>Although to keep our villians straight, wouldn't that have been Warner
>Brothers (I mean Time-Warner, I mean AOL-TimeWarner) doing the suing?
Quite right, Nathan - it musta been AOLTimeWarnerEMI. Sorry 'bout that,
chief.
>Heaven forbid we confuse the more subtle humor and satire of Bugs Bunny
>On Behalf Of Rob Schaap
>
> Nope. Absolutely true. The Tasmanian Trade Commission wanted to use a
> Tassie Devil as the graphic fulcrum of an expensively produced marketing
> strategy in 1998. Disney threatened legal action - on a critter
> that looks
> nothing like their fanciful version - a
>I was told but was unable to confirm that Disney's copyright of the Tasmanian
>devil restricted what could be written about it in Australia. Urban legend?
Nope. Absolutely true. The Tasmanian Trade Commission wanted to use a
Tassie Devil as the graphic fulcrum of an expensively produced marke
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Louis Proyect
>
>
> I can tell you one thing about Disney and copyright. I entered a boolean
> search on the two words in Nexis, which used the default 'within
> six month'
> time-frame, and it failed
