Karaoke Forums

A couple of years ago, the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film went to a great little 16-minute film called "Logorama," which a web search will turn up (it's available to screen for free). There is some rough language and cartoon violence, but as a trademark attorney, I found it hilarious and exceptional. I believe it dovetails nicely with your point.

Really? Does that include the Allstar karaoke tracks with no logos?

What would you do if you went to a show and there were no logos on any tracks?

(you'd sue 'em)




I know you think the legal business is like a game of horseshoes or hand grenades, but gee whiz.... not anywhere close enough. No one has suggested "modifying trademarks" with the intent of "causing confusion as to the source of the goods."

Just as a machine shop can grind the trademarks off all their tools and paint them bright yellow if they like... they're not confusing anyone because its a tool they use, they're not selling them -- the tools are not "goods" and the "trade dress" is not really functional.

But quoting some unrelated court case does look impressive.... I'm just surprised after HUNDREDS of lawsuits, that you haven't been able to nail down a single one with a decision from a court on removing the logo? Got a real one we can look at?

As most here know, I am a strong advocate for people doing their own research so that they will KNOW, and not waste time debating validity.

HOWEVER, I have read both the post from Athena quoted above and one 6 or 7 posts ago the read:

"when I get all 12 responses in I will post a summary of responses by publisher....".

I am left confused. Athena, are you going to name the publisher/owners, or did you change your mind?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Chip made a good point with the "tools" analogy. While those disc mfrs. that have removed logos ( and there are/were several) might be sued for Trade Dress because they are SELLING the product, and at least giving the perception that it's their own product ( though no explicit claims are made ), a host isn't selling the product, but merely using the tools that he/she has PURCHASED for his/her trade.

The logo itself adds no value or quality to the track. Assuming a singer actually makes a manufacturer specific request for a song, it's not the logo the singer is looking for, but the way the track was recorded.

A host could conceivably leave all mfr. IDs in the book, remove all logos, and still receive the same customer satisfaction with the tracks being used.

Which goes back to how tough it can be to prove damages for either Trade Dress OR the media shifting of the logo without permission.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

JoeC...I will be posting a summary by publisher when I get all 12 answers in.

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

So, basically you can do whatever you want until you get caught. When you get caught, you stop and Disney leaves you alone. No harm no fouls and most important; no law suits from Disney.

Hmmm. Isn't that the Chartbuster business plan?

If I buy a pair of LEVIS and decide to cut off the little tags that say LEVIS on them and remove the buttons that say LEVIS on them; I'm pretty damn sure that I can wear those pants without the threat of the LEVI STRAUS company coming after me looking for damages. Once you buy something, ANYTHING, you are allowed to customize it any way you choose to.

Exactly. If you were a photographer, that would include Levi's that you purchased as part of a wardrobe for a photo booth for customers to put on and have photographed.... So "the patrons" are "using your tools" that you are NOT "selling to them as goods." Because they are not goods at all... they are "tools." Even if you dye the Levis yellow....

Ah, but if you took apart those jeans, made a pattern from them, used the pattern to make your own, then stuck a Levi's label on the ones you made (or not, depending on how much of their work you copied otherwise), and used them for your photobooth, Levi Strauss & Co. would probably have something to say about that.

By the way, the term "tools" is not to be found anywhere in the Lanham Act, so your "exception" doesn't really have much weight to it. You do not have to sell the marked goods to be using them in commerce in any event.

That analogy might apply to the people that are selling loaded hard drives to others but I don't think it applies to the KJ who removes the LOGOs from his own personal discs when he format shifts his own purchased tracks onto his own personal computer. All he has done is customize his property. I essence, he has simply removed the LEVIs logo and maybe even cut the legs off of those pants to make a customized pair of shorts and worn them outside. If Sound Choice has an issue with me giving them free advertising when I use my property on my computer; then they should have no grounds to (@$%&#!) when I remove their advertisement from my property. They can't have it both ways.

So well said They're OK with that FREE publicity but who said publicity was FREE How much does Coke spend to have is logo display on TV? Personally, I would import their tracks in mp3 and if they want to see my originals, no problem, it will be done at your own cost and you DO NOT write anything on my property or make me sign anything... Now, you want to charge me for the audit or sue me??? No problem, please do and in the mean time, your logo will be removed because your FREE publicity is OVER, you gotta choose, we have rights too

No, he's made an unauthorized copy of the product he purchased. If you want to remove the logos AND the rest of the trade dress--basically, to redo the entire graphics set--then you will effectively avoid a trademark infringement suit. But you will buy yourself a copyright infringement suit--if not from SC, from the music publishers (because when you made the new graphics package, you created a new synchronized A/V work, which is an infringement of their copyright) and from the owner of the sound recording, who may be SC or may be Stingray.



You aren't using your property on your computer. Unless you are playing from discs or you have the appropriate permission to conduct a media-shift, you are using an unauthorized duplicate, which you created and are therefore the legal source of, but you are applying SC's trademarks and trade dress to that product. If it were only about the bare trademark itself, you're right that SC probably wouldn't sue. It's not merely about the bare trademark. It's about the whole package.

Oh this is to funny....Yep I see the logos and if I remove them Levis will not come and take me away for removing it and wearing them in public.

Just how many custom cars have you seen with the manu's logo on it?
First thing they do is take off all logo's and fill in the holes!

I pour my drinks into a glass and throw the can/bottle in the recycle, you can't tell what I'm drinking...

Opps sorry no logos on my computer and if there were and I removed them and used it while doing Karaoke do you think that they would come get me.

As for Trade Dress I haven't seen any car manu arrest someone because they modified their car so it really doesn't look like the manu wanted it to.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

You are comparing Apples to Oranges. An article of clothing is not an audio/visual work.

Now, if you were to buy a DVD of Men In Black, remove all the logos, text and credits, than charge people to view it in your theater, how do you think the movie companies would react?

As horrible as "Men in Black" is, the movie's production company should view it as you doing them a favor.

....

The thing that all three of these things have in common is that you are using the original item you purchased, not a duplicate you made for your own purposes.

this is just a big f'n circle, cause now were back to using a duplicate that falls in the 1:1 ratio to protect our original investment from damage.

_________________
It's all good!

Isn't is interesting how the "investors" at CB can take copies of the song files to "protect their investment" but you're supposedly not allowed to without a fee?

two more replies both no...so we stand at 5 no's and 1 yes currently

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey