On 12/28/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > >
Indeed that's true. But that really depends on the court (While it's written law, it is something that gets ignored semi-regularly). This is a poster-child case for out of court settlement as Frank suggests. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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.
