In keeping with FOX's hard line against any and all fan sites related to their programming ... "King of the Hill Texas Aggie Style" is the first KOTH site to receive a "cease and desist" order from FOX lawyers. For complete details and legal jargon: http://http.tamu.edu/~bas4437/koth.htm
To register your dissatisfaction with FOX's action: [email] or KING OF THE HILL; Watt Plaza; Attn: Erica Clare; 1875 Century Park E., 4th Floor; Los Angeles, CA 90067
Dang ol', -N!
------------------------------------------------------
"Proclaiming the beauty and majesty of Boomhauer's words across the land."
http://www.cyberramp.net/~noel
If so, I'll continue to watch and enjoy whatever Fox show I like, but I'll drop a note to the advertisers on the show expressing my displeasure with Fox over this free speech issue and my decision to NOT support any advertisers on the Fox network.
Here's the deal; Like it or not someone owns KOtH. Fox does. They own the story lines, they own the drawings. They own the music and the scripts. They own the whole cartoon, everything. Whether you think it is fair or not, they also have a right to "control" how those things are used and seen by the public.
Does this make it hard to get a 'fan' site going on the WEB? Well, it makes you be more creative, for one thing. Would Fox get more free advertising from these sites? Yes. But someone in lawyerville said that it wasn't worth the chance of wholesale stealing. Remember what happened to the Simpsons images? Matt Groening lost millions of potential dollars in revenues from all the illegal copies of his stuff out there.
So, allow the owner the right to control his images. Have you considered asking them to allow you to use a particular image or sound? Have you asked them if they have a media kit you can use the images from? I'll bet they do and it is available for you. I understand Fox is putting together a set of images and sounds for KOtH that you *can* post on the WEB. How you use them on your sites will be a testament to your design skills.
Evidence, please? Are you referring to people who put pirate copies of salable items on the web? Anyone who supports this practice should be shot. We are referring to placing items already in the public domain on the web. It isn't [or shouldn't be] illegal to make something available that people could very well get themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> [email] |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
Come on Andrew, you *know* better. There is no KOtH stuff that is in the public domain. Every image, every sound... everything is owned by someone and that someone is not you, or me. It's Fox. Whether you think it's right or not is moot. The law says (and I think rightly) that if I create something it belongs to me and that I have control over how it is to be used. Copyright laws can be good things.
You're right, Jeff. However, that does not make Fox's habit of shutting down fan sites any better from a public relations standpoint. As I've said before, as long as the fan isn't defaming the product or selling something, there seems to be little point in shutting down a site and pissing off the loyalest of fans. Can you think of one?
Yes. The copyright laws of the United States and various international agreements.
Now, let's get something else straight. You *can* have your KOtH site. You just cannot use any images or sounds that belong to Fox. My other suggestion was apparently not taken: call Fox, tell them what you want to do and ask their permission to use a particular picture or sound. Let them see in what context it will be shown and see what happens.
Oh, I'm sorry. I should have asked. "Can you think of a GOOD reason?"
You just
context it
You don't get it, do you, Jeff?
People aren't going to hassle with this. You've got to be joking (or acutely naive) if you think some fan's request for permission to use a particular picture or sound on a Web site is going to actually make its way through the corporate structure and have a "yes" appear at the end of the long and tedious journey.
You must be a lawyer, because no one else would defend this practice by Fox.
I don't have a KOtH Web site, nor do I plan on ever having one. I just enjoy checking them out and it enhances the show. I guess the "suits" at Fox just can't stand this. I wonder what Mike Judge things about this.
Come on man, stop this. I'm not a lawyer but I have tons of stuff out there that is copyrighted and I know the laws as they stand.
If Mike Judge thought it was okay for fan sites to use whatever items they wanted to he'd make them available for your use.
Stop being so cynical! Corporations are fully aware of the public mood and they don't always act as slowly as you may think. (look how fast it took them to close down the fan site...) When there's something hot out there they are really quite interested in seeing it continue, but *legally*.
Here's a quote from the lawyers message:
Now, they didn't ask anyone to take the site down, simply to remove the audio clips, which *they* own.
