The Academy Bullied CNN Into Including Trademark Icon For 'Oscars' On Its Crawl For Some Reason

from the and-the-award-for-dumbest-fight-goes-to... dept

Fri, Jan 22nd 2016 1:40pm — Timothy Geigner

Usually when we talk about the Oscars behaving badly about intellectual property, it has to do with either its combat against film piracy or its rather stunning tradition of facilitating it. What's clear in most of those stories, though, is that when the Motion Picture Academy decides to sink its collective teeth into something, it is bulldog-ish in its unwillingness to let it go. It seems that this is the case on matters of trademark, as well. Unimaginably petty trademark matters.

As CNN was covering a boycott by some actors of the Oscars ceremony, it appears someone in PR for the Academy had pestered CNN to the point that the news channel, contrary to how just about everyone else does it, agreed to include a trademark registration symbol when discussing the Oscars on its crawl. To get an idea of how jarring doing this is to the viewer, see the following screen-cap.

Now, is this the hugest deal of anything ever? Obviously not, but that's what makes this so annoying: why does the Academy care if CNN's crawl about the Oscars has a trademark registration mark? Television and print news organizations all over the place omit it all the time, because including it both serves no purpose and annoys basically everyone. Why is this the hill on which the Academy chose to fight?

While the name “Oscars” is certainly a registered trademark of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (so CNN is correct on that count), most style manuals, including the AP Stylebook, forgo the use of it or the non-registered trademark symbol (™).

Not only does the use of it clutter up pages and graphics, but back in the old days when news was literally distributed via wires, such symbols couldn’t be transmitted.

It's only useful quality is as an insight into the minds of employees at an organization that has gone IP-crazy. Because they must be the only ones that actually care about this. Still, it's disappointing that CNN's apathy led to capitulation to the silliest of demands.

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

Filed Under: oscars, trademark
Companies: cnn, motion picture academy

31 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Digitari, 22 Jan 2016 @ 1:53pm

Some Oscars for you.
Oscar Meyer and Oscar De La Hoya are "oscars" I wonder where they are registered .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2016 @ 1:54pm

They misspelled...
...Oscar Mayer®?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2016 @ 1:55pm

Techdirt is whining about this? Hate to say it, but "Oscars" is a registered trademark of the Academy Awards. Might as well complain about McDonalds, Pokemon and every other company who lists their trademark or copyright. techdirt has FAILED once again.

#techdirtFailed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Jan 2016 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re:
  You mean all of those other companies you named who didn't browbeat a "news" organization to include the symbol?
  
  Perhaps the fact they devoted more time to making sure the freaking symbol was there than making sure they were connected to reality explains the problem. Spending more money on lawyers than on an 8 yr old who could tell them if their system makes sense.
  
  Thanks for playing, but head back down to the farm league... you aren't ready to play with the big kids yet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2016 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re:
  Is there actually a law that says the registration mark must be used when mentioning a particular entity? I see McDonalds used without it often...just like you did.
  
  So, your problem is Techdirt, not the premise of the story. Got it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 22 Jan 2016 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re:
  If you don't like Techdirt's whining, then why are you here reading it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 22 Jan 2016 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re:
  McDonald's in the news without the registration mark:
  
  http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/20/mcdonalds-franchisees-optimistic-about-sales-growth.html
  
  Pokemon in the news without the registration mark:
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=81345
  
  #GoFuckYourself
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Jan 2016 @ 3:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    #GoFuckYourself
    
    I think you mean: #GoFuckYourself®
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2016 @ 3:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Um, I think you mean: #GoFuckYourself™ simply because as bad as the USPTO is I don't think they would actually register that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 22 Jan 2016 @ 5:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I suppose we all stand corrected....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2016 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re:
  Umm...but you yourself just didn't include the symbol...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ryuugami™, 22 Jan 2016 @ 3:06pm
  
  Re:
  Techdirt™ is whining about this? Hate to say it, but "Oscars®" is a registered trademark of the Academy Awards®. Might as well complain about McDonalds®, Pokemon® and every other company who lists their trademark or copyright. techdirt™ has FAILED once again.
  
