Consider it support for the First Amendment-- or, if you prefer, a minor blow against frivolous lawsuits against litigious corporations. Al, you're fair, you're balanced, and gosh-darn it, people like you. Would we tell people to go buy the book if we didn't like you? (Inspired by Atrios.)
Posted by Glenn Hauman at August 13, 2003 10:20 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingFair and Balanced? What da heck does that actually mean? No one claiming that right now actually is either fair or balanced. I don't find Mr. Franken all that funny, but sheesh do we really have to sue each other at the drop of the hat?
As one of my favorite shows once said "The truth is a three edged sword: Your story, my story, and what really happened".
UBU
I'm sure that there are folks on here much better versed in parody law than I am; isn't Franken's book clearly protected as such?
Please enlighten me, seriously.
Eric
Two things strike me as seriously hilarious in Fox's complaint. Well, aside from Fox News actually calling themselves fair and balanced, that is.
First is this: "Franken is neither a journalist nor a television news personality." What I've been saying for so long, the network has finally copped to. It turns out that television news personalities are not journalists. So they've finally fessed up. Good for them. They say honesty is the first step toward being healed.
Second, also from the complaint: "He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable. His views lack any serious depth or insight." I'm sorry, but I thought they were talking about Bill O'Reilly.
I'm sure that there are folks on here much better versed in parody law than I am; isn't Franken's book clearly protected as such?
I think the general indignant outrage is over the fact that Fox News (your source for evil!) seems to believe they can trademark a phrase.
As the NYT article said: the idea that you can own two words while connected by a third. Pretty ridiculous.
I can't imagine a remotely informed judiciary allowing that to happen, and I'm sure FNC can't either. Publicity stunt? You think? I guarantee you their legal costs will be a hell of a lot less than a new national advertising campaign.
JLK
Guess I was one thread ahead of this discussion, but I'm glad this one is getting a bit more attention here. Glad that the courts are going to work out who has the rights to 'fair' and 'balanced.' With Bill Clinton contributing the word 'is,' we've got the makings of a damn good sentence cooking here.
I'd like to make some sort of in-depth comment here, but unfortunately, every time I turn on the Fox News Channel, every electrical outlet in my apartment starts to smoke, and my television tries to crawl out the window. And as a journalist, every time I hear the words 'fair and balanced' associated with Fox News, my skin breaks out in a rash. Fair and balanced? Are we talking about Bill O'Reilly here? Geraldo Rivera perhaps? I'm not quite sure how this case got to court in the first place. I was under the impression that the New York State Supreme Court didn't accept legal documents written in crayon.
Oh, and to continue my list of stranger than fiction from the previous thread (which includes the above-mentioned story), I've got another one to add from today's news. Apparently our president, when quizzed about the upcoming California election responded, 'I'm a follower of American politics.' Honest. He really did.
You never know. Marvel and DC comics actually co-own the word superhero, so maybe you can copyright a phrase. Are other ad slogans trademarked? Could McDonald's use where's the beef while Wendy's swiped Food, Folks, and Fun? Is, as the Simpson's suggests, Disneyland by law the happiest place on earth? Will this post end? Huh?
Try this. Put the type "World's Greatest Comic Magazine" on the cover of Fallen Angel a few times and see just how far a company will go to protect a slogan.
All News Corp. is trying to do is protect it's copyright on the phrase "Fair and Balanced". They aren't trying to stop the publishing of the book. Franken on the other hand, seems to be trying to sell his book by using Fox, much like he used Rush Limbaugh to sell an earlier book. It is ironic though that the Rush Limbaugh titled book was a best seller, yet non of Al's other books have been? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
I've got to laugh at the posters that claim to hate Fox News, but in the same breath say they don't watch it. Honestly, you've got to learn the difference between the news content and the opinion content! O'Reilly comes right out and says that what he says is his opinion. Yes, he's strong about his opinion, but isn't PAD the same way? Both men are straight foreward about their beliefs and stand behind them. I might not agree all of the time with either one, but can respect them. And if you would actually watch Fox News sometime, you would see that they have conservative and liberal hosts and guests.
Finally, just because Frankin claims to be a comedian, it doesn't necessarily place his book in the realm of parody. If that were true, all of Dr. William Cosby's writings must be parody as well.
Jeff: first, they're trying to protect a trademark, not copyright. A good overview of trademark law can be found here.
A brief analysis can be found at Daily Kos but I'll quote it here:
"In order to serve as a trademark, a mark must be distinctive -- that is, it must be capable of identifying the source of a particular good. In determining whether a mark is distinctive, the courts group marks into four categories, based on the relationship between the mark and the underlying product: (1) arbitrary or fanciful, (2) suggestive, (3) descriptive, or (4) generic. Because the marks in each of these categories vary with respect to their distinctiveness, the requirements for, and degree of, legal protection afforded a particular trademark will depend upon which category it falls within [...]
The term "fair and balanced" is obviously a descriptive term, so let's jump ahead to that section:
A descriptive mark is a mark that directly describes, rather than suggests, a characteristic or quality of the underlying product (e.g. its color, odor, function, dimensions, or ingredients). For example, "Holiday Inn," "All Bran," and "Vision Center" all describe some aspect of the underlying product or service (respectively, hotel rooms, breakfast cereal, optical services). They tell us something about the product. Unlike arbitrary or suggestive marks, descriptive marks are not inherently distinctive and are protected only if they have acquired "secondary meaning." Descriptive marks must clear this additional hurdle because they are terms that are useful for describing the underlying product, and giving a particular manufacturer the exclusive right to use the term could confer an unfair advantage.
So for Fox to prevail, they will have to argue that the term "fair and balanced" has acquired "secondary meaning":
A descriptive mark acquires secondary meaning when the consuming public primarily associates that mark with a particular producer, rather than the underlying product. Thus, for example, the term "Holiday Inn" has acquired secondary meaning because the consuming public associates that term with a particular provider of hotel services, and not with hotel services in general. The public need not be able to identify the specific producer; only that the product or service comes from a single producer. When trying to determine whether a given term has acquired secondary meaning, courts will often look to the following factors: (1) the amount and manner of advertising; (2) the volume of sales; (3) the length and manner of the term's use; (4) results of consumer surveys.
In other words, the term "fair and balanced" must be unambiguously associated with Fox News Channel in the mind of the public. Can FNC reach this hurdle? No way. Not even close. I would love to see that consumer survey showing people associating "fair and balanced" only with Fox (and the law is very clear in requiring these surveys).
And that's not even getting into fair use provisions of intellectual property law."
My main problem with Mr. O'Reilly is in the way he presents himself as the calm voice of reason. "No Spin Zone"? Ha!
He is a conservative and ALWAYS puts a conservative 'spin' on things. Denying it is just delusional.
I'm curious then, who was using the phrase "fair and balanced" before FNC adopted it as it's slogan? Was anyone? Then it can and will be argued that the phrase IS associated with FNC. I would bet that any survey that asks what the term "fair and balanced" relates to, would answer Fox News. That's not saying they agree with the saying, but rather FNC has been using the slogan for years, and has worked hard to get that phrase associated with them.
But, why isn't the "suggestive" arguement even mentioned? According to the tradmark laws,
"A suggestive mark is a mark that evokes or suggests a characteristic of the underlying good. For example, the word "Coppertone" is suggestive of sun-tan lotion, but does not specifically describe the underlying product. Some exercise of imagination is needed to associate the word with the underlying product. At the same time, however, the word is not totally unrelated to the underlying product. Like arbitrary or fanciful marks, suggestive marks are inherently distinctive and are given a high degree of protection."
I still look at the irony of someone like Al Franken, who is definately not on the "right", having to use the names, slogans, and copying the looks of the "right" to sell his books.
I haven't liked Al Franken since just after the Joe Franken Decade started.
Just so's you know, Jeff, every kid in journalism school uses the phrase "fair and balanced." I've read it many, many times in magazines, newspapers and websites. I've heard many news organizations use it to describe their reporting/journalism. It's a common term when describing what they do, as in "Our reporting is fair and balanced." Not that it necessarily is, but that's another discussion entirely.
Personally, after having tried them all, I don't like any of the main four networks for news, as none of them would know journalistic integrity if it rared up and bit off their behinds. If I have to get my daily news off the boob tube, I prefer The Daily Show. At least they're honest about what they're doing: entertaining the audience during that space between commercials.
It is a shame that Mr. Franken, and others, must use the "right" to sell their products.
Though, you really can't deny the wisdom of doing so.
-Rush Limbaugh: #1 Talk radio host
-FOX News: #1 rated cable news channel(though, I honestly don't believe they are ONLY conservative.)
-Ann Coulter(Treason): Best selling book(took Hillary down, fast, ouch.)
Though, I guess that is the Liberal way...mooch.
James Tichy: howcome all of those conservative books you mentioned, most of which are long, hysterical screeds blaming liberals for everything bad that's ever happened, ever, are NOT "using liberals" the way you accuse Franken of "using conservatives?"
Just wondering.
James, currently Clinton's book is number 3 on the Times best-seller list, while Treason is number 5. (Neither of those books can hold a candle to Michael Moore's run at the top of the bestseller list, by the way.)
My guess is that you're not willing to be logically consistant about the source of Franken's book sales. If the book flops, will you be willing to say that it flopped because the material he was parodying isn't good? Unless you're willing to agree to that, it's logically inconsistant of you to imply that if the book sells well, it's only because of the popularity of the material he's parodying.
In general, it's silly to try and use the idea of parody as a partisan issue. It's a parody, dude. Get a grip.
>> In other words, the term "fair and balanced" must be unambiguously associated with Fox News Channel in the mind of the public. Can FNC reach this hurdle? No way. Not even close. <<
Really? Why is it that every snide and sarcastic reference I ever see against the FNC invariably uses that phrase? Even THE DAILY SHOW -- that high paragon of news content -- references it to FOX derisively all the time. Seems to me that "Fair and Balanced" is clearly associated with FNC, no matter what your opinion of its legitimacy is.
::sigh:: Another Glenn post on this blog sends things out of control again...
-Augie
In fairness to Glenn, all but the first 2 sentences of his reply to me was a direct quote from Daily Kos. He might have posted it here, but he didn't write it originally (as far as I know).
From Suncat:
Just so's you know, Jeff, every kid in journalism school uses the phrase "fair and balanced." I've read it many, many times in magazines, newspapers and websites. I've heard many news organizations use it to describe their reporting/journalism. It's a common term when describing what they do, as in "Our reporting is fair and balanced." Not that it necessarily is, but that's another discussion entirely.
That's true. I heard it when I was taking my journalism classes. However, just saying it in a classroom or a newsroom is not the same as trademarking the slogan.
Another example. Progresso Soup may be good, but they can't use the slogan "Mmmmmm Mmmmmm Good". That's just one word and 2 sound effects, but Campbells though of using it first.
Well, this lawsuit has marginally more merit than Spike Lee's vs. TNN (SpikeTV.) I find it hard to believe that this lawsuit isn't 100% publicity, and 0% litigation.
Campbells THOUGHT of using it first.
Don't post right after waking up...
Bottom line, folks: it's a parody. Franken doesn't WANT to make money off the big viewers of the O'Reilly Factor and Fox News Channel.
Frankly, if I were a loyal watcher of Fox News Channel, I'd probably feel more insulted by Fox's lawsuit, because it seems to presume that people are incapable of distinguishing between Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly, and that Al Franken's hoping to "trick" O'Reilly's fans and Fox News watchers to buy his book.
Please. Even *I'm* insulted by that presumption, and I'm a liberal. Most people aren't that stupid, at least, not the ones who read. That's my hope.
It's parody. It's satire. Fox *MIGHT* have a case, if the title was "Al Franken: Fair and Balanced" but it's not...it's a subtitle stating "Fair and Balanced look at the Right" and that's distinguishable, meant to evoke Fox News in a satirical way, a sarcastic way.
Come on. The "no-spin zone"? Seems like there's some spin with this story...
It's interesting how some say Fox is making an attempt at being F&B and others decry it as "evil"
The information is never being examined on its own but against the background of our minds. A "liberal" mind will see the semantics with a different emphasis than a conservative, whereas a conservative will more readily identify the liberal screed within CNN and ABC News while a liberal will see that as F&B news.
Viewed against the backdrops of our minds, no datum is F&B and this is why less vitriol and more humility needs to be injected into the debate. Unfortunately all sides of any political issue are beset with causes that are not always putting the best interests of the country at heart.
I once heard that little infinks prefers da sounds of der momma's and poppa's languages as opposed to neutral sounds in general. Preference and selective listening is far far more ingrained than people think, giving the lie to the concept of "F&B" for all mankind.
Fox news, sigh makes me yearn for the good old days of Pravda.
In other news, fact follows fiction as the US works to develop the Gamma Bomb. Read all about it in the Scotsman:
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=888972003
Scientists say that the large green hulking creatures seen near the research facility should not worry anyone.
From Franken's Publisher (quoted from the Barnes and Noble web page)
For the first time since his own classic "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations", Al Franken trains his subversive wit directly on the contemporary political scene. Now, the "master of political humor" (Washington Times) destroys the myth of liberal bias in the media, and exposes how the Right shamelessly tries to deceive the rest of us.
This doesn't sound like satire or parody. It sound like the same kind of spin that he's accusing the right of doing. Or, maybe all of his opinions should be regarded as satire and folks should not take him seriously. But Franken wants it both. He wants to give his opinions, accuse people of lying, and hide behind calling it a parody. If he had any credibility, he would be able to present his ideas without having to rip off others ideas.
Al Franken has seriously become one of my heroes in recent months, ever since the O'Reilly Incident. I've never purchased one of his books before, I've just got 'em from the library, but I'll be buying this one.
Hi Jeff, a few points:
I'm curious then, who was using the phrase "fair and balanced" before FNC adopted it as it's slogan? Was anyone? Then it can and will be argued that the phrase IS associated with FNC.
Well, no. That would be like if, say, Granny Smith Apples started packaging their apples this way -- "Granny Smiths: Red and Green" -- and then sued an apple orchard because it advertised "a selection of red and green apples".
Whether or not anyone specifically used the term "fair and balanced" (which, as Suncat pointed out, is not at all uncommon) to describe their news is irrelevant because those are specific attributes of the product/service, and are (theoretically) inherent aspects of the product (news). Journalism (as opposed to editorializing and commentary, which is where the likes of O'Reilly, Franken, Coulter and Alterman belong) is designed to be fair and balanced, in the same way that apples are designed to be red and green.
Which answers your question But, why isn't the "suggestive" arguement even mentioned? The suggestive argument isn't there because "fair and balanced" is descriptive (partisan bickering about how accurately descriptive it is aside). Using the Coppertone example you cited above, the suntan lotion itself doesn't have a copper tone (which would be descriptive), but it results in something resembling a copper tone in the user. So I suppose Fox News could try to make the argument that their use of "Fair and Balanced" is not to describe their service, but to suggest what the service will do for its users ("Watching Fox News will make the viewer fair and balanced," essentially).
What it comes down to is, for Fox News to use anything other than the "descriptive" argument would be for them to maybe win the battle, but subsequently they'd be implicitly denying that they describe their service as "fair and balanced" (or at least implicity saying that they don't describe their service as such; it amounts to much the same either way, really).
And to those who defend (or decry) Franken behind the "parody" banner, I'm pretty sure it's not that. Having read (though never thoroughly, his humor gets old fast) his other books, I think its safe to say that his intention is more irony than anything else; showing that simply puting the words "fair and balanced" on something doesn't make it so (as if the main title of the book -- Lies And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them -- didn't give that away). In this sense, I'd more liken Al Franken to Ann Coulter; the only difference being, what Franken does deliberately, Ms. Coulter does strictly by accident.
Londo said :Well, this lawsuit has marginally more merit than Spike Lee's vs. TNN (SpikeTV.) I find it hard to believe that this lawsuit isn't 100% publicity, and 0% litigation.
the SPIKE TV suit did have merit. Some of us remember Rob Liefield showing up on one of Spike's many "Spike TV" Lee Jeans comercials. Lee Jeans should have sued Spike TV, not Spike Lee.
Bill O'Riely and Al Frankin are both big fat idiot's.
Jeff: Finally, just because Frankin claims to be a comedian, it doesn't necessarily place his book in the realm of parody.
Luigi Novi: No one said it was. But his work is clearly satirical.
Jeff: If that were true, all of Dr. William Cosby's writings must be parody as well.
Luigi Novi: No, because not all comedy is satirical.
Just a quick clarification, for my own sake: when I earlier referred to "it" as "parody" or "satire," I'm referring to the title itself.
The book...that'll be filled with political commentary and humor, a la Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men."
But FNC seems to be suing merely because of the title and cover mock-up itself, not the contents of the book.
I don't have a problem with it, any more than I have a problem with Ann Coulter and her diatribes about the evil liberal menace. Both have the right to say whatever they feel they need to say about politics. :-)
Hi Alan
That would be like if, say, Granny Smith Apples started packaging their apples this way -- "Granny Smiths: Red and Green" -- and then sued an apple orchard because it advertised "a selection of red and green apples".
Since Granny Smith Apples are green, it's a moot point. But, I see where you're coming from. I still stand by my opinion, and one I feel that the courts will hold up, is that Franken is marketing his book by making it look very similar to books by O'Reilly and using the slogan "Fair and Balanced" that FNC uses. If he used a picture of his rant towards Bill O'Reilly at the book fair and the phrase "Balanced and Fair", I wouldn't see a problem.
The major difference between the liberals in the conservatives as far as extremist politically oriented writings is that the conservatives quickly attack liberals while simultaneously lauding ther fellow conservatives for doing exactly the same thing. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to chuckle and treat everything as tongue-in-cheek.
In fact, unthinking loyalty is the greatest strength of the conservatives (emphasis on unthinking) closely followed by hypocrisy.
As for why the phrase "fair and balanced" us used so often at the expense of Fox News, it isn't because they rightfully own a trademark on the phrase; it's because the fact that they describe themselves in such a way is so ridiculous that you can't help but make fun of them for it. To the folks who use comedy shows (like the Daily Show) to support your point that it IS a rightful trademark of Fox News, keep in mind that Al Franken's title is being used in the same capacity as the Daily Show uses it; for satire. You can't say that the Daily Show's use of the term legitimises Fox News' complaint while at the same time saying that Al Franken can't use it because their complaint is legitimate. That, my friends, is called circular logic.
Phinn
Spell check! Why have you failed me!
Of course "ther" should be "their" and "legitimises" should be "legitimizes" in my earlier post.
Phinn
Ahhh, God bless circular logic. It's the American way, innit?
Michael Cravens said:
Frankly, if I were a loyal watcher of Fox News Channel, I'd probably feel more insulted by Fox's lawsuit, because it seems to presume that people are incapable of distinguishing between Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly,
Hmmm. Whether I were or were not a loyal watcher of Fox News Channel, I'd probably recognize such a lawsuit and a the statements made in connection with it as a necessary attempt by FNC to defend the trademark protection it is claiming for the phrase "Fair and Balanced" so that it isn't later found to have abandoned the mark. But maybe that's just me.
It's parody. It's satire. Fox *MIGHT* have a case, if the title was "Al Franken: Fair and Balanced" but it's not...it's a subtitle stating "Fair and Balanced look at the Right" and that's distinguishable, meant to evoke Fox News in a satirical way, a sarcastic way.
If you're right, then FNC will lose the case. If you're wrong, and FNC doesn't bring the case, their failure to bring the case will cut against their future claims of ownership of the mark -- because if they own the mark, why aren't they defending it?
Phinn said:
To the folks who use comedy shows (like the Daily Show) to support your point that it IS a rightful trademark of Fox News, keep in mind that Al Franken's title is being used in the same capacity as the Daily Show uses it; for satire.
No, the Daily Show uses the slogan for satire, Al Franken uses the slogan to sell books. There is a difference. If the Daily Show started running ads for itself saying "Your jokes, fair and balanced," that would be more like what Franken is doing.
No, the Daily Show uses the slogan for satire, Al Franken uses the slogan to sell books. There is a difference.
So let me get this straight; it is OK for The Daily Show to use "fair and balanced" for satire even though it is a commercial program that relies on ratings to generate revenue and, logically, its content is designed to gain viewers and therefore money.
But if Al Franken uses it, it is not satire because he is trying to sell books.
Maybe you can explain this in better detail to me. What, exactly, is the difference again? You are not allowed to use satire in books, or is it only allowed in books that you don't want to sell? Maybe someone should call MAD magazine about all those movies that it satires on the front cover of its magazines every month. Perhaps they have some advice for Mr. Franken in this case.
