We have lots of fun disscussions here about copyright and such - so here is one for you all. How far is too far? In other words - you can't copyright a word unless it is something like a trademark and identifed. So kiss as a word is not copyrighted but the band name is because their logo is. Taking it a step further a lot of eyebrows were raised when Gene Simmons created a bass and called it an axe *and* went so far as to trademark/patent it, not a a logo but as an indentity. Thusly you can't really create an electronic instrument such as a bass or guitar and sell it as an "axe" and in theory you can't go out and say that someone is playing an axe..you know, confusion in the marketplace. The irony here being that most guitar players are called "Axe slingers" even though most do not play the "axe" bass. And keep in mind a car can have a fender and you can sell fenders but you can not not make guitars and basses and sell them as Fenders...but Fender is a company name...even though when people say they play a "Fender" you mostly hear "A Strat?" or "A Tele?" or even the more simple "What year?". Much the same way that Avid is a company, not just one piece of NLE software but anymore you hear people simple say they "use an Avid" and couldn't create new software that edits video and call it "Avid". However "Axe" is not the same - "axe" is a name...a name that has been owned by Gene Simmons for many years now, at least as it relates to a musical instrument that would look like a guitar or bass. So if you created an ad where a guitarist says "Man I need a new axe!" and you show him buying a new Fender Strat with the phrase "Fender - the best axe money can buy" it would be a misuse of the word and Gene Simmons could sue because you 1) used "his" brand name without prermission and 2) you did not create a commercial for his product even though your commerical says it is his product - the "axe".

Ok - so what *really* prompted this thread is that Donald Trump has his new TV show and the concept is that in each episode he fires someone. Well "You're Fired!" is becoming a catch phrase of sorts so guess what? Trump has filed for a trademark on the words "You're fired" Why? Because he want to use those words to market things - put it on t-shirts, put it on bill boards, put it on his hotels and so on. So I am thinking now that "how far is too far?" when it comes to this sort of thing? Is it to the point now that if any of us make a film where someone is fired we can not have a character say "You're fired" without getting a clearance first?

This topic is for disccusion - I am not asking for anything here other than your opinon. I do understand the concept of trademark and logos and certian designs (Frankenstein - or at least the character as it relates to the make up in the classic Universal film, or the look of the Fender Strat) I can even go so far as to say I can understand certian "styles" of speech being "trademarked" - the way Col Klink said "hhhhhhoooooooggggggaaaaaannnnnn!!!" or Jimmy Walker said "Dy-no-mite!" or Steve Martin with "Well eeeexxxxxxxxxcccuuuuuuussssssseeeeee mmmmmmeeeeeeee!!!" or the recent "wwwwaaaaazzzzzz uuuuuup?" ads are perfect examples. And really I have no idea if these things were trademarked or not, but I could understand is they were. The expression "Got Milk?" as it relates to the milk ads is another example I could see, to a point. But in this case Trump is doing what many people do - they fire someone. It is not that unique to Trump in my opinion, the fact he says it on the show is secondary because that *is* the show. So the real issue for discussion here is simple - In your opinion "How far is too far?"