  #techdirt™Failed
  
  FTFY
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2016 @ 2:08pm

Hey idiot, thanks for proving TechDirts point when you refrained from adding the (R) to your post when you mentioned McDonalds and Pokemon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 22 Jan 2016 @ 2:13pm

I like to think that CNN put that giant red arrow on the screen cap to appease the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 22 Jan 2016 @ 4:21pm
  
  Re:
  That would have been doing it correctly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TasMot (profile), 22 Jan 2016 @ 2:20pm

Not So Sure About CNN Caving
Another way to look at this from CNN's point of view is that by "caving" they don't have to pay their lawyers $500/hr. to argue that the Circle-R Ranch symbol is not needed. Just include it for a few more weeks and then "forget" to put it in again until the Oscars idiots come complaining again. Let them keep paying the lawyers to show up and say "Hey You Forgot the stupid Circle-R again". CNN doesn't need a lawyer to do anything except send the "Ooops, forgot" letter again. In a little while the $#% @#$! show will be over and done with for another year and by then they will have to start the Circle-R all over again.

If CNN were really smart, they would pull a Google and just stop talking about the #@$# %^% show until they come begging with cash in hand for CNN to talk about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Median Wilfred, 22 Jan 2016 @ 2:34pm

Trademark isn't a specific thing is it?
Shouldn't that be "Oscars(R) Brand Motion Picture Awards" rather than just "Oscars(R)"?

I mean I hate to be a Latrine Lawyer here, but surely other awards for subjectively-high-quality movies exist, and therefore the term "Oscars(R)" must apply to only one of these many awards.

Once the trademark becomes synonymous with the thing (linoleum, anyone?) it loses its status as a trademark, right? Average Joe want to chip in here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2016 @ 2:50pm

By adding a trademark symbol to something, you are claiming ownership of the trademark. If you do not own it, you should disclaim it by stating who the owner is. So adding a trademark symbol with no disclaimer is actually a worse offense than not adding a trademark symbol. It's the owner's responsibility to claim ownership and nobody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Median Wilfred, 22 Jan 2016 @ 3:12pm
  
  (R) as charm against legal retribution
  I agree with what you've said, but that's not the "permission culture" mindset that I see in everyday life. From what I've seen in daily life, people think that adding an (R) or (C) or (TM) to something amounts to legal pixie dust that immunizes the casual user of "intellectual property" against legal retribution. Maybe the analogy is when you ask one of your kids to clean up the mess on the dining room table, and the kid says "But I didn't do it!" and therefore shouldn't be required to clean the mess up. Superstitiously adding (R) or (TM) to some brand name means that the responsibility is taken away from the superstition holder.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2016 @ 4:28pm

I can't find it said by anyone at CNN or the Academy that they were "bullied", or even that the Academy had anything to do with it. The article you link to has no proof, and only mentions it in the headline, not the text of the story.
Another tech dirt fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2016 @ 6:05pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 22nd, 2016 @ 4:28pm
  I agree. The underlying story makes it sound more like a pr flack annoying them into doing it,or perhaps the operator of the graphics generator.
  
  Don't see any mention of lawyers or legal action.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2016 @ 1:15am
    
    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 22nd, 2016 @ 4:28pm
    A sane vice in the wilderness.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2016 @ 5:06pm

Of course it doesn't help CNN used the disproportionately large "®" symbol in the font instead of a slightly less tacky and annoying smaller, superscript version. If the CG operator did not protest the addition of that unnecessary symbol (as I would do if put in that position), that's an either lower low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 23 Jan 2016 @ 1:52pm

This is news reporting
I think the bigger question is: since when is a R or TM required when doing a news story on a company? Isn't that the very definition of fair use? Or am I getting my copyright and trademark defenses mixed up? ;)

In any case, everyone knows that the word "Oscar" is referring to the Academy Awards, so why would that registration need "defending"? And I'm sure CNN used "Oscar" instead of "Academy Awards Ceremony" because it was less characters. Or would CNN need to put an R after "Academy Awards Ceremony"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pr, 23 Jan 2016 @ 8:12pm

Don't use the trademark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pr, 23 Jan 2016 @ 8:20pm

Don't use the trademark
The real answer is to not use any trademark. If the holders of the trademark don't like the way you're giving them free advertising, don't give it to them. If you never mention their self-congratulating TV show, you don't have to worry about tripping over their trademark.

