PROTECTED]
*To:* videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Friday, December 02, 2005 6:41 AM
*Subject:* RE: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
if that is the case, then what happens when sony gets mad at me for
smashing
one of there tvs and calling it crap. would
isue??
i think it should be like this she bought the doll. its hers.
i liked the video
randy
averrycoollifeblog.blogspot.com
From: Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:38:34 -
I don't think the issue with Barbie is copyright. I think it's a trade
mark issue. And trademarks a quite a bit different than copyright
mmortality
InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
- Original Message -
From:
Randy
Mann
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 6:41
AM
Subject: RE: [videoblogging] Re: my video
got taken o
: Friday, December 02, 2005 6:41
AM
Subject: RE: [videoblogging] Re: my video
got taken off archive
if that is the case, then what happens when sony gets mad
at me for smashing one of there tvs and calling it crap. would that be a
trade mark issue?? if im wearing a nike shirt does
I would think that it would be fair use. But Mattel seems lawsuit-happy so I wouldn't risk it. It really turned me off Barbies to read up on all those lawsuits. They seem to have a lousy sense of humour.
Joan
On 12/1/05, Michael Ridley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not an IP attorney but I
Fair Use related to Copyright Law, not Trademark Law.
- Andreas
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:49:35 +0100, Joan Khoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would think that it would be fair use. But Mattel seems lawsuit-happy
so I
wouldn't risk it. It really turned me off Barbies to read up on all those
, November 30, 2005 5:58 PM
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got taken off archive
Archive.org's aims to capture history do not mean they can afford to
pretend their are no laws that may affect the content they can legally
host.
The internet would be very different today if all
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Paul Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Oh come on Randy It's only a Barbie doll with no clothes on!!
Paul k
There's manufacturing consent and there's manufacturing dissent.
;)
On 30 Nov 2005, at 21:12, Randolfe Wicker wrote:
Is this the Internet
m.
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
Videographer, Writer, ActivistAdvisor: The Immortality
InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
- Original Message -
From:
Enric
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 4:55
Archive.org's aims to capture history do not mean they can afford to
pretend their are no laws that may affect the content they can legally
host.
The internet would be very different today if all the laws in all
countries were always followed to the letter. Clearly that doesnt
happen, but
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: my video got
taken off archive
Archive.org's aims to capture history do not mean they can
afford topretend their are no laws that may affect the content they can
legallyhost. The internet would be very different today if all the
laws in allcountries w
There are three issues --
That Peaches number is definitely unauthorized.
The sexual content is going to piss some people off.
Barbie is a fiercely protected trademark.
The Peaches issue is a good enough reason to bounce it, add in the
other two issues and it's an obvious choice.
Archive.org will pull content which may be a copyright issue based on protest.
(Specific proof / discourse not required)On 12/1/05, Lucas Gonze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are three issues --
That Peaches number is definitely unauthorized.
The sexual content is going to piss some
14 matches
Mail list logo
