Watchtower sends Cease and Desist order on SPARLOCK items!

by sacolton 61 Replies latest jw friends

  • cedars
    cedars

    sacolton - this may be a development in and of itself. Would it be possible for you to write to cafepress and ask them to issue you with a full written explanation as to why the t-shirts, mugs etc are being pulled? If we could have a nice cafepress-headed letter explicility stating that the Watchtower claimed its copyright was being infringed regarding Sparlock, that would be fairly damning evidence, and show how petty and vindictive they really are.

    When they did this on YouTube, we missed the opportunity to get the copyright notices "captured" as images to show to publishers as evidence. It would be a shame if we missed the opportunity here too.

    What do you think?

    Cedars

  • talesin
    talesin

    People should be concentrating on the available avenues of fair comment (including parody) rather than lamenting the fact that they cannot continue illegitimately making money off it.

  • kurtbethel
    kurtbethel

    I admit, I am not very clever and crafty in the ways of the world, so perhaps someone could explain this to me.

    Is the Watchtower a religion that is teaching Bible truths to people of all the nations?

    Or is it a business that is engaging in commerce and trade, and are willing to use the courts to protect their commercial activities?

    They need to choose up what they are and clarify it for the public.

  • MidwichCuckoo
    MidwichCuckoo

    The WT probably sees a missed money-making opportunity. I can't see how this is an infringement of copyright because 'Sparlock' was created to be distributed free as a 'moral lesson'. 'Jehovah created the Watchtower, and the Watchtower created Sparlock'

  • Chariklo
    Chariklo

    Has anyone tried actually registering the name Sparlock?

    If it's registered, try Spar-lock. Spar-Lock. And such other variants as inventive minds come up with.

    Or can anyone come up with something equally identifiable?

    I have another idea that might actually have a lot of legal mileage (in my little mind anyway) and I hesitate to put it on here because they're obviously trawling (and maybe trolling, who knows?) this board as hard as they can.

    PM me if anyone's interested....and apologies in advance if it's just totally lame, what do I know? But it might really work.

    PS: is anyone recording and monitoring all these legal moves and devlopments? Does anyone have access to a lawyer knowledgeable in US law? And presumably worldwide international law?

    Even a record of all their moves to take action ought to interest an investigative journalist....

  • processor
    processor

    we missed the opportunity to get the copyright notices "captured" as images to show to publishers as evidence.

    Why that? They can still be seen, e. g. here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jGJxSky1fo

  • shamus100
    shamus100

    Video no longer available due to copywright claim... ** snort **

    I imagine poor Caleb will go away like the dinosaurs and jehovahs witnesses prophecies... said but then unsaid...

    Bless those people. :D

  • MrFreeze
    MrFreeze

    If their video is so great, why wouldn't they want it on youtube? After all, it allows their great video to have a wide audience without having to produce DVD's. It should be a win-win for the WT. Well that is unless their video sucks and is a complete joke.

  • WTWizard
    WTWizard

    Another use of copyright law to suppress those who mock them (and rightly so, too). Yet they can ruin children's lives with the policies that are responsible for this mockery in the first place.

    I wish I was the judge on this case. I would drag in every time the Washtowel lifts a picture from a worldly publication and puts it on their rags, and make them pay the original publishers royalties per rag. Not to mention, I would make the Washtowel pay hefty royalties to Vangelis (along with a hefty defamation claim for fxxxing up their hit Chariots of Fire. This is for the Kingdumb Malady 42-1984 edition. They should pay royalty for every copy of their "music(??)" that includes this sxxx, and more for "public performance" each time song 42 came up while that songbook was in force. Then, I would answer to the pedophiles that silenced their victims, the scams used to extort people into being baptized at age 6 or sell out and pious-sneer, or whose families were busted up by the shunning policies.

    Not to mention, if the Washtowel is sending out false copyright infringements (threatening to intimidate someone for re-posting something or remove merchandise, where no copyright exists), I would actually counter-sue the Washtowel for that. They are using a threat of legal action based on a copyright they do not hold, and that needs to be addressed. If they do not have a copyright or trademark (and it has to be registered), you have every right to sell merchandise based on that character--and they can be counter-sued or even go to jail for threatening you on a false copyright.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    WTWizard:

    If they do not have a copyright or trademark (and it has to be registered), you have every right to sell merchandise based on that character--and they can be counter-sued or even go to jail for threatening you on a false copyright.

    You evidently do not understand copyright law. Copyright does not need to be registered in the United States (and the same applies in many other countries); though it is easier to prove if registered, copyright is automatic. Aside from the fact that the DVD case does include a copyright statement, they are allowed to make claims of protection of their intellectual property even without such a statement, and cannot be sued for doing so.

    One of the main issues in enforcing copyright infringement is whether the original creator has suffered financial loss, which is hard to prove for materials that are distributed for free without charge.

    As for the song allegedly copying Chariots of Fire, it would need to be proven that it was a derivative work rather than just similar (and there is only passing similarity), and it still would not qualify as 'defamation'.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit