Quote:
Originally Posted by u crank
|
But, Trump is always saying CNN is failing , is way, way down in the ratings, spreads stories with little basis in fact or truth, and can't be trusted by the American people...
...Oh..wait..., maybe he was talking about himself...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onkel Neal
...
Man, that's really messed up. All that over a silly meme.
Haha, sounds like a lot of Internet warriors, when their mask of anonymity is pulled off they turn into little girls  |
I think that is precisely what has happened in this case. The guy who posted the GIF has openly acknowledged he was actively trolling, seeking to stir up conflict and, after he posted the GIF and the Bandini came showering down, he realized he was in way too deep and pulled up stakes. But I give him props for owning up and trying to do right: he actually contacted CNN before they tried to contact him and apologized for what he had done, to me an act of a basically ethical person, regardless of what the media has been saying about him. He could have gone to ground, but he made the first move. Perhaps that is why CNN decided not to heap more troubles on him, make his true identity public, and make his life even more of a mess...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockstar
Trademark infringement, really? where did you see that? Im no lawyer but I'm not too sure trademark infringment applies. Call me crazy but it's probably why CNN didnt threaten anyone or Reddit with a lawsuit for tradmark infringment. Instead they threatened to expose the .gif creators indentity.
|
CNN didn't need to threaten an infringement lawsuit; it is pretty much implicit; you use the trademarked logo or name of a business in a less than appealing manner and you're facing the potential of a lawsuit. As far as threatening anyone, the statement of a fact of the rights of CNN in this is not really a threat, but it does serve to demarcate there is a limit to what will be tolerated should some one else think, just because CNN did not exercise their rights and options in this case, they now have 'carte blanche" to pull a similar stunt without consequences. Not a threat, just cold, hard fact...
From the detailed news reports about the situation, it seems both CNN and the 'troll' have reached an wholly amicable state regarding the disposition of the matter. He owned up and CNN didn't press the matter any further; smiles all around. The only people who seem to be put out are those, from both ends of the political spectrum, who seek to make political capital out of, as Neal put it, "a silly meme":
CNN Story About Source of Trump Wrestling Video Draws Backlash --
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/b...ump-tweet.html
Your dismissal of the trademark infringement shows a very narrow view. Defense of a trademark is very serious business; some companies have faced financial ruin because they didn't actively defend their 'mark':
'Genericide': Brands destroyed by their own success --
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27026704
In the CNN case, the potential for loss extended to other liabilities other than just the trademark. For example, let's say CNN didn't try to take action at all regarding the GIF and let it slide, giving the impression they were 'okay' with the posting; now, say a brain-dead Trump supporter decided to use the 'implied' approval by Trump of taking violent against journalists as a rationale for posting new and, perhaps, more incendiary, CNN logo based memes that result in some other brain-dead Trump guy actually beating a reporter, causing severe injury or worse. The reporter sues and the attorney files not only against the attacker and the poster of the meme(s), but also CNN. Why? The attorney could argue CNN holds some liability because they did not act to deter or stop the original meme, giving the meme poster or attacker, or anyone else, the impression there might well be no consequences to the posting and the assault, contributing to an atmosphere in which the crime could take place. Farfetched? Not really; stranger arguments have been made in litigation and, in jury trials, have resulted in very large financial judgements. Now, say, the poster of the inciting meme(s) and the attacker haven't the financial means to pay a large judgement; here's where a concept known as "deep pockets" comes to bear: since the other parties to the payment of the judgement can't pay, CNN, with its "deep pockets" will have to bear the brunt of satisfying the judgement. All that because they chose not to pursue a 'trivial' matter. "For want of a nail, the shoe was lost..."...
Now that I've bored the bejusus out of everybody, including myself, here is a bit of funny video I found; the finding of this video was due to a to a post by Sailor Steve (credit where credit is due) in another thread of another video by this duo:
<O>