Trying to crosspost to
fandom_lawyers but it's in read-only mode, so I'm posting it here instead...
One of my friends (
likebunnies) got a C&D from the MPAA saying that they own the rights to NC-17 and RATED NC-17, and that she has to cease from using same. I haven't seen the actual letter yet, but she's posted about it on her LJ.
While MPAA has a registration for NC-17 as a design mark, they (a) don't disclaim "NC-17" from the mark as a whole, and they (b) don't have a registration for it as a separate typed mark. As I understand it, she wasn't using the design formative at all. And the registration for the design mark covers only "entertainment services rendered through the medium of motion pictures", and she's not using it for vids, only for fics, as I understand it.
Yes, of course the MPAA can protect their rights in and to the mark for motion pictures, but am I right in thinking that (a) there is a descriptive element that has built up over time due to nonenforcement of this mark for things other than motion pictures, (b) the "famous mark" cases, including Ringling, aren't a help to the MPAA if they're claiming diluiton, (c) fanfiction is sufficiently far afield from motion pictures, especially when said fanfic is based on a book series, and (d) it would be pretty hard (and kind of amusing) to tarnish the mark "NC-17"?
I can see a few arguments on the MPAA's side, as well, but given that she's not really using it as advertising or in marketing, and that she's most likely using it in a descriptive sense, does anyone else think the MPAA is overreaching, just a little bit?
ETA:Here's the "other data" from the MPAA's registration of NC-17 & Design:
Emphasis mine. I think that sinks almost every argument they could make.
One of my friends (
While MPAA has a registration for NC-17 as a design mark, they (a) don't disclaim "NC-17" from the mark as a whole, and they (b) don't have a registration for it as a separate typed mark. As I understand it, she wasn't using the design formative at all. And the registration for the design mark covers only "entertainment services rendered through the medium of motion pictures", and she's not using it for vids, only for fics, as I understand it.
Yes, of course the MPAA can protect their rights in and to the mark for motion pictures, but am I right in thinking that (a) there is a descriptive element that has built up over time due to nonenforcement of this mark for things other than motion pictures, (b) the "famous mark" cases, including Ringling, aren't a help to the MPAA if they're claiming diluiton, (c) fanfiction is sufficiently far afield from motion pictures, especially when said fanfic is based on a book series, and (d) it would be pretty hard (and kind of amusing) to tarnish the mark "NC-17"?
I can see a few arguments on the MPAA's side, as well, but given that she's not really using it as advertising or in marketing, and that she's most likely using it in a descriptive sense, does anyone else think the MPAA is overreaching, just a little bit?
ETA:Here's the "other data" from the MPAA's registration of NC-17 & Design:
THE CERTIFICATION MARK, AS USED BY PERSONS AUTHORIZED BY CERTIFIER, CERTIFIES THAT, IN THE OPINION OF APPLICANT'S RATING OR APPEALS BOARDS, MOST AMERICAN PARENTS WILL CONSIDER THE MOTION PICTURE INAPPROPRIATE FOR VIEWING BY ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18, BY REASON OF ITS DEPICTION OR TREATMENT OF VIOLENCE OR SEX OR ABERRATIONAL BEHAVIOR OR DRUG ABUSE, OR A COMBINATION OF THESE OR OTHER ELEMENTS.
Emphasis mine. I think that sinks almost every argument they could make.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 10:24 pm (UTC)On a more serious note. I have very little familiarity with trademark, what I do have is all bleed over from what I know about copyright as an academic librarian, but that sounds really weak.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 10:25 pm (UTC)That said, at least the MPAA has good taste in the smut they peruse. I wonder how they found it?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 10:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 10:35 pm (UTC)Now, were Jori, or anyone for that matter, using the NC-17 (or G, PG, PG-13 and R) to promote her fics as specifically rated by the MPAA, I might see where there is a problem. That would imply some sort of endorsement where none clearly exists.
(d) it would be pretty hard (and kind of amusing) to tarnish the mark "NC-17"?
In which "dilution" means "you people are writing too much Harry Potter porn"? *laughs*
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 10:36 pm (UTC)So, your point up there about the design mark - that's the little box around the rating part? And just in general, how do they handle issues when trademarked and copyrighted material becomes lexicalized (like we talk about Coke machines and Xerox machines and the like)?
The worst part is that I can't really figure out a good way to bring this before my Professional Writing students tonight without going into the whole "your professor knows way more about Harry Potter porn than is strictly appropriate for you to know about" angle, and that's a pity because it would actually be a very worthwhile discussion for them. *ponders*
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 10:47 pm (UTC)This is a snip from the Guide to Proper Trademark Usage:
The thing is, the MPAA doesn't use the "NC-17" formative as an adjective in narrative usage much, hence, I think, the design mark designation for it.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 10:46 pm (UTC)And what
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 10:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 11:06 pm (UTC)Will fanfics have to come up with their own ratings now?
XD lol
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 11:14 pm (UTC)http://www.livejournal.com/users/likebunnies/150546.html
and I've already taken down all my fandom web sites related to that certain web host (Netropolitan Enterprises). I did that because it seemed like the easiest thing to do considering the day I have had. They supposedly sent an e-mail out but I haven't had that e-mail addy since 1998 and they sent the letter to my old address and it took several days to be forwarded here.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 12:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 11:34 pm (UTC)Jesus, that's like copyrighting the colour green.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 11:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Copyrighting Green
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2005-02-15 12:18 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Copyrighting Green
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 11:46 pm (UTC)But on the other hand, someone did get a C&D letter for something our entire fandom does. Use MPAA ratings. So where does that leave the rest of us?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 11:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 01:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-14 11:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 12:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 12:11 am (UTC)~A
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 12:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 12:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 12:54 am (UTC)I suppose, did it become a real issue, writers could simply switch to the British equivalent, R-18. That said, I really don't believe they have a case.
*giggles inappropriately at the situation*
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 10:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 01:11 am (UTC)MPAA is so over-reacting.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 01:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 01:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 01:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 03:38 am (UTC)Do we have to go through and change every single NC-17 rating to
"Not suitable for readers under age 17 in the judgement of this author, who is not the Motion Picture Association of America, as you can easily tell by the fact that a) No Motion, b) No Picture, c) No Association?
Sheesh.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 05:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 06:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 11:47 am (UTC)This is, at least, what I've gleaned from some struggles with trademark registration for the company I work for.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 02:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 05:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 10:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-15 10:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 01:44 am (UTC)If the MPAA thing doesn't go well, feel free to use the Malaysian ratings system:
U (G, ok for all)
18SX (18+ due to sexual content)
18SG (18+ due to violence)
18PL (some mix of the above)
and something else which has to do with political/religious content or something.
Sounds too much like a prank to be credible...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 02:00 am (UTC)Everyone should just relax, imho.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 02:17 am (UTC)Two points:
1) The MPAA is bad. Microsoft-level of evil-ness.
2) They're wrong.
It's worth it. It's always worth it when big groups try to bully individuals and smaller groups.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-16 04:53 am (UTC)If the themes, depictions, word-use and character-actions are appropriate for everyone to read, then the rating could be anything from an A1 to an A3 (A3 might contain slash and a kissing scene, but otherwise appropriate for a general audience). B3 would be, for example, Sirius and Remus snogging and holding hands and maybe some harsh language. C would include smut and really gory violence would be a C3. D would include violent smut and detailed non-con or, just really detailed smut.
That's all we have to do really if it becomes a problem is to be politically correct.
But as for now, we'll keep it like it is, thanks.
~SK