The next section reads:
There's nothing there that says "censorship" to me, nor is there any threat on the part of Fox to remove the web site itself. As a matter of fact that last section which allows the display of the picture is actually quite nice of them.
Look, Don. This whole conversation is detracting from this newsgroup. It all boils down to this: there are laws to protect copyrighted material. You follow the law or you don't.
And if I were to steal a loaf of bread for my starving family? A person has the right to disobey incorrect laws, and the moral duty to disobey immoral ones. Long Live Mahatma Gandhi!
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> [email] |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
D'oh! I really hate that argument. First, I dislike that Fox is shutting down sites because I too like all things Simpson. Not only that, but it really is free advertising for them as well, I don't really see how they are being *hurt* by people putting images and sound bites on web sites, if anything I would think it would turn people who aren't into the Simpsons into potential viewers.
That said, however, the material is Fox's property and if they choose to shortsighted about the whole thing then it's their right. People have a right to "protect" their property, intellectual or otherwise.
And, in the U.S. (and many other countries), a starving family has the right to ask for assistence, they don't have the right (legally or morally) to steal anything from anybody.
Fox's stance on this may be similar to what Disney, Warner Bros., etc., has for their cartoon characters. Not so much of a money issue, but an image issue.
People that do the voice characterizations have it written in their contracts that they cannot do the voices in any public forum. They're worried about someone saying something "innappropriate" using the character's voice and tarnishing the image. Charles Fleicher (Roger Rabbit) and Billy West (voice of Bugs Bunny and some other Mel Blanc characters in Space Jam ) have stated this in TV and radio interviews. Billy said something like I guess they're worried about me getting drunk and cursing as Yosemite Sam and having it end up on the evening news.
Fox may be trying to do the same thing. Most of what is on the web sites they wouldn't have a problem with, but they probably have some kind of a blanket policy to cover the ones they would object to. I'm not condoning their actions, just bringing up the point that it may not be monetary.
Interestingly enough, Billy West also does the voices on Ren & Stimpy, but I believe he was able to do those voices during the radio interview.
We fan site operators are just your average honest folk trying to show our enthusiasm for the program. We (hopefully I'm not overstepping my bounds by speaking for 40+ webmasters) resent the implication that we're doing something sinister.
I think what we're doing is "fair use." We're not, in any way, creating barriers for the "profitability" of King of the Hill. And, gee whiz, we're not profiting from these sites ourselves.
In fact, we're PAYING to produce these sites. And there's the added "expense" of our own time and effort put into designing and maintaining the sites. (I know if I were freelancing this work, it'd be mondo bucks. Heh.)
No one is questioning FOX's right to protect their own. But from what?
We're not the bad guys here. We're the fans in the stands ... we're loud and proud ... and "legal" or no, we're terrific cheerleaders.
Let's face it, if KOTH weren't a hit show ... we wouldn't hear a PEEP from FOX. They'd be TICKLED we were creating even the slightest buzz. And, ahem, I think it's incredibly important to point out as well, that FOX waited a FULL SIX MONTHS before launching its site.
When my site first went online (back in February), I immediately heard from people on the KOTH staff including one who wants to remain nameless ... he's something of a conspiracy freak ... each of them expressed great thanks and appreciation.
Hopefully, those kind folks are calling off the dogs, er, FOXes. =) Sorry, bad joke.
If not, I'll just declare my site the Church of Boomhauer, or some such. Surely they can't pee on my religious freedom as well.
Dang ol', -N!
------------------------------------------------------
"Proclaiming the beauty and majesty of Boomhauer's words across the land."
http://www.cyberramp.net/~noel
No argument from Virtual-Arlen. Noel is a fine representative for our ilk.
This will be a key point if any actual documents are filed.
Maybe for your finely-tuned site, but not for mine. It's no trouble, it's fun.
For those who can't/don't/won't remember, most of the sites out there, including my own, were designed and put on the web before anyone really knew that Martin was off the air and had been replaced by quality programming. (Sorry ML)
Same here, and if I did release their names, they'd probably get canned. Unfortunately for myself, there's a certain loyalty to people that work for the same boss (Murdoch). If this statement doesn't get you wondering about my current job status, then you're brain dead.
