Can you explain how it's faulty in any way? Is it not up to the customer to check the merchandise?
Where's you get your law degree? It's spelled copyright.
I see a BIG lawsuit in someone's future. Liable, copywrite infringement. Did they get Palin's permission to use her photo? Probably not.
It's nice to see that the Libbos are still scared ****less of Sarah.
I didn't think that the Buddhistas have a 'god'. At least not as in normal Judeo-Christian / Western religiions do.
I'm sure Palin's lawyers are on it and rightfully so. But I do not think they will win.
I'm not a lib, and as much as I dislike Obama, Palin scares me even more.I see a BIG lawsuit in someone's future. Liable, copywrite infringement. Did they get Palin's permission to use her photo? Probably not.
It's nice to see that the Libbos are still scared ****less of Sarah.
Palin is just a neoconservative stereotype.
Fixed it for you. :mrgreen:I'm not a lib, and as much as I dislike Obama, Palin scares me even more.
For the record, she supported 'death panels' before the election. She claims to be "down-to-earth" but wears suits that cost as much as Ferraris (no ****). She doesn't know the age of the earth, doesn't know when the Pledge was written etc etc.
If I had my pick, Ron Paul would be in office right now. Palin is just a HOT neoconservative stereotype.
No one thinks you can buy the Mona Lisa at Target. :roll:
It wouldn't even be a trademark issue if they sold replicas. It would be fraud if they said it was real.
Basically, you're arguing against the whole point of trademark law here. And it's not to protect the customer.
Really? In a world where people think they are buying 'real' diamonds at Wal-Mart you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't think they're buying 'real' things all the time when all they are getting are cheap copies.
And the producers of the books aren't saying the book that Palin is buying is Palin's book.
Negatory. I am arguing that it's up to the consumer to check the product at the end of the day and in this case I really see no real violation of trademark laws just two superficially similar products. No different then buying two newspapers with similar names & page organizations.
Has nothing to do with trademark. Already said that.
No, but they purposely closely mimicked the cover. They gave it a title so close that it could easily be confused, especially the way it's arranged on the cover. They used the exact same typeface and arranged it the same way. They chose extremely similar photos. This is all very intentional. You cannot tell, without picking it up and examining it closely, which one is which.
Then you demonstrate that you don't know what trademark law is about. :shrug:
It says "Sarah Palin: An American Nightmare" on the front of the book. Does anybody seriously expect Sarah Palin fans to pick up that version of the book and believe it's from Sarah Palin? I'm not even mentioning the fact that the author's name is on there and one of the books will say Palin on the side while the other doesn't.
Surely you conservatives give the conservative masses more credit than that? Unless you think they're that easily deceived?
..And it is nice to see the hyper-partisan bigots are still quick to jump to conclusions.I see a BIG lawsuit in someone's future. Liable, copywrite infringement. Did they get Palin's permission to use her photo? Probably not.
It's nice to see that the Libbos are still scared ****less of Sarah.
That would be a matter for a court to take into consideration when weighing the totality of the circumstances.
I suppose "I" would give "conservatives" the same credit for being to tell the difference as I would for, say, YOU being able to the tell the difference between an academic discussion of trademark law and principles, and attacking/defending a viewpoint. :shrug:
I think that's great, keep it going, she needs the media exposure.
Personally, I don't really have that much of a problem with Palin. I think that McCain merely chose her as a strategic campaign move rather than because of any qualifications that she has. I don't this to be sexist because the fact that she is a female has nothing to do with this (aside from the strategic move on McCain's part. I don't think she's very articulate as seen in various interviews. I certainly don't thinks he's stupid. I don't think she was ready or even remotely prepared or qualified for the cut throat world of big time politics.
However, that all being said, I think that many of the attacks from people on the left at this stage in the game are kind of pointless. And now we just see low blow after low blow, like this similar looking book cover. Was that really necessary? I get that people don't like her, but give me a break. What threat does she pose at this point? I think we all pretty much know that she doesn't have a chance at the Presidency. There are far too many things to attack her on now. So she's writing a book. Who cares? So they are trying to get her on the bestseller list through fairly underhanded means. Again, who cares? What threat does she pose to you? She's been irrelevant for quite a while now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?