Monthly Archive

Baywatch has been deemed obscene in
India!  The Sony Satellite Channel, AXN, which carries Baywatch, has been banned for showing indecent content.  India, like the
United States, has a provision in their constitution that protects freedom of speech and expression.  However, India’s constitution is different from the
United States because the section in the constitution protecting this fundamental freedom also has a provision which allows Parliament to enact legislation that may infringe on this right.  It is not clear whether Parliament has enacted legislation or whether the Indian government is acting under a form of pre-censorship.  Lawyers representing Sony acknowledged the Indian government has the ability to pull material considered obscene, but in this case the government is claiming an entire channel is obscene. 

Is India turning into
North Korea!  According to the BBC,
North Korea only allows government approved channels and all radios must be registered.  There are reports of North Koreans fleeing the country thanks to Baywatch being offered in
South Korea.  One person who fled told reporters
America is their favorite country and that they would like to live in houses like Pamela Anderson and David Hasselhoff.  I pose a question to the loyal readers of this blog…What if the United States had a provision in the Constitution like the Indian one…Would Baywatch have been banned in the States?

     The amazing Britney Spears was once deemed “too stimulating” for the youth of Japan. I can think of many ways to poke fun at that, but for now lets just stick to legal talk. The October 2006 issue of Harpers Bazaar showed Brit very pregnant, very nude, and covered in jewels. This picture was taken by photographer Alexi Lubomirski and is intended to be a picture of a glowing pregnant woman. The cover was shown as a poster on subways all over Tokyo. However, the poster was only supposed to show Britney from the elbow up and would have the tagline saying “We apologize for hiding part of a beautiful image of a mother-to-be.” The subway authorities decided to drop its plan to censor the photo. This whole issue began when a Tokyo Metro Company obscenity screening team asked the publishing company of Japans Harpers Bazaar to modify the photograph. The Metro company felt it was “too stimulating for young people”.  The publisher for Japans Harpers Bazaar actually wanted to modify the picture and write in the blacked out parts “in this place we are not allowed to exercise the same level of freedom of expression as the original Harpers Bazaar.” The metro company decided to show the picture as is because they now understand Harpers Bazaar wanted to portray the pop sensation as a mother-to-be in a happy non sexual way.

In some respects you’re a nobody until you have your first protest website. The misrepresentation of trademarked people has become a serious concern for many celebrities who worry about any damage done to their image. The bigger the celebrity, the more of a target they are. It would be very difficult for Britney’s legal team to go after every single terrible picture or website. Unfortunately, it looks like these problems may be permanent. However, it would make sense for famous people such as Britney Spears to buy close variations of their domain name and any other similar URLs. This may seem impossible, but Britney’s legal team should consider it. While I would hope Britney Spears and her legal team would have a sense of humor about some cybersquatting, there is a downside. All of this may backfire on celebrities. There’s the possibility that any lengthy legal action against an independent website owner may cause a PR disaster. Some celebrities such as Britney Spears must pick and chose their battles…looks like http://www.britneyspearxxx.com/    is unfortunately here to stay.

Jessica Linsky

Why is it always the celebrity supposedly getting screwed by cybersquatters?!  Thanks to one of my favorite movie’s, Office Space, I began to wonder if this situation could be flipped around.  For those of you who have not had the pleasure of seeing this cinematic masterpiece, one of the characters is named…Michael Bolton.  What if little office geek Michael Bolton wanted to create a blog entitled, www.michaelbolton.com, but the singer Michael Bolton already had the rights to the name?  Can the little nobody have a claim?  The Grammy winning Michael Bolton would most likely be able to overcome a claim of cybersquatting.  His biggest defense would be that he didn’t register the website in bad faith and he was using it for a legitimate purpose.  But let’s say Grammy Michael disappears for years or even dies?  Should he still be allowed to block someone else from using the same domain name?  I thought about this in the context of Elvis.  Elvis has been dead for years but his name and music are still very much on the market.  His estate should still be allowed to use the King’s name in a domain name.  Even if Grammy Michael were to disappear I believe him or his estate would still have a valid claim to the use of the domain name.  This leaves office dwelling Michael left with one choice and that is to buy the rights from Grammy Michael.  The office Michael needs to be the first in line to register the name in order to use it.  Sometimes it just doesn’t pay-off to have a famous name. 

A great scene from Office Space! 

Samir: No one in this country can ever pronounce my name right. It’s not that hard: Samir Na-gheen-an-a-jar. Nagheenanajar.
Michael Bolton: Yeah, well at least your name isn’t Michael Bolton.
Samir: You know there’s nothing wrong with that name.
Michael Bolton: There was nothing wrong with it… until I was about 12 years old and that no-talent ass clown became famous and started winning Grammys.
Samir: Hmm… well why don’t you just go by Mike instead of Michael?
Michael Bolton: No way. Why should I change? He’s the one who sucks.