Parody is protected, but so are trademarks. If they've infringed, they'll lose, parody or no. Norris is entitled to protect the brand he has built. I'm on his side in this one. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