Phinn
The way I look at it, this is a win-win situation for Franken. Regardless of what ultimately happens in the court case, the publicity generated by this story will sell far more copies than if Fox had basically ignored him. Look at how Michael Moore's last book did. HarperCollins asked him to make some last-minute changes, which would have removed any reference to George Dubya and Moore refused. HarperCollins then did little if no publicity for the book, which became a best-seller almost completely by word of mouth. Not only that, so many copies were shipped over to Europe that it became a best-seller over there too, again by word of mouth, and publicity generated by HarperCollin's benign neglect for their author.
Bearing all this in mind, one can't help thinking that this is what Franken had in mind all along. And Fox News fell for it hook, line and sinker.
By the way, a quick search of active trademarks shows that Fox News trademarked the phrase "Fair & Balanced" not "Fair and Balanced" so technically, I don't think Fox News has a case.
Sure, they can go ahead and try to preserve their rights...but everything I've read suggests that Fox News isn't the "motivator" of this lawsuit...Bill O'Reilly is goading them to pursue it.
The court papers Fox News filed speak for themselves...Fox News filed court papers that display them as petulant, angrily referring to Franken as "intoxicated" and "shrill." They can sue all they choose, I've never said they couldn't or shouldn't.
It doesn't make the case any less ridiculous. Fox News claims that Al Franken is attempting to profit off of their trademark. Any reasonable person who knows anything about Al Franken should be able to see that the last thing he wants to do. The title is satire, pure and simple.
*shrugs* They can pursue it, but frankly...aren't there better ways for them to spend the money?
I work in a law office. I'm attending law school. I will be a lawyer. But, come on...if Rupert Murdoch himself walked in the office wanting to file this lawsuit, I'd laugh. That's all I can say.
We live in a very litigious society. "May you live in interesting times."
Frankly, if I were a loyal watcher of Fox News Channel, I'd probably feel more insulted by Fox's lawsuit, because it seems to presume that people are incapable of distinguishing between Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly,
Hmmm. Whether I were or were not a loyal watcher of Fox News Channel, I'd probably recognize such a lawsuit and a the statements made in connection with it as a necessary attempt by FNC to defend the trademark protection it is claiming for the phrase "Fair and Balanced" so that it isn't later found to have abandoned the mark. But maybe that's just me.
Well, Fox News disagrees with you. According to them, "[Franken's] intent is clear--to exploit Fox News' trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book, and, accordingly, boost sales of the book." (This quote courtesy of www.foxnews.com, BTW.)
So: they're outright saying that they think the use of the phrase will trick people into thinking that it has some official connection with Fox News, and that people who like Fox News will be tricked into buying it.
Since it seems pretty clear that no sensible person would conclude "Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them" was officially connected with Fox News, and that only people who were fans of Fox News would want to buy it for that reason, yes, Fox News is implying that their fans aren't very bright.
Doug: Thank you. :-)
I knew I wasn't crazy when I thought I'd read that quote somewhere...
Michael Cravens
By the way, a quick search of active trademarks shows that Fox News trademarked the phrase "Fair & Balanced" not "Fair and Balanced" so technically, I don't think Fox News has a case.
I don't think that's dispositive.
If you founded a comics company and began publishing a comic called "Spyder-Man," would Marvel Comics have a case against you because its trademark is "Spider-Man"?
It doesn't make the case any less ridiculous. Fox News claims that Al Franken is attempting to profit off of their trademark. Any reasonable person who knows anything about Al Franken should be able to see that the last thing he wants to do.
Yes, because it's crystal clear that the author of a book titled "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" would never dream of trying to profit from another's name.
Part of his strategy in naming his earlier book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" was the hope that people who agreed with him would notice the title and say "Heh. I should give this a read." Whereas if he had just titled the book, say "Political Commentary by me, Al Franken" the book might not have sold as many copies.
Just as before he wasn't hoping to sell to Limbaugh fans, here he's not hoping to sell to FNC fans -- he's hoping to sell books he otherwise might not to people who dislike FNC by evoking FNC and thus to profit.
The title is satire, pure and simple.
No, the title is satire coupled with an attempt to profit by evoking FNC's slogan.