In a similar vein, the lawyers for the makers of a particular brand of expanded polystyrene foam got onto my local solid waste department for failing to include the trademark symbol next to their brand name. The right thing would have been to stop using their brand name, just call it polystyrene foam. Unfortunately, the city caved, giving free advertising to the bully.

If you read woodworking magazines you'll notice that nobody ever mentions a certain type of pressed fiber board by its brand name anymore. Everyone used to call it by the most common brand name. Their lawyers got militant; now everybody calls it "hardboard" to avoid the trademarking. I'm having trouble remembering what we used to all call it.

There's also a sports league with a lot of militant lawyers who will come down on you for simply calling their event by the name that they gave it. So I won't mention it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 24 Jan 2016 @ 7:48am
  
  Re: Don't use the trademark
  "If the holders of the trademark don't like the way you're giving them free advertising, don't give it to them."
  
  I agree. I think it would be to everyone's benefit if the meaningless self-congratulatory industry wankfest that is the Oscars was completely ignored by news outlets.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lurker Keith, 24 Jan 2016 @ 12:13am

The Oscars
A group of musicians either all named Oscar or each using the Stage Name of Oscar (or a mix -- They could also just dress as different Oscars, including Oscar the Grouch) should form a band (preferably Rock, Punk or Metal, but they could play whatever they like, I just may not listen to them) called The Oscars or even The Oscars®.

Preferably, at least one should be a Trademark attorney, or alternatively they could make a deal w/ Popehat, where Ken gets copies of the music for free, or they donate a little money from winning their case to an anti-Pony Charity of Ken's choice. Whatever.

The point is watching The Oscars panic about The Oscars, & having no recourse but a bogus case that was defeated when the band was formed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 25 Jan 2016 @ 6:20am

Why do you think CNN was bullied?
Maybe CNN cheerfully and eagerly complied at the first request. Maybe it was even CNN's idea?

This is one of the major news organizations that wouldn't cover SOPA -- a major story that was happening at the time. They only finally covered it when the internet went dark and they could no longer ignore it.

Don't assume any goodwill on the part of CNN.

These are the people who had the most astonishing lopsided coverage of Snowden that I could imagine. It was so obviously uncritical of the government's position that I knew it was time to stop watching. And so I stopped right then. Not because of Snowden, but because of CNN's so called 'coverage' of news like SOPA and Snowden.

The moment I recognized such obvious distortion, it was like the magician's trick revealed. Everything seemed different. I realized CNN was about entertainment in pursuit of ratings. Not about news and the public interest. Something that journalism had mostly always been about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 25 Jan 2016 @ 6:22am
  
  Re: Why do you think CNN was bullied?
  I should add:
  
  CNN had gone too far in being biased.
  
  Just like the Discovery Channel, History, TLC, etc had all gone too far serving up crap and losing their focus.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tanner Andrews (profile), 26 Jan 2016 @ 6:33pm

The Mention of Trademark is Nominative Use
There is no problem in using a trademark to refer to the vendor or product covered by the trade mark. If I refer to a beverage as Coca Cola, because it is a particular product of a certain company, I don't have to disclaim or otherwise misdirect my audience.

I can even use the mark to criticize the company or its product. If I say ``Coca Cola is inferior beverage now that the skunks in Atlanta no longer include the ingredient for which the product was named'', there is no need to stick the little ® in there.

For the same reason, #OscarsSoWhite and the users of the hashtag need not disclaim. They are using the mark to discuss the product to which the mark refers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]