• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Palin Book to Look Strikingly Similar to Palin's Own Book

Can you explain how it's faulty in any way? Is it not up to the customer to check the merchandise?

No one thinks you can buy the Mona Lisa at Target. :roll: It wouldn't even be a trademark issue if they sold replicas. It would be fraud if they said it was real.

Basically, you're arguing against the whole point of trademark law here. And it's not to protect the customer.
 
I see a BIG lawsuit in someone's future. Liable, copywrite infringement. Did they get Palin's permission to use her photo? Probably not.

It's nice to see that the Libbos are still scared ****less of Sarah.

Interpreting derision as fear is a little egotistical. It is possible for people to just feel disdain and to act on that disdain.
 
I see a BIG lawsuit in someone's future. Liable, copywrite infringement. Did they get Palin's permission to use her photo? Probably not.

It's nice to see that the Libbos are still scared ****less of Sarah.
I'm not a lib, and as much as I dislike Obama, Palin scares me even more.

For the record, she supported 'death panels' before the election. She claims to be "down-to-earth" but wears suits that cost as much as Ferraris (no ****). She doesn't know the age of the earth, doesn't know when the Pledge was written etc etc.

If I had my pick, Ron Paul would be in office right now. Palin is just a neoconservative stereotype.
 
I'm not a lib, and as much as I dislike Obama, Palin scares me even more.

For the record, she supported 'death panels' before the election. She claims to be "down-to-earth" but wears suits that cost as much as Ferraris (no ****). She doesn't know the age of the earth, doesn't know when the Pledge was written etc etc.

If I had my pick, Ron Paul would be in office right now. Palin is just a HOT neoconservative stereotype.
Fixed it for you. :mrgreen:
 
No one thinks you can buy the Mona Lisa at Target. :roll:

Really? In a world where people think they are buying 'real' diamonds at Wal-Mart you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't think they're buying 'real' things all the time when all they are getting are cheap copies.

It wouldn't even be a trademark issue if they sold replicas. It would be fraud if they said it was real.

And the producers of the books aren't saying the book that Palin is buying is Palin's book.

Basically, you're arguing against the whole point of trademark law here. And it's not to protect the customer.

Negatory. I am arguing that it's up to the consumer to check the product at the end of the day and in this case I really see no real violation of trademark laws just two superficially similar products. No different then buying two newspapers with similar names & page organizations.
 
Really? In a world where people think they are buying 'real' diamonds at Wal-Mart you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't think they're buying 'real' things all the time when all they are getting are cheap copies.

Has nothing to do with trademark. Already said that.



And the producers of the books aren't saying the book that Palin is buying is Palin's book.

No, but they purposely closely mimicked the cover. They gave it a title so close that it could easily be confused, especially the way it's arranged on the cover. They used the exact same typeface and arranged it the same way. They chose extremely similar photos. This is all very intentional. You cannot tell, without picking it up and examining it closely, which one is which.


Negatory. I am arguing that it's up to the consumer to check the product at the end of the day and in this case I really see no real violation of trademark laws just two superficially similar products. No different then buying two newspapers with similar names & page organizations.

Then you demonstrate that you don't know what trademark law is about. :shrug:
 
Has nothing to do with trademark. Already said that.

No, but they purposely closely mimicked the cover. They gave it a title so close that it could easily be confused, especially the way it's arranged on the cover. They used the exact same typeface and arranged it the same way. They chose extremely similar photos. This is all very intentional. You cannot tell, without picking it up and examining it closely, which one is which.

Then you demonstrate that you don't know what trademark law is about. :shrug:

It says "Sarah Palin: An American Nightmare" on the front of the book. Does anybody seriously expect Sarah Palin fans to pick up that version of the book and believe it's from Sarah Palin? I'm not even mentioning the fact that the author's name is on there and one of the books will say Palin on the side while the other doesn't.

Surely you conservatives give the conservative masses more credit than that? Unless you think they're that easily deceived?
 
It says "Sarah Palin: An American Nightmare" on the front of the book. Does anybody seriously expect Sarah Palin fans to pick up that version of the book and believe it's from Sarah Palin? I'm not even mentioning the fact that the author's name is on there and one of the books will say Palin on the side while the other doesn't.

Surely you conservatives give the conservative masses more credit than that? Unless you think they're that easily deceived?

That would be a matter for a court to take into consideration when weighing the totality of the circumstances.

