On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:08:09PM -0500, William Ballard wrote: > It clearly states that some elements of an illustration are > "protectable." A young boy with dark hair and eyeglasses is > not protectable, but a young boy with eyeglasses, similar facial > featurs, style and color of hair *clearly intending to be Harry > Potter* is a violation.
The issue isn't whether these images are protectable, the issue is whether our distribution of them would constitute infringement. Which is a very different question. A newspaper can run a story about trademarked products (cars, food, movies, etc.) and this is fine, because they're not delivering a competing product under those trademarks. If you think of trademark law as a form of truth-in-advertising law, you'll be a lot closer to accurate than if you think that the only issue is whether or not some particular item is protectable by trademark. -- Raul