Playboy and The Straight Dope?

Factual Questions
21

Let’s get clear on the distinctions between these two branches of intellectual property law:

Copyright is “a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of ‘original works of authorship,’ including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.”

Trademark (same link as above) is “a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others.”

You can’t copyright a title or a short common phrase. But you can trademark a word or phrase to identify your products. So the Chicago Reader cannot take action against Playboy or anyone else who uses the phrase “the straight dope” in an article, even in the title. But ** Anamorphic ** is right that Mr. Hefner would probably get a letter from Unca Cec’s lawyers if Playboy started running a column called “The Straight Dope.”

Recognizing that it would be unfair to allow anyone to have exclusive trademark rights to a word or phrase, the law allows for the same mark to be issued to more than one person or company if there is little chance that consumers would be likely to confuse them. So a trademark on “The Straight Dope” might also be issued to, say, a head shop.

Ringo is half right: you can trademark the specific graphic form of the mark or the word/phrase or both. You can also trademark a logo or other graphic image (e.g. the Nike “swoosh”).

22

Let’s get clear on the distinctions between these two branches of intellectual property law:

Copyright is “a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of ‘original works of authorship,’ including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.”

Trademark (same link as above) is “a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others.”

You can’t copyright a title or a short common phrase. But you can trademark a word or phrase to identify your products. So the Chicago Reader cannot take action against Playboy or anyone else who uses the phrase “the straight dope” in an article, even in the title. But ** Anamorphic ** is right that Mr. Hefner would probably get a letter from Unca Cec’s lawyers if Playboy started running a column called “The Straight Dope.”

Recognizing that it would be unfair to allow anyone to have exclusive trademark rights to a word or phrase, the law allows for the same mark to be issued to more than one person or company if there is little chance that consumers would be likely to confuse them. So a trademark on “The Straight Dope” might also be issued to, say, a head shop.

Ringo is half right: you can trademark the specific graphic form of the mark or the word/phrase or both. You can also trademark a logo or other graphic image (e.g. the Nike “swoosh”).

23

Sorry about the dupes. I only got server error messages. They sure are running slowly tonight.

And to add insult to injury, the links I meant to add are wrong. Here are the right ones:

Copyright

Trademark

24

Clearly to protect the Chicago Reader’s trademark rights, we need some fully nude female Doper photos on this site. :wink:

25

(Now that I have found the proper thread) THAT’S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM! I search high and sometimes low for the papers that carry The Straight Dope whereever I travel. I was surprised to see it appear in Playboy, and then very disappointed it wasn’t THE REAL Straight Dope! I think people could very well BE confused and buy the Playboy hoping to read Unca Cecil’s thoughts on sexual myths only to find it is some imposter rehashing things about drug lore we dopers learned long ago.

Isn’t the entire point of intellectual propertly law to protect the commercial rights of authors? And didn’t Playboy just tread on a trademark? Or can I now write an article for Sports Illustrated and call it “The Playboy Advisor”?

26

Not necessarily. You can trademark just a word without any specific graphical representation. With or without a specific graphical representation, your rights are limited to some class of goods or services and perhaps even geographic range (unless your mark is a “famous” mark, like Xerox or Coca-Cola).

No, that’s the point of copyright law. The point of trademark law is to prevent confusion regarding the source of goods or services.

I would be very surprised if one article titled “The Straight Dope,” especially if it is purporting to give you “the straight dope” as per the common meaning of the phrase would be found to infringe on the Chicago Reader’s trademark, but it’s possible.

27

I doubt you’d get away with that. The distinction is that “the playboy advisor” is not a common phrase in the English language that had meaning before Playboy began to use it. “Straight dope” was not invented or defined by Cecil’s use. It was a common phrase and Cecil used it as the title of his column because it described the content. IANAL, but I’d say Playboy is free to use it the same way.

For example of this distinction, see the case Cliffy cited in your related thread. In that case, Fox claims trademark on the phrase “fair and balanced”, and while the judge didn’t invalidate their trademark (yet), he pointed out that it was weak because it was a phrase in common use long before Fox claimed it as their own.

