Shocker: Porn Spam Generates More Clicks Than Other Spam

Throw Away Those Blue Suede Shoes: Impersonating Elvis To Be Banned?

from the ip-law-gone-ridiculous dept

Wed, Apr 26th 2006 11:55pm — Mike Masnick

Among the many enjoyable aspects of the Cato conference was hearing Professor David K. Levine from UCLA present some of his research, showing how intellectual property laws often do exactly the opposite of what they're intended to do. It turns out that Prof. Levine and some others have recently started a blog called Against Monopoly, which looks like it'll be a worthwhile read. At the blog there's a great post that points to yet another case of intellectual property being taken too far... in a somewhat bizarre way. It turns out that the guy who recently bought most of the rights to Elvis Presley's "name and likeness" is threatening to require all Elvis impersonators to purchase a license. Apparently, he feels that "unauthorized" Elvis impersonators are diluting the Elvis brand. It's hard to see what sort of benefit it provides either society or the brand of Elvis to limit a good part of what has kept Elvis so popular all of these years, but it looks like (once again) we're seeing a focus on short term gains at the expense of long term business viability.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

31 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

JP, 27 Apr 2006 @ 1:22am

Why?
Why would he want to limit impersonators? It seems to me that impersonators are more or less free advertising. I still have yet to see the Time Life Greatest Elvis Impersonations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PopeRatzo, 27 Apr 2006 @ 3:30am

Is limiting Elvis impersonation a good thing or bad thing?

I'm thinking...

..still thinking. Let me get back to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2006 @ 3:55am

i work with a guy who does Elvis on the side. Maybe we'll get lucky and he won't want to pay the "elivis fee" and quit. The guy is a real douche bag Vision of Elvis. Check out his website for a good laugh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2006 @ 7:14am
  
  Re:
  I would never do Elvis, on the side, or any other way. That's just sick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Todd, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:12am

He looks like a douche bag, with that fake looking wig, even his clothes look a $19.99 Halloween costume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:16am

Blog site.....
The blog site is either incompatible with firefox or is having serious load issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:17am

Is that his daugther on the left?
She look slike she might be kinda hot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:21am

Personally I hope it happens. I hate Elvis impersonators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geneku, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:27am

Wake up!
It doesn't matter if you like or dislike Elvis. Think about it, if this becomes wide spread it will become impossible to 'dress up", "pretend" or go in costume as any licensed character. Should we really have to pay Lucas a $50 licensing fee just for our kid to be Vader at Halloween. This sucks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Dole, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:39am

I think I might buy the rights to wear t-shirts and jeans...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brodee, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:42am

You already do!!
You already pay a license fee for your kid to dress up as Vader, at least if you buy a store bought costume. The fee is included in the price.

I guess my question is how is he going to enforce this? Is he going to hang out in Vegas all the time and sue everyone he sees dressed as Elvis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Patrick Mullen, 27 Apr 2006 @ 7:36am
  
  Re: You already do!!
  I guess my question is how is he going to enforce this? Is he going to hang out in Vegas all the time and sue everyone he sees dressed as Elvis?
  
  Hopefully. Actually, this sounds pretty good to me, seems we rid society of a lot of problems. Gets rid of the Elvi, and it gets lawsuit happy people out of the way too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:43am

RE:Wake up! by Geneku
We already do pay fees for our kids to dress up as Vader for Halloween. The manufacturer licenses the rights to produce the costumes from the owners and fiugures the cost into each sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:46am

No more elvis, where does it stop. Can I still dress up like Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? Mrs. Claus? (only on weekends) OH the humanity!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Ritual, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:49am

America?
Elvis impersonators are an American institution. What if living people like George Bush start taking the same stance that impersonation dilutes their "brand"...comedy as we know it will cease to exist, the world will plummet into depression and possibly all out war...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republican Gun, 27 Apr 2006 @ 6:56am

Sites down
The problem with their site is on their end. Looks like someone was editing the php and messed up.

Typical though because a monolpoly would never let that happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RenderingSanity, 27 Apr 2006 @ 7:24am

100 years from now at this rate society will collapse under the weight of it's own rules...You just can't function like this longterm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dam, 27 Apr 2006 @ 7:34am

Monopoly Image
AT 10:34am 4/27, the site's database has crashed and there's nothing to read. But I see the learned professor has no problem borrowing the Monopoly character for his site and not attributing it to Parker Bros.

I guess it's for a greater good that he uses the manufacturer's IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BC, 27 Apr 2006 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: Monopoly Image
  "I guess it's for a greater good that he uses the manufacturer's IP."
  
  Or it could be to make a point. Do you honestly think anyone could mistake the Against Monopoly site for something affiliated with the game "Monopoly"?
  
