logo issue reflects the difference between registered trademarks and copyrighted work. If the logo is an original piece of artwork, then using it without the copyright holder's permission is a copyright infringement even if you are not using it in a way (e.g. in the course of trade, on your own goods/services, confusing the public on the source of certain goods/services) that infringes trademk law. [Unless of course, your country's law specifically deals with this issue]

Currently in Singapore, the above has resulted in a eyebrow-raising decision (albeit made at summary stage, and being appealed on): very well-known brand A published a notice in the papers telling the public not to be confused between its logo A and brand B's logo. Both logos were set out in the notice side by side.

Brand B is a newcomer selling similar goods. THey sued Brand A for both TM and copyright infringement. THe TM part is going for hearing, but in the meantime Brand B obtained summary judgment for copyright infringement on the basis that Brand A has no defence to that claim (they DID reproduce logo B in their notice).

I certainly sympathise with Brand A, because I think Brand B's logo is confusingly similar to Brand A's.

[ This Message was edited by: tuaz on 2002-10-08 23:44 ]

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Wed Oct 09, 2002 3:56 am

And I didn't even make the poem. I feel...so.....Swaggart-like!
Lord, I have SINNED!!!

contrite not-so-daily Weekender

Maybe 'enders, but have a look at the earlier stuff. You made the initial honours list and, like me, you apparently personify a certain kind of whistle. They got that bit wrong though—our duets have much more chiff than that don't they?

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Wed Oct 09, 2002 4:37 am

I attended one of Swaggart's services back in the 1970's. I don't remember what he preached about, but I do remember that he could flat play that piano.

jim_mc · Post by **jim_mc** » Wed Oct 09, 2002 5:54 am

Well, Walden, isn't Swaggert a first cousin to Jerry Lee Lewis?

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Wed Oct 09, 2002 6:54 am

On 2002-10-09 07:54, jim_mc wrote:
isn't Swaggert a first cousin to Jerry Lee Lewis?

He's cousin to Micky Gilley too, as I recall.

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Wed Oct 09, 2002 9:01 am

Coincidence? I think not...

And TUAZ, I tried reading your post a coupla times and the only thing I know for sure is that whoever loses the case will be CANED!!!!

They know what to do with Evildoers in Singapore!!!