MPAA

[heidi]

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:

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.

Comments

[notabluemaia.livejournal.com]

Hi, Heidi8 - I am very interested in the development of the cyber communities and fandoms - and in first amendment protections. Your lj was mentioned on 4Lobsters - this post and the links are fascinating. I hope you do not mind that I 'friend' you; I would like to follow this development re ratings and chilling effects. (I am an attorney with a new life as a ff writer and illustrator)

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Nice to meet you! Did you join fandom_lawyers yet? It's a great resource for this type of discussion - and I agree, it's a fascinating framework to apply legal issues to!

[notabluemaia.livejournal.com]

Yes - I found fl through your list, and appreciate the link. I'll be watching with great interest; this latest post re ratings made me modify the user info page on my own lj. One does not want to become part of the 'chill' (grr) but greater clarity never hurts, either. The evolving cyber community and self-publishing aspects are absolutely fascinating.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Oh, and what is 4lobsters? Am amused by name!

[notabluemaia.livejournal.com]

Cute name, isn't it - not sure about its derivation. It's the newsletter for Lord of the Rings actors, especially in RPS - pictures, articles, updates, reviews. Also links to interesting discussions in the larger fandom - metablog, legal issues, etc.

Link here - and your lj mentioned on Feb 16.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/four_lobsters/