- San Diego, CA
Overly-educated sentient life form who lives to help creatives make money doing their creative thing. Especially photographers.
Reported to have been born with a red pen in my hand, I write lots of articles on marketing and business for commercial photographers, spend too much time on forums, on the web, and can be found reading at least 3 books alternately on any given day. And I watch too much tv.
First word? Batman.
I lost on Jeopardy! twice (which is near impossible as you have to prove the show was at fault the first time), coming in 2nd both times to Latin teachers.
Did I mention the too much tv thing?
It's Clay's fault I'm a part of Adland.
- Member for
- 13 years 8 weeks
LeslieBAP said:This is the kind of thing that keeps lawyers in Porsches. See, you can't protect an idea, but you can the execution. When it gets a bit murky like this, that means if someone sues, it will be a protracted and fee-heavy case for the lawyers on both sides. That being said, if they trademarked the tag "It gets better" and did so in multiple languages, then the Dan Savage folk have a strong case for infringement. Or, if the Swedish version visually copies the US, then a copyright claim could be made. Or both, of course. I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.Posted: 2 years 6 weeks ago
LeslieBAP said:I'm pretty sure the artists never actually brought legal action about Cog. Threatened, but not acted on. Don't know why, but I'm guessing some money changed hands. Btw, there is always grey in these cases--like how similar is similar enough to constitute infringement. If the artist can prove that the agency had access to his work prior to creating their ads, that would really help him. Still, here, I'd be really surprised if a court said that there was sufficient transformation from the original to render it NOT infringement. But that's just my guess. Remember kiddies, I'm not a lawyer, just a law student, and this is all just stuff in my head and not legal advice. :-)Posted: 2 years 42 weeks ago
LeslieBAP said:Oh holy crap... they didn't even try to differentiate. Totally wrong and incredibly sloppy of the agency. Clearly they knew they should have contacted the artist and that shows willful infringement in the USA, which means extra bonus points when it comes to damages. Dunno the rules in your fair land. Hope the artist sues and gets a bundle.Posted: 2 years 42 weeks ago
LeslieBAP said:I wanna see the "talent" releases. If they were buried in some sort of paperwork to take the test drive, then there is a question of the validity of the releases...Posted: 2 years 44 weeks agoon the post: Hyundai - Talking - (2010) :30 (USA)
LeslieBAP said:Trademark infringement. Seriously, in the US, you could probably get a cease and desist for his use of your name w/o permission particularly as it is causing confusion in the very community in which you operate (the advertising community). Bet you can in the UK/EU too. Probably. Sue the wanker. :-)Posted: 3 years 24 weeks agoon the post: Self Branding Has Arrived
LeslieBAP said:So the chicks strip and do bouncy-bouncy things but the guy just stands there or pets a dog? WTF?Posted: 3 years 32 weeks agoon the post: Puma Bodywear - The Puma Index - (2009) 1:47 (USA)
LeslieBAP said:OMG... that is so many kinds of wrong. Brilliant. :-)Posted: 3 years 36 weeks ago
LeslieBAP said:Am I the only one disappointed that after reading "Cleaner. Faster. Smarter." it wasn't music from the Six Million Dollar Man?Posted: 3 years 36 weeks ago
LeslieBAP said:And true to San Diego form (the most parsimonious city ever-- I live there, I know), the "brains" behind this were obviously too cheap to hire a designer to make the logo. Looks like shite. Bet you the photo wasn't licensed either. Great idea, bad execution. Sigh.Posted: 3 years 42 weeks agoon the post: Made In San Diego
leslieburns said:I am overwhelmed with one thought: DICK!Posted: 4 years 6 weeks agoon the post: Move over Bateman - your business card sucks!