Good for ABC! Why on earth pick on Valerie Jarrett in the first place? Jeebus.
6 Likes
Ready-made target for 'Murican bigots and, importantly, Jarrett would not be seen to have the immense social media following of their Prime lib female target, MRObama.
Oops, you figured wrong again, suckers!!
2 Likes
I am not worried about her. I am worried about the rest of the cast and crew. When a show is going down performers and crew have time to make alternate plans. She brought down a show that had been renewed.
1 Like
Will Trump overlook the number of people directly associated with the production who just lost their livelihoods?
1 Like
It’s amazing how much media commentary cannot accept this point. The epicycles upon epicycles they insist on while trying to “explain” how charlatans exploiting the cracks in the system are really, truly working from the set of political motives the journalists have invested their entire careers into understanding has been one of the most mind-boggling aspects of Trump’s rise to power. Just make that Copernican shift, folks, and all those complications fall out.
4 Likes
Maybe Trump can get them a job with ZTE in China?
3 Likes
If you want to hurt Disney, you reduce copyright and trademark protection.
[Related aside follows]
I’d remembered the copyright extension law that was criticized as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, but I did a quick search to restore the details to my mind. I found this interesting article, which explained that while copyright protection on the Mickey Mouse character would expire in 2024, Disney could and had been building a more lasting wall of protection using trademark law.
The article added that the copyright extension actually protects Winnie the Pooh (now a Disney property) before it protects Mickey, because Pooh was created two years earlier. Using trademarks to protect Pooh will be more difficult than it was to protect Mickey:
Disney has indeed applied for and received trademark registrations for the “Winnie the Pooh” mark for a variety of products including “motion picture films.” 17 The problem that arises with Pooh, but not Mickey, is that Pooh did not originate with Walt Disney, but instead British author A.A. Milne. The visual depiction of the Pooh characters originates with artist Ernest H. Sheppard. 18 So, there is a large period of time for which Pooh was not associated with Walt Disney. Remember, the Court’s rationale for extending trademark protection to a copyrighted character lies in the assumption that “[a] character deemed an artistic creation deserving copyright protection…may also serve to identify the creator.” 19 The Disney company may own all the rights to the Pooh characters, but they are not the “creator” of Pooh, any more than they are the “creator” of Snow White. So, the only elements that Disney owns as a matter of being the “creator” are the elements they have added. For example, the Pooh of the books wears no clothing, but in all Disney versions he wears a red, short-sleeved turtleneck shirt.
No one would suggest that Disney could prevent a rival movie about Snow White, even though many people would associate Snow White with Disney. As recently as 2012, there was Snow White and the Huntsman made by Universal Studios. 20 So, it would seem that this result should apply to Pooh as well. Once the literary Winnie The Pooh enters the public domain, then anyone should be able to make copies of the book, the illustrations and produce new Winnie the Pooh material, including motion pictures based on the now public domain material.
Disney may file suit to prevent any competing Pooh movies or television shows on the basis of their trademarks and that Pooh has achieved secondary meaning, in other words, that a competing Pooh movie will be assumed to come from Disney by the general public. I think that assumption is not pre-ordained success. The Supreme Court of the United States has already cautioned “against misuse or over extension of trademark law and related protections into areas traditionally occupied by…copyright.” 21 Plus, it would seem that the producer of a new Pooh movie could survive the legal challenge by making it plain that the movie did not emanate from the Walt Disney Company.
The Pooh copyright protection ends in 2022. It was just yesterday that I heard that Walt Disney was releasing the movie Christopher Robin this summer. It will be interesting to see what Disney’s strategy will be to “discourage” other companies and artists from making use of Pooh’s arrival into the public domain.
3 Likes
The question we must ask is has she been attacked on Fox News?
4 Likes
I don’t recall Colin Kapernick spitting and grabbing himself by the crotch at the end.
4 Likes
He’s already working as their US lobbyist. I’ve heard that he’s been very successful in that role.
1 Like
-
Kudos to SpencersMom for spot-on analysis.
-
From the moment of that obnoxious spectacle U recounted about the anthem debacle RBarr was dead to me.
3 Likes
I only read an article about Wanda Sykes quitting the show. I did not read anything else. I wondered why she apologized, thought she’d be her usual smug, defiant dumbarse self. Now I know.
Thoughts and prayers, thoughts and prayers.
3 Likes
This much is certain.
11 Likes
Her TV persona is a corpulent, angry, uneducated, griping, unhappy piece of white trash; IOW, the perfect Trump voter/supporter; she’s the same in real life. Good riddance to the entertainment equivalent to a Big Mac.
3 Likes
This is why I pay for Prime, y’all.
8 Likes
O yes. I keep saying this and I’ve had some pushback but Roseanne was not playing a part on the show - that is just Roseanne.
She is Trump’s base alright.
7 Likes
Jarrett, Susan RIce. the mother of FLOTUS were all targets. Jarrett seemed to be one of the favorite targets.
Nonsensical is their strategy.
5 Likes
ABC Entertainment President Channing Dungey called [Roseanne's] tweet “abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values.”
Sounds like a great opportunity for Fox to pick up the show.
4 Likes
Live, with a laugh track.
4 Likes