Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yes, tehy would have had an eaiser job of it is he was registered, but i don't think it's actually that hard to access if he isn't.
In every case it's down to the courts. If he's registered, they need only prove that the use is infringing on their mark. That could actually be sticky in this case, since the misuse of the mark is not in relation to enrolment of electors or the conduct of an election, but the risk of confusion is present and the courts would likely find it an infringing use.
Without registration, the hurdle is to prove that the character is widely recognised as their mark and is not utilised by others for similar purposes. "Prove" in this situation is more than just "Yeah, everyone knows it, y'ronner. Even you recognise him, right?"
Is it easy to get it before the courts? Certainly. To get an injunction? In this case it could be tricky, because there's no money changing hands and there are freedom of speech issues. A judge would likely want a hearing before injuncting, and potentially the A-G (S-G?) would have to be involved because of the BORA implications.
-
I didn't know either of them, but I know some people who knew Sophie. It's highlighted how horrendous the media coverage of these cases is to watch and has made me avoid this particular case
That certainly fits with my friend. I saw her the day the trial started, and she said that she thought she'd just have to avoid the news while the trial was on because she'd been so upset by some of the (untrue) things that had been reported at the time of the killing. I consciously avoid talking with her about it, because I know that the coverage is so thoroughly gutter press and, if she has happened to catch it, she'll be wanting to avoid thinking about it.
-
Rich, yes you're right that there's some protection, but it's very hard to access. You have to go to court simply to determine that there is sufficient existing use. There's also no "defend it or lose it" requirement.
Lyndon, it's hard to know how the courts will rule. In the absence of a formal protection of parody, they've demonstrated a remarkable willingness to deny that it's not a desire to infringe for the purposes of trading on the existing holder's reputation. It's a lack that does deprive NZ of, I'm sure, some quite cutting repartee.
One thing I just thought of, could should-a claim the "current affairs" defence? After all, the site is making commentary on a newsworthy happening.
-
On the Weatherstone case, in the (hopefully unlikely) event that he "gets off" through provocation, one hopes that that might just be the final nail for the provocation defence. McThicker is quite likely to ignore the banjo killing, because that was "only" an old, gay man, but when the killers of attractive, young, straight women can use it, well, that's precisely the kind of thing that'll get Insensible Sentencing out on the hustings railing about injustice.
Much as I hope the jury sees through the attempted defence, if only because a close friend was a childhood friend of Sophie's, it would be a better thing for society as a whole if the case were to be the death knell for provocation.
And Graeme, if you're about, any idea how often provocation is used each year? It's got to be some kind of record to have two cases overlapping that both have it in play.
-
The EEO may be taking this action because of the "defend it or lose it" provisions of the law surrounding trademarks. However, is the orange man actually trademarked? I looked at the elections website and saw nothing that answered the question. If he's not, then the issue doesn't even arise.
If he is there's still scope for a waiver for use, a la Linden Labs' issue of a "proceed and persevere" letter to the creator of Get a First Life.On the copyright issue, well, yeah. NZ law is an ass in this regard, with the lack of protection for poking fun. You do raise a good point about the BORA coverage of free speech, and it's yet another annoying fillip of our copyright law that the Crown claims copyright over works produced in carrying out public functions. One of the aspects of the shambles that is US copyright law with which I have no disagreement is the well-known position of works of the Federal Government being public domain.
One would hope that should-a.com's disclaimer is sufficient to soothe any fevered legal brows, and end the matter. But, our archaic IP law surely won't make it so easy.
-
Unless one of the incriminating pictures was the desktop background or something, what the hell are computer repair technicians doing checking out the contents of a customer's hard drive?
Start, Recent Documents... That's perfectly legit if you're making sure the computer's working properly. Or even opening My Documents and seeing sus-looking thumbnails, which would also be entirely reasonable if you're checking that you haven't managed to accidentally delete large portions of a user's profile.
-
Why yes, now that you ask, I am cynical about the major labels' commitment to fulfilling their customers' desires.
-
It's the 21st century - customer first!
You poor, deluded creature. Let me fix that for you:
It's the 21st century - buy legislation to criminalise the customer first! If that doesn't work? Buy legislation to impose artificial subsidies. If that doesn't work? Panic!
-
err, Noah, not Moses. Though I imagine Moses wasn't averse to the odd 'f bomb' himself. "These tablets are fucking heavy. Stop being so fucking lazy and carry them down the fucking mountain yourself!"
-
I saw him do a routine where he reckoned swearing was invented by St Paul.
The thrust of it was that if you were beetling along the road to Damascus on your donkey, and God hit you over the head with a thunderbolt, then F***** H***!!! is the only possible reaction.
I beg to differ. Moses was a far-earlier proponent of the 'f bomb'. To whit: "Scattered fucking showers my arse!"