I suppose "I" would give "conservatives" the same credit for being to tell the difference as I would for, say, YOU being able to the tell the difference between an academic discussion of trademark law and principles, and attacking/defending a viewpoint. :shrug:
 
I see a BIG lawsuit in someone's future. Liable, copywrite infringement. Did they get Palin's permission to use her photo? Probably not.

It's nice to see that the Libbos are still scared ****less of Sarah.
..And it is nice to see the hyper-partisan bigots are still quick to jump to conclusions.
 
That would be a matter for a court to take into consideration when weighing the totality of the circumstances.

I suppose "I" would give "conservatives" the same credit for being to tell the difference as I would for, say, YOU being able to the tell the difference between an academic discussion of trademark law and principles, and attacking/defending a viewpoint. :shrug:

Thanks for the compliment. I figured after 14 pages, the trademark "discussion" was explored enough. Plus, I'm no expert on trademarks so whatever I could possibly add to that has probably already been written. However, my viewpoint does take into consideration how different the two books are while many people are considering how "similar" they are. How are they similar when one book calls Sarah Palin a nightmare and the other says she's great. It's on the front cover, how more clear can you be? The books are supposed to be similar- they're about the same person. However, they also express opposite viewpoints: this is clear by the picture, the title, and I'm sure the back of the book. One could argue that the author is expressing artistic freedom by having a similar book with a contrasting background.
 
If you're not discussing the trademark issues, then your comments must be based on your viewpoint of Palin. If you don't like Sarah Palin, that's fine. But the trademark issues involved with this have nothing do with Palin herself. It is in no way a pro-Palin position to say that this book's cover may be a trademark issue. And if you're anti-Palin, you don't have to defend this anti-Palin book on this issue.

Yes, "nightmare" is on the front cover, in very small print, in the same font as the other book. The only real difference in the photo is that the sky behind her is slightly darker. In both, it's the same shot, same framing, both wearing red, both looking in the same direction with the same expression.

Everything about the cover is expressly intended to very closely mimic the other book. The idea that they have to or ought to because the subject matter of both is Sarah Palin is laughable.

Having one word different in the subtitle and saying "who could be confused???" is like calling your TV "Panisonic," using the same font and box art and TV style, and saying "Hey! We have an 'i', they have an 'a', who could be confused????? They should have just looked closer."
 
I think that's great, keep it going, she needs the media exposure.

How exactly does she need the media exposure? It's not like she really has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the President at this point.
 
Personally, I don't really have that much of a problem with Palin. I think that McCain merely chose her as a strategic campaign move rather than because of any qualifications that she has. I don't this to be sexist because the fact that she is a female has nothing to do with this (aside from the strategic move on McCain's part. I don't think she's very articulate as seen in various interviews. I certainly don't thinks he's stupid. I don't think she was ready or even remotely prepared or qualified for the cut throat world of big time politics.

However, that all being said, I think that many of the attacks from people on the left at this stage in the game are kind of pointless. And now we just see low blow after low blow, like this similar looking book cover. Was that really necessary? I get that people don't like her, but give me a break. What threat does she pose at this point? I think we all pretty much know that she doesn't have a chance at the Presidency. There are far too many things to attack her on now. So she's writing a book. Who cares? So they are trying to get her on the bestseller list through fairly underhanded means. Again, who cares? What threat does she pose to you? She's been irrelevant for quite a while now.
 
Personally, I don't really have that much of a problem with Palin. I think that McCain merely chose her as a strategic campaign move rather than because of any qualifications that she has. I don't this to be sexist because the fact that she is a female has nothing to do with this (aside from the strategic move on McCain's part. I don't think she's very articulate as seen in various interviews. I certainly don't thinks he's stupid. I don't think she was ready or even remotely prepared or qualified for the cut throat world of big time politics.

However, that all being said, I think that many of the attacks from people on the left at this stage in the game are kind of pointless. And now we just see low blow after low blow, like this similar looking book cover. Was that really necessary? I get that people don't like her, but give me a break. What threat does she pose at this point? I think we all pretty much know that she doesn't have a chance at the Presidency. There are far too many things to attack her on now. So she's writing a book. Who cares? So they are trying to get her on the bestseller list through fairly underhanded means. Again, who cares? What threat does she pose to you? She's been irrelevant for quite a while now.

Very well said and I couldn't agree any more.

I have no plans on either purchasing or reading either book, as neither one interests me one iota.
 
Back
Top Bottom