To this day, I haven't received a call/letter/email from anyone concerning this matter, legal dept or not. Also, I will not respond or act on any call/letter/email that is not verifiable through my attorneys.
Nor can they pee on Virtual-Arlen, as both words Virtual and Arlen are in the public domain. Take that you damn copyright people.
Big John Virtual-Arlen http://members.aol.com/hurricnej/koth/ (but changing all the time)
Thanks for speaking up Big John. You're one of only three KOTH fan site webmasters that've said word one about this issue. I think it's high time we stick together.
[The UK does not have this limit, says James Masterton ]
So there are some public domain parts. And it doesn't detract from Groening's earning potential, unless he were to sell a CD-ROM of sounds and images.
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> [email] |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
Is a;nyone willing to check the transcripts of the hearings?
------------reply----------------- jmg wrote in article ...
Well, you can go to almost any vacant lot in any larger city and get a rock of crack or some crystal meth. Should these also be legal to sell? (I know, it's not the same.)
Furthermore, my admittedly shoddy understanding of US intellectual property law is that if FOX doesn't at least make an impressive show of enforcing its copyrights over KOTH, they could lose said copyrights over certain types of material, such as images. If this is the case, they would not then be able to effectively charge for putting that image on a t-shirt. They bankrolled the show, they should be able to get the merchandising dollars from it. Maybe you'd like it if you could get a Bobby t-shirt free, but if networks lose their ability to merchandise the creative products of their investment dollars, they will stop putting money into creating them at all! I would hate to see the network that was willing to gamble on The Simpsons, The X-Files, and of course KOTH give up on new, innovative programming because we've taken away a primary financial incentive. Then thell stick to the tried and true boring stuff and every show around will be either an Aaron Spelling production or a cross between Seinfeld and Friends.
--Cliffy, who likes Seinfeld & Friends, but thinks the several hundred knock-offs just haven't been very funny.
Your understanding of copyright law is indeed deficient. You are thinking of trademark law. But even this could be defused as an issue by putting in place a simple and effective means of providing permission to fans to use images, etc., for not-for-profit ventures like web sites, downloadable PC icons, etc. Surely this would take no more resources (probably far less) than the army of lawyers they have employed to stamp out any expression whatsoever of KotH fandom.
No one disputes the legality of Fox's position, only the levels of pettiness to which they descend in enforcing their rights under copyright and trademark law.
Usually these calculations of "lost millions" make the rather fantastic assumption that every single person who ever downloaded a Homer Simpson icon to use on his PC would have run down to Egghead Software and paid $39.95 for a copy of the same icon, if only the free version hadn't been available.
It's one thing to print and sell T-shirts with Fox's intellectual property printed on them; it's quite another to write a program that has an animated Hank Hill saying, "Dammit, Bobby!" every time you boot your PC, then distribute it free on the web. (Assuming Fox isn't offering a similar product for sale, which it isn't.) Fox is treating *all* such violations as identical, which is both mean and ultimately counter-productive. Shows "outside the mainstream" (which is what all prime-time animation is) live and die by the level of devotion of their hard core of fans. Alienating them just isn't smart business, especially when the justification is as thin as those "millions of potential dollars" that depend on silly and bogus marketing assumptions.
I won't give up KotH (or "The Simpsons") as long as they're on the air, but Fox's legal practices have me disposed to avoid other Fox programming and disinclined to patronize their sponsors. Whether you think it is fair or not, I have a right to "control" how my viewing time and dollars are spent. (Sound familiar?)
In order for them to protect their copyright and trademark of the Simpsons, Fox has to protect them equally against all infringements. They can't just pick and choose who can infringe on their copyright. If they let you infringe on it on your free site, why can't they let me infringe on it by making t-shirts? Once they stop protecting it, in all cases that come to their attention, they are in danger of losing the copyright and the characters and images can become 'public domain'.
Disney is equally picky about protecting their copyrights and trademarks on their cartoon characters. Just about every year, there are a couple of mom and pop day care centers called "mickey's friends" or which use images and likenesses of disney characters in the promotional materials for the business without paying disney their royalty and disney always makes them stop it. The reason they make them stop is not because of the little bit of money they are being denied by that particular infringement, but because if they fail to protect their copyright in some instances, it weakens their hold on the copyright.
I seem to remember that the image of Alfred E. Neuman was created by someone other than Mad magazine and it was used in advertising or something. Later, after the image of Alfred E. Neuman became associated with Mad, the original owners of the copyright tried to sue Mad over copyright infringements. The court decided that because the original creators hadn't diligently protected their copyright, they were not entitled to collect any damages from Mad. In essence, the judge said that the original owners of the copyright couldn't just let it slide as long as the people infringing on their copyright weren't making money and then decide that they were being screwed over when a company uses the same image and becomes very successful.
So, the reason that Fox seems draconian in protecting their copyright it's because they have to be in order to protect it or they run the risk of their properties becoming a part of the public domain.
This is simply not true. There is no duty to defend a copyright; it can never be lost except by explicitly commending the protected item to the public domain.
There *is* a duty to defend a trademark, but Fox could protect their trademark rights by the simple expedient of requiring that sites include a notice that the images contained thereon are property of Fox and are being used by permission. Such permission could be granted explicitly for not-for-profit enterprises, static images and short sounds/animations (under a certain time limit, perhaps), etc., etc. The first guy who tries to sell a KotH screen saver will still get his ass hammered, but hard. Everybody wins.
Nope. "By permission" puts Fox into a lot of problems with liability. What happens when the images are on a site which also includes the Usual Suspects -- porn, drugs, satanism, etc? Or links to same? How does Fox assure that each and every site with the images has filed for permission to use them? And how does Fox make money liscencing the images to for-profit vendors, when 'anyone can just get them off the net'?
You've got to understand, there are a LOT of mo-rons out there. People who would call for a boycott of Fox if they saw an image/sound clip "Approved For Use by Fox" on a page which contained material they felt was 'offensive'. (Check out the idiots boycotting Disney because Timba&Pumba were 'homosexuals' if you don't believe me.)
The laws suck, but don't blame Fox for obeying the law. Blame Congress for passing such dumb laws in the first place.
Absolutely wrong there. On a "work for hire", the copyright is good for a flat 75 years, no matter what. One can't "lose" a copyright by not suing alleged infringers.
No....you are thinking of trademark law, and not protecting a trademark is not dispositive; trademark protection is basically "use it or lose it". If a trademark is *dormant*, whether someone sues to protect it is a relevant factor in determining whether the trademark has lapsed. Such is NOT the case with any of the current Fox shows. IMO, it's Fox and its high-priced Los Angeles lawyers demonstrating the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
Trademark, trademark, trademark....and it appears that whoever claimed the AEN trademark had abandoned it, then tried to sue once someone used it again. In this case, the AEN trademark had lapsed due to DISUSE, not due to not suing at the first sight of it.
The reason Fox is draconian is simple: they're a bunch of greedy, litigious bastards led by the biggest bastard of them all, someone who tried to bribe the Speaker of the House in a blatant manner.
Aaron Varhola | "From what I've seen of [Rupert] Murdoch's
WIFA Counsel | papers in this country, no self-respecting
YSFC #6 | fish would want to be wrapped in them."
avarhola(at)ix.netcom.com| ---- Mike Royko, 1932-1997
I have to wonder how there going to get more money by closing down fun sites. The only thing I can think of is if they start putting ads on the "official" sit.
Well... As a Fox employee... I have to say that the lawyers just plain SUCK!!!!!
Fox thinks that a KOTH icon given away free is a loss of revenue. They don't understand that it is free advertising. The people who want the computer images, wavs etc..., are the same people who LOVE the show. They are LOYAL viewers, and loyalty is worth the cost of free computer stuff. (which they probably aren't developing anyway. Really... how many people would pay $29.99 for Boomhauer audioclips.)
King of the Hill is in its infancy. It gets the word out, and if it makes ONE more person watch the show who normally wouldn't... well that's great.
Jake
P.S. Heck, I work for the network, and all I can get is a lousy t-shirt and coffee mug. Now THAT'S marketing!