Perhaps he hopes that people like, say Pete, an earlier poster in this thread, will decide:
I've never purchased one of his books before, I've just got 'em from the library, but I'll be buying this one.
Doug Atkinson said:
Well, Fox News disagrees with you. According to them, "[Franken's] intent is clear--to exploit Fox News' trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book, and, accordingly, boost sales of the book."
So: they're outright saying that they think the use of the phrase will trick people into thinking that it has some official connection with Fox News, and that people who like Fox News will be tricked into buying it.
No, they're "outright saying" that "[Franken's] intent is
clear". They're also "outright saying" that Franken's intent" is "_to exploit Fox News' trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book, and, accordingly, boost sales of the book."
That doesn't say that FNC "presume[s] that people are incapable of distinguishing between Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly," it says that FNC claims that is Franken's intent.
Does FNC say that it believes that Franken will be successful in that attempt? Who knows? FNC's main concern is defending its mark.
It is ironic though that the Rush Limbaugh titled book was a best seller, yet non of Al's other books have been? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Yes, it makes me wonder why people who cannot confront someone's views directly feel the need to invent falsehoods about them. Both Why Not Me? and Oh, The Things I Know! were on the New York Times best-seller lists.
Doug Atkinson said:
it seems pretty clear that no sensible person would conclude "Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them" was officially connected with Fox News
Would any sensible person conclude that "What The . . .!?", which ridiculed Marvel Comics characters, was officially connected with Marvel Comics?
Would any sensible person conclude that Mad Magazine, which ridicules Warner Brothers films is officially connected with Warner Brothers?
How about the film "Casino Royale"? It ridiculed the James Bond films. Would any sensible person conclude that it was officially connected with the holders of the James Bond intellectual property?
sat·ire n. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit; the branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature; Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
par·o·dy n. pl. par·o·dies A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature; The genre of literature comprising such works.
That said, I don't really have anything more to contribute.
FNC can pursue this, I don't question that. Let them. All it does is help Al Franken sell books, but the issue is whether this violates a trademark. I really don't think it does, but we'll see.
As I said earlier, if the title of the book were "Al Franken: Fair & Balanced," FNC might have a case. But honestly, I don't think they do.
I don't have a problem with them defending their mark. But:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/eo/20030812/en_industry_eo/12311
...sums it up pretty well, I think.
That said, I'm done. :-) Nothing more to add to this topic.
How about the film "Casino Royale"? It ridiculed the James Bond films. Would any sensible person conclude that it was officially connected with the holders of the James Bond intellectual property?
Well if they don't they should, the people who made Casino Royale brought the rights to the book, which happened to be the first appearence of 007. Granted they decided to make a paradoy of it instead of doing a straight adaptation, but thier contract with Fleming and his estate allowed them to do that. It was an authorized adaptation, believe it or not. (And they had the rights because they were brought them for TV in the 50's, there was actually a TV pilot made of Casino Royal which turned Bond into a American CIA agent with Felix (Bond's American CIA pal in the novels and movies) being turned into a British agent.) This is why Casino Royal was never made into an "offical" Bond Film, the right were already sold to other producers when producers to Dr No brought up the rights to all the other novels, (As well as rights to do movies with original stories based on the charcters in those novels.) A few years back Quinton Tarrento tried to get the rights to Casino Royal with the intention of doing a straight adaptation in period, (that is actually happening in the 50's when the novel was written), never happened of course but would have been cool if it did.
Not quite all other Bond books. There's the matter of Thunderball, and Kevin McClory having won in court the movie rights of the novel on the grounds he had helped Ian Fleming to develop the plot when they wanted to do a movie (Fleming later turned the script into the book). Which is why we got Never Say Never Again.
Not quite all other Bond books. There's the matter of Thunderball, and Kevin McClory having won in court the movie rights of the novel on the grounds he had helped Ian Fleming to develop the plot when they wanted to do a movie (Fleming later turned the script into the book). Which is why we got Never Say Never Again.
Yeah I'm aware of that but I didn't want to muddy the waters to much. There have been several law suits over the Bond film and TV rights over the years, Kevin McClory won his first suit, which is how we got Never Say Never, but he lost a later one when he tried to turn Thunderball into a ongoing TV show, (which one of the networks, ABC I think, had in development before MGM legal put a stop to it).