nuclear apocalypse?
You do know, of course, that the current iteration of Siri uploads your questions and does the majority of her/its thinking up in the cloud, specifically at the Apple data centers. I hope those data centers (and the cell network, and power grid) survive the apocalypse, or that you mention that your Sirisdotter AI is a new generation that resides completely on the new remarkably advanced smartphone.
Some companies may have a fairly broad interpretation of “disparaging” their brand.
I watched a youtube video of a guy speaking at a conference about …
Well, he maintains an online archive of files that were once hosted on Bulletin Board Systems. He started with the stuff that had been on his own board, but then people started sending him stuff, and … he has more than a terabyte of stuff from the days when 2400baud was impressive.
Including hundreds of megs of erotic fiction text files.
So, he gets a cease-and-desist letter from a company that makes catheters. Seems that several of the stories mention their product by name, an in each of them the product is used in a manner inconsistent with its labeling and for which it is not FDA approved. hey wanted him to take down the files. (He did not.)
I always try to remember that, even if he agrees with you, any day you spent explaining to a judge that you haven’t done anything wrong was not a good day for you.
If Apple decides to be offended by your story, … you are probably going to wind up caving in and changing the story anyway, because you probably can’t afford to defend yourself in court (time off from work, lawyers are expensive, …). Save yourself some trouble and just skip that step.
I recommend naming your fictional phone assistant Vicky. Apparently “Siri” derives from Norwegian, and means “Victory”.
Sometimes a mixture of fictional things and real world things are used. On NCIS, for example, the news network is ZNN instead of CNN, but Bush and Obama are the presidents in their respective time periods.
If I’m reading your anecdote correctly, none of the authors were individually notified, the work was never taken down, the company never followed up, and no time was spent in court.
Which means that the others who said that you might at worst get a letter you can safely ignore were entirely correct.
Television, being supported by ads, has its own reasons to avoid using brand names. You don’t want to disparage a sponsor, and you want others to pay for product placement.
Of course, CNN doesn’t really advertise, but there’s always the idea that the show may want to run on some station that also owns CNN. Or, with mergers, CBS could one day own them.
And, even if not, the changing brand names is just part of the TV culture.
Personally, in this case, as it is set in the future, I would not use a trademarked name like Siri, simply because it IS set in the future. If you had written it ten years ago, you may have used Nokia as an example but, where are they now? If it were me, I’d invent a new name for the AI so as not to tie it to Apple, Microsoft or Android.
Mad Men had a lot of “real” clients, some of them being made to look less than favorable to say the least such as that tobacco company. I always wondered how they avoided some lawsuits.
What’s interesting is video games seem to avoid using “real” products wherever possible - it’s not uncommon for things like firearms to be given “made-up” namesdespite the fact almost literally everyone on the planet knows what an AK-47 or an Uzi looks like.
All except for the “at worst” part. My anecdote did not reflect a worst-case-scenario for outcomes, just an extreme interpretation of “defamation”.
In the real world you can potentially face court even while using a fake name if the company decides that the fake is so near the real thing that people would assume it to be so.
That’s why the stock answer for “can you be sued for…?” is yes. Yes, you can be sued for anything or nothing.
Even so, reasonable people understand that does not mean you should do nothing. Reasonable people understand that that talking about meteor strikes is an unprofitable way to approach everyday risks. If the most extreme case you can find in real life is that nothing happened, why even bring it up and frame it as a warning?
I agree completely. What does that have to do with what I said?
I never claimed that my example was the most extreme case I could find, and never referred to it as extreme in any way relating to its outcome. I only offered it as an example of an extreme definition of “defamation” of a trademark.
And yet, it read to me as an obvious warning without any other possible rationale.
Welcome to the Internet.
Presumably, Nike lawyers will soon be coming after Apple.
CNN does advertise its programs, just as other networks do. It’s true that it has no need to advertise its brand, but it still runs promos for their shows.
That said, where a show ends up once it hits syndication is largely irrelevant, at least from the perspective of TV network product placement. Turner Broadcasting, which owns CNN, also owns TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, and Turner Classic Movies. Their purchase of syndicated programming has more to do with what they think will pull ratings and thus drive advertising revenue. They don’t give a tinseled shit what product placement is or is not in a given series.
For most media properties, including CNN, the decision of whether or not to allow its trade dress to be used comes down to wanting to protect its integrity. A lot of people trust CNN’s news, and if any old show wanted to slap together a fake news story and throw CNN’s trade dress all over it, especially if the fake story is plausible (think something that would be on a show like NCIS), that can create problems with CNN’s credibility. It is true that CNN was used in at least “Man of Steel”, but if you think Superman is real, you’ve got bigger problems, the kind that you need a psychiatrist to sort out.
My favorite use of trademarks in fiction is in Infinite Jest, where years are no longer numbers but sponsored by and named after products.
IANAL but the point of trademark law is to prevent a company from creating confusion over branding and capitalizing on somebody else’s product popularity. (Notably the NFL has scared the shit out of any retailer who wants to tie their product in with the Super Bowl, which is not a brand confusion issue but a licensed use issue.)