28

“The Straight Dope” seems to me to be what in trademark law is called a “descriptive trademark.” Such marks can receive some degree of protection, but they are considered “weak” in relation to other kinds of marks, particularly “arbitrary or fanciful” marks. For example, if the Chicago Reader had instead trademarked the phrase “Cecil Adams Answers All Your Questions Zippity-Quick” or even “Cecil Adams Gives You the Straight Dope,” then that would have been a stronger mark.

29

As pointed out above by handy, if you look at the bottom of the page, you’ll see that their actual mark is “The Straight Dope by Cecil Adams”, which is probably a pretty strong mark. It just doesn’t give them much protection on “straight dope” alone.

30

I was thinking that what this does is more greatly protect the concept of the column; that is, it’s not just the straight dope on a subject but rather The Straight Dope by Cecil Adams. What this means is that no one else can publish a column called “The Straight Dope by Cecil Adams,” so even when someone comes out with a “straight dope” column people won’t automatically assume it’s associated with the CA one. Is that about right, you copyright people?

31

Now it’s a buck. Just keep it up, mister.

32

Ringo
Who is your biggest competetor? I used to work for an S.E.I. and my g/f currently works for a different S.E.I. Both in Houston. Just curious.

33

Once again, this is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.

And, no, I don’t think it’s about protecting “the concept of the column.”

If it is indeed the case that the trademarked phrase is not just “The Straight Dope,” but instead “The Straight Dope by Cecil Adams,” it’s probably because the latter is a stronger mark (being less descriptive) and, therefore, gets more protection under the trademark law.

34

Sheesh, acsenray,, relax. What’s with the attitude? A thousand pardons for saying “copyright people” instead of “trademark people.” :stuck_out_tongue:

There’s no question it’s a trademarked phrase, of course, since “'The Straight Dope by Cecil Adams’is a registered trademark of Chicago Reader, Inc.” is right there at the bottom of the page.

I guess I don’t get what you mean by “The Straight Dope by Cecil Adams” is less descriptive than “The Straight Dope” - it’s clearly more descriptive, as not just any old straight dope is being described.

35

My attitude is that in this case it’s important to be precise, because there’s a big difference between trademarks and copyrights. If you confuse the two you’re going to keep coming up with the wrong answer.

Descriptive, yes, it did strike me as I hit the “submit” button that this might be confusing. There is a difference between the legal use of the word and the ordinary use.

In trademark law, if a phrase is “descriptive,” that means it describes the goods in a way that other people who make the same goods are likely to describe them.

So, if you call your column, “Question-and-Answer Column,” then a court is not going to let you stop other people from using that name in association with their columns, because it is a “generic” term.

One step up from “generic” is “descriptive.” So, similarly, a court won’t let you exercise monopoly power over the phrase “The Country’s Best Question-and-Answer Column.” It isn’t generic, but it’s “merely descriptive.”

Now, if you make it “Cecil Adams’s Q&A Column,” it’s no longer descriptive in a legal sense, because it’s highly unlikely that very many other people’s columns are naturally going to be described by that phrase. There is no natural association between a Q&A column and the phrase “Cecil Adams.” So, in the ordinary meaning of the word “descriptive,” it is more descriptive, because it’s more specific, but in the legal meaning, it’s less descriptive.

Move up to “The Straight Dope by Cecil Adams,” and it’s even less descriptive, in a legal sense.

Move up to “The Zoo-Zah-Zilly Bu-Bu by Cecil Adams,” and you’re moving towards the strongest type of mark, which is fanciful or arbitrary.

(There is also a level called “suggestive marks,” but I couldn’t think of an appropriate example right away.)

36

A lot of that is what I meant to say, but you put it better and with actual authority. I praise you, sir.

37

Actually, having thought about it for half a second, “The Straight Dope” is probably a “suggestive” mark for a column that answers your questions.

38

That sounds like a great idea!

39

Well, in fact, you can’t copyright a common phrase, so you’re out of luck there.

40

WhiteyFoo, the SEI I referred to is Seismic Exchange, Inc.

If you or your g/f have worked there since its founding a quarter century ago, we’ve likely crossed paths. The “other” SEI I’ve dealt with in Houston is Seitel, and once again, if either of y’all worked there, we may well have had dealings.