Can you please critique this letter to the estate of Tarzan's creator? Long posts before the letter.

In My Humble Opinion
261

That’s my own fault for looking up a mistaken source. However, the other facts are still true. Disney was not the the driving force behind prior extensions of copyright term, and will not be behind any future proposals, which at this point are unlikely, and even if proposed, has no broad support, not even from copyright owner communities.

However, the Disney/Mickey Mouse meme is a very handy way of propagandizing the issue on the part of people who want simply to demonize copyright law and copyright owners. It’s a big lie trope that won’t die, because there is a big group of people who want it so much to be true simply so they can slander anyone who doesn’t agree with them on any particular copyright question.

262

Acsenray, Disney was perhaps the driving force of the CTEA. I think a lot of people that single Disney out are referring to the CTEA.

263

I just checked; you’ve posted 73 times in this thread. Imagine how far you could have gotten with your own stories if you had only spent the time on them instead.

264

Even Pepsi has used Coca-Cola’s logos in its own commercials without infringing on Trademark laws. I highly doubt Coca-Cola gave permission to Pepsi for them to use the logos.

265

Having the largest revenues, does not make you the most profitable.

266

[quote=“Omar_Little, post:264, topic:782491”]

Even Pepsi has used Coca-Cola’s logos in its own commercials without infringing on Trademark laws. I highly doubt Coca-Cola gave permission to Pepsi for them to use the logos.

[/QUOTE]

Comparison advertising is perfectly legal. Some advertisers choose to explicitly show their rivals’ trademarks; some choose to imply them. It’s a marketing choice, not a legal one.

Take a look at the elements of trademark infringement I posted above and apply them to comparative advertising. You should be able to figure out why it’s not infringing.

The thing they have to be careful of is that they don’t say implicitly or explicitly say something that is untrue and defamatory.

So it’s fine for Pace to emphasize that Old El Paso is from NEW YORK CITY because it’s true, and it doesn’t actually make any claim about the quality of the product.

They have to be a little more careful when they’re showing for example how effective these two paper towels are at picking up moisture, because those things are almost invariably faked for the camera.

But the question above was asking not about a competitor’s trademark but about third-party trademarks that happen to appear in a shot.

267

It’s character research. He’s studying conversation patterns so dialogue will be more natural and believable. :wink:

268

Hey Kadmos1,

I just wanted to re-open this can of worms for you, on what I am doing about the subject myself.

I am also writing a novel called Greystoke & Man Cub. So, here is the deal, which I have found, to work around it. First things first: Tarzan is public domain. Nothing EBR, Inc. says or does can change that. I understand that when trademarking a characterization of a public domain person, it is the “brand” of the character which is trademarked.

For instance, did you know Dracula is trademarked? His image is. Which is why they need to change it up all the time when new films come out. Universal does not want any other film to have the features which Bela Lugosi’s version has, cause that look is trademarked.

Another way to view a brand, is to not promote it on the face product, nor to refer to in in promos or sales. In other words, you can have Tarzan IN your book, but not on the cover nor in the synopsis, or sales pitches/promos. Characterizations must be within the product, but not outwardly, as a means to “make the sale”, so to speak. This, of course, can be easily done with the right verbiage.

If you want to play it safe even more; use Tarzan’s other aliases. Lord Greystoke, John Clayton, etc. In my novel, I plan to never once use the name Tarzan. I will use his alias names, which are not trademarked (apart from Greystoke, back in the day, which was for a cigarette brand, but it totally legit to use). I don’t even plan on using any of the other trademarked titles which ERB, Inc. has claimed, including Jane (which yes, she IS trademarked).

I understand what you are asking in regards to their trademark vs pubic domain, and it is a sly and snaky way of trying to perpetually keep a copyright. But, after 100 years, Tarzan is in the public domain. They can try to keep him out with this backdoor move, but it will not work. Those tales now to the public; that is the law of it.

Even so, they still are trying to make it impossible, for their own gain, to keep him away from fan fiction; but there are ways around that. Truth is, you do not need to use the specific name of Tarzan, go around it by other means, if you wish to play it safe. That’s what I intend to do. They cannot take you to court for using a public domain character name, which is an alias of a trademarked brand.