  A Parker Bros. C&D would be great ammunition for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damian, 27 Apr 2006 @ 7:34am

May End Up Hurting Him
If Elvis impersonators were hurting the Elvis brand, then Lisa Marie would have shut them down years ago but she didn't. The impersonators are what help keep the "brand" alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
--johnonymous, 27 Apr 2006 @ 8:04am

Will it really help any?
It doesn't seem like this would do the guy much good. It won't accomplish anything, except ruin Elvis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mel, 27 Apr 2006 @ 8:19am

That
is the dumbest, greediest thing I have ever heard of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freakengine, 27 Apr 2006 @ 9:23am

Greed
Why is anyone surprised by this? The first thing ANYONE who buys a valuable commodity wants to do is to show how much better he/she is at running the show by increasing the bottom line. It's greed fever in this country, fueled mainly by stockholders and the Wall St. Wheel of Fortune.

It sickens me to think this jerks gonna try and squash a few more pennies outta the little guys, but what else is new?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2006 @ 9:48am

Vision of Elvis - Thats not a wig...thats his real hair....it looks like that EVERYDAY at WORK!!! WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amanda R., 27 Apr 2006 @ 11:34am

Calling All Elvis's
I guess that particular impersonator is intitled to his opinion, but don't bring it north. Collingwood, Ontario has quite the Elvis following and every summer a festival in his honor with Elvis's as far as the eye can see. Personally; I can live without it, but I say "Let them have their fun and have it for free". I just can't see this guy making a five year old pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beach Mom, 27 Apr 2006 @ 11:38am

Calling All Elvis's
I guess that particular impersonator is intitled to his opinion, but don't bring it north. Collingwood, Ontario has quite the Elvis following and every summer a festival in his honor with Elvis's as far as the eye can see. Personally; I can live without it, but I say "Let them have their fun and have it for free". I just can't see this guy making a five year old pay, even if was Halloween.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LordGodGreed, 27 Apr 2006 @ 2:05pm

Capitalism run amok
the story reads:
"Billionaire Robert Sillerman..."

Well you can stop right there, you've identified the source and cause of the problem: unrestrained capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jonny Fictitious, 27 Apr 2006 @ 4:07pm

to the coward
let them have there fun. Who cares. The Anonymous Coward must be pretty jealous of this guy to be talking that much smack. Imagine how your wife feels waking up to your face every morning! Of course your probably single and got shot down at one of Elvis's shows..........pretty sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ThinkSolveDo, 29 Apr 2006 @ 9:07pm

So Mike, Now Copyrights are Bad Too?
So Mike now copyrights are bad too? How would you feel if everyone took your “TechDirt” logo and began selling it and profiting from it and your writing too? Should EVERYONE be able to use everything you create without your permission? Should EVERYONE be able to pretend to be “TechDirt” and to profit from it without your permission?

It is so funny how people like you tend to complain when anyone enforces their rights and then also complain when anyone even suggests violating yours. If there is no value in creating anything then why not let all of us use all your work for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 30 Apr 2006 @ 11:18am
  
  Re: So Mike, Now Copyrights are Bad Too?
  ThinkSolveDo... it worries me that you don't seem to understand intellectual property at all, when you claim to advise others on the topic. That's SCARY.
  
  So Mike now copyrights are bad too? How would you feel if everyone took your “TechDirt” logo and began selling it and profiting from it and your writing too? Should EVERYONE be able to use everything you create without your permission? Should EVERYONE be able to pretend to be “TechDirt” and to profit from it without your permission?
  
  First of all, I think you should go back and learn the difference between trademarks and copyrights. It's actually really damning that you don't seem to know the difference. I can't believe anyone actually trusts you for advice on the topic when you don't seem to know the difference.
  
  Second, I've made it clear repeatedly that we have no problem with others making use of our content. For example, the site Bloglines republishes our content. Good for them. It makes it easier for some people to read what we write. That's great.
  
  If people can profit from the content, GOOD FOR THEM! That means they're doing something to make our content even more useful. That's great!
  
  Trademark violations however (using our logo, for example) are a different issue. Trademark is designed to prevent confusion. If someone else were trying to pass themselves off as Techdirt, that could lead to customer confusion. It's not about "ownership". It's about consumer protection. However, as long as anyone makes clear that the content originated from us, they're free to do whatever they want with it.
  
  It is so funny how people like you tend to complain when anyone enforces their rights and then also complain when anyone even suggests violating yours. If there is no value in creating anything then why not let all of us use all your work for free?
  
  You know what they say about people who make assumptions? As I've made clear, and have said for many years (once again, it looks like you spoke before you read or learned), we have no problem with someone using our content, so long as they say where it came from originally. So, go ahead, make use of our work for free. It'll help build our reputation even further, which helps us sell our services.
  
  Actually, PLEASE, go ahead and do so. It only helps us...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 30 Apr 2006 @ 10:29pm
  
  Re: So Mike, Now Copyrights are Bad Too?
  Further thoughts on this from David Levine, the UCLA professor -- who points to the difference between copying a work and pretending it's the work of someone else.
  
  We have no problem with you helping to promote our work. We have a problem with you pretending it's your work. That's what trademarks are all about. But copying our work, even if it's for your own profit, is fine with us as long as it's clear that it's our work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]