Hi,
What a bunch of assholes (Fox)!!! I was working hard on a KOTH site
and now some tight-assed yahoo is going to say that we can't have fan
sites! FOX, THIS IS WAR!!! A FAN SITE WILL ONLY BRING UP PUBLIC
AWARENESS OF KOTH, I DOUBT ANYONE WILL TRY TO MAKE MONEY FROM A KOTH FAN
SITE. EVEN IF THEY DO, TOUGH SHIT. IT'S CALLED CAPITOLISM.
Well it's obvious how I feel about this, sooo, I was thinking that
maybe we could make some form letters that people could print out and
send to various sponsors and or the network. I'll try to create one or
two post them here and see what you people think. Also I already have a
web-site relating to the Linux operating system and I'm considering
putting this post on the site for all to see. After all if Fox doesn't
want good PR and a little free promotion VIA a KOTH fan-site then they
must want bad PR VIA form letters, NG postings, and additions to current
web-sites letting to world know what kind of operation Fox really is.
Sincerely,
Don mailto:[email]
http://www.netwurx.net/~dlshine/index.html
p.s.-for those with sensitive ears I apologize for any offending terms
used.
Actually, it's called copyright and trademark violation.
I'm sure Fox wouldn't mind a KotH site if you don't: use images from the show; use sounds from the show; use video from the show; etc.
In other words, if you want to make an original contribution of your own - whether text or multimedia - you are free to (so long as that multimedia does originate with the show). If you want to host a Web site that gives away Fox property, you are not.
While you are certainly correct in a technical sense...as long as the web sites aren't a for-profit venture nor doing something that defames the show (homemade drawings of Peggy going down on Bobby, for instance), it's pretty petty of Fox to get ugly about it. It's also extremely poor PR and it give me a very negative attitude about the network...is what they gain from shutting down fan sites worth that?
Yep, I went a little too far with my ranting. I retract all text from "Even if they do..." I guess I shoulda relaxed a little first.
Ahhh, what else is left?
I retracted what I will as I was wrong, however all else stands. I have to beleive that FoxHopes to increase traffic to thier site for advertising purposes.
Don wrote a buch o' stuff that I won't repeat for the sake of brevity in article ...
Check out:
<http://members.aol.com/stu042/spawc/index.htm>
It's not my site, but I think it needs some support.
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> [email] |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
Black Helicopters? Surely, you must mean black *hawk* Helicopters...the same ones from the Pittsburgh incident
Hi,
This is a copy of foxes policy on fan-sites (quoted portions) other
text is my comments as I sent this to fox VIA e-mail. I was very brief
in my comments as you can see (maybe to brief) anyway thought maybe some
people in the NG would be interested.
Subject:
Fan-site policy
Date:
Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:13:14 -0500
From:
Don
To:
[email]
websites,Fox wishes to assure
Fox's
these programs.
Intended or not you have.
trademarked materials to
programs they represent. Fox
program materials in
found include:
been approved for
This really limits what a fan do do in regards to creating a web-site. "Hey look, a text based web-site about a TV show"
ownership by a third party,
public domain; (c) copying
websites without
The copyright part is easily understandable (although many other TV shows and networks haven't responded to fan-sites in this manner). How does one get a page the sacred "official" tag?
fromprograms in a manner that
Oh, you mean like saying that they support a "charity" that they may not?! ****see the "ask Hank" promo on Foxes site about the charity issue****
or commercial
That's certainly fair and logical.
I think that's pushing the envelop, but understandable.
Definitely agreed.
respect the hard work of the
Fox appreciates the
interests.
Why does Fox act like they invented, or did the animations? Wasn't it Mike Judge? Granted he may have sold them to Fox but having lawyers scan the internet for KOTH related sites and sending e-mail to people who made a fan-site threatening legal action is, well, BS. What are you
really trying to protect?
Sincerely, Don L. Shine mailto:[email] http://www.netwurx.net/~dlshine/index.html Comments made by the author are only opinions he has drawn about Fox and
its overbearing attitude. Being opinions, they should not be construed as slander, libel, or any other legal jargon.