John Francis wrote: >On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 01:05:08PM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: >> Adam Maas wrote: >> >>>I suspect the issue here is not libel, but rather the unauthorized >>> use of Chuck's name to make a profit (Which is potentially >>>legally actionable, it's the profit issue, not the distribution that >>>makes the case.). This is the same reason why model releases >>>are needed for Commercial Photography. >> >> That was my assumption also: That they're going for a >> trademark violation, essentially. > >Parody is a protected form of expression. As long as the publisher >can show they are parodying Chuck Norris's public persona, rather >than trying to pass the work off as being in any way affiliated with >Chuck Norris, they have a pretty good defence.
... for libel or copyright issues. Which is why Norris is going for the trademark angle. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
