I decided to start this thread after seeing december’s thread that focuses just on the trademark issues involved. You can get to that thread here. I also decided to put it in the pit, so that people can feel free to let their true beliefs be expressed.
Officially, Fox News is suing Franken for his use of their words and likenesses in his upcoming book “Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right”.
According to The New York Times, Fox News has included more than trademark issues in their court papers.
If this article is accurate, and Fox News uses this language in their court papers, it seems to me that they’re not just suing him for copyright infringement. Indeed, they’re attacking him for lacking depth or insight, not being a recognized television personality, and a drunkard who attacks O’Reilly and others. By including these passages, I’m lead to believe that if a well respected television personality with sharp insight who regularly licked O’Reilly’s boots were to publish a book called Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, Fox News wouldn’t sue.
It’s an obvious ploy to delay and hurt a person just because he wrote a book that directly challenges them. This book title has been in the public sphere for months, and Fox News is suing now, when it’s scheduled to be released in a month or so.
I agree with the spokesman for Franken’s publisher, Lisa Johnson:
Cowards.
One of Fox News’ many slogans is “We report, you decide.” If your views and positions cannot withstand a little criticism from someone who you believe to be of little depth and insight, what good are they? In fact, what good are you as a channel that purports to have no views?
I would hazard a guess that portraying Franken as a degenerate may be a way to demonstrate that his use of the Fox trademak would cause major damage to it. In other words, this denegrations of Franken may have legal significance, as a way to give the case greater standing.
I’d hazard another guess that Fox doesn’t expect to win this suit. Rather, they may hope that the publisher will simply change the title, rather than delay publication until the suit is resolved.
Faux News has no particular claim on the phrase “fair and Balanced.” It is a feature of our language with a specific meaning-a meaning which, in my opinion, can hardly be applied to an enterprise started by a foreigner like Murdock who wants to re-shape America to HIS image. Faux News is just playing games with the truth as they normally do. They should be fined into bankruptcy for bringing a frivious lawsuit.
Then again, maybe their objective is to file some such egregiously stupid suit as to suggest that maybe curtailment of the 1st Ammendment, or “tort reform” as the fascists like to call it, is good for America.
I think that it’s great for Franken. It’s free publicity. He becomes the underdog vs Big Media. I’d probably never heard of his book if not for this thread. this thread wouldn’tve happened if not for the lawsuit.
It’s like Harry Poter and the fundie backlash. That backlash helped spur sales I’m certain.
SimonX almost has it right…except it’s not just Franken who will enjoy the publicity. This is, of course, part of the Great Liberal Conspiracy™ to discredit and make fools of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy™. As liberals strive to do as little work as possible for maximum results, and since they could never get this kind of publicity out of positive exposure, Franken and the Liberal Media™ have conspired™ to publicize his book with NEGATIVE exposure.
One of the key things you have to prove to win a trademark infringement suit is confusing similarity, right? Well, Franken is writing a book, not starting a TV network, and Fox even argues that he’s not a journalist.
Hard to take a side on this one.
On one had you have a large group of shitheads whining about a book.
On the other hand you have a loudmouth shithead who wrote the book.
In the court of common sense - common sense can be applied in court - Franken’s title is an obvious smear of a tag line used by Fox.
Whether you agree or disagree with either party, coming from the direction of comedy, you CAN mock the tag line, but coming from the point of serious writer, you cannot smear the tagline.
‘Lies’ and ‘Liars’…and associating that with Fox by using their tagline is not a cut and dry use of protected speech. Free speech is not a license to damage or mislead. Franken is free to speak about politics, the left, the right and all the other things permitted under free speech. He can criticize, critique, argue and put forth other points of view, but he disgraces himself and his supporters by his use of such tactics. He has taken the low road that Fox frequently takes, and the low road is full of protected speech potholes.
The title is not confusing - which supports part of Fox’s position in the suit.
Except for the fact that they own the trademark to the phrase.
Except for the fact that this suit is not based on first amendment grounds. Legal precedent is pretty clear that freedom of speech does not extend to infringing upon trademarks. Whether or not the title of Mr. Franken’s book does, in fact, infringe, is up to the courts to decide. From what I have read about the case, Fox has a decent, but not rock-solid argument.
As the 2000 Election fiasco and the California recalls show, conservatives are not above reaching for the lawyers when a resule they don’t want comes down the path. :rolleyes:
Therein lies the true ridiculousness of the suit, that a corporation should be able to trademark the phrase in question to begin with. It’s ludicrous that Shlocks News has even the stub of a leg to stand on in the first place, that they were issued a trademark on the phrase at all. This is a bullshit SLAPP suit and any judge it comes before should throw plaintiffs out on their corporate ass and hit them with costs and fines until they can no longer even think of doing such a thing again.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go trademark the phrase “Roger Ailes” and get to some suin’!
What about fair use and parody? It should be obvious to anyone that isn’t a gibbering idiot that the book is not a product of Fox News. (I’ll let you make your own jokes about the gibbering idiots that buy Fox News products.)
What about slander and libel? Fox News is alleging that Franken is unstable, deranged, and/or a subtance abuser, just because he pissed off pet commentator O’Reilly. Would Franken have a case if he chose to counter-sue? I would think so.
There’s no special papers you need to get to publish a book as a “comedian” versus a “serious writer,” and no separate rules that apply to one that do not apply to the other.
Yes, Franken chose the title to mock Fox News, which he clearly sees as being unfair and unbalanced. That is an eminently protectable choice.
**
Wrong. To the extent that you’re trying to characterize Fox’s claim as a kind of defamation, defamation in this situation requires that Franken either know the statement is false or that he is recklessly indifferent to the truth or falsity of the statement. The objectivity or bias of Fox News is a well-established matter of dispute, so it is going to be very very difficult, if not impossible, to establish that Franken had the requisite mental state for defamation. Moreover, as a practical matter, if Fox tries to characterize this as defamation, it will lose because Fox and Fox News (to the extent they can be personified) are public figures, and their objectivity or bias is a matter of public concern.
**
No, it supports Franken. No one is going to think that Fox supported or endorsed Franken’s book. If he had put “Fair and Balanced” in the first position, maybe Fox would have a better case. (I’m still skeptical, but it’s a better case than what they have.)
I’m happy that Fox brought the suit. It reminded me to put the book on my Amazon wish list.
Oh, and Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot. I won’t hold against him for being fat (lord knows I am, too), but I can’t forgive him (or O’Reilley or Colter) for being a mean-spirited condescending idiot.
