Subby, when you hear Girls Gone Wild do you want to think of nice, college-aged boobies or Madonna?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Hmmmm... A Madonna/GGW thread. Bookmark standing by.

Joe Francis, the founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" empire, is humiliating me. He has my face pressed against the hood of a car, my arms twisted hard behind my back. He's pushing himself against me, shouting: "This is what they did to me in Panama City!" (new window)

You would never believe it, but Joe Francis is actually a never nude. (That's exactly what it sounds like.)

She's damaging the integrity of his brand!

/Nope, couldn't get through that with a straight face,

Jonathan Hohensee: Joe Francis, the founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" empire, is humiliating me. He has my face pressed against the hood of a car, my arms twisted hard behind my back. He's pushing himself against me, shouting: "This is what they did to me in Panama City!" (new window)

8 pages of that shiat?

How could the GGW brand possibly be ruined when it's already as bad ast shows like Cheaters and it shows graphc pornography? I'm guessing the only way GGW has ever been profitable was through mail video scams.

Jonathan Hohensee: Joe Francis, the founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" empire, is humiliating me. He has my face pressed against the hood of a car, my arms twisted hard behind my back. He's pushing himself against me, shouting: "This is what they did to me in Panama City!" (new window)

Francis is clearly a jack-off but that article helps confirm my theory that if more women were in charge porn would be illegal.

Joe Francis has the deadest eyes I've ever seen. The pic in the article is the most lifelike he's ever looked.


/"And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'."

I was going to ask "who still listens to Madonna?", but then I remembered that she's going to be singing at the Super Bowl. So instead I'll ask "how out of touch are the people who run the Super Bowl?"

Tyrone Slothrop: I was going to ask "who still listens to Madonna?", but then I remembered that she's going to be singing at the Super Bowl. So instead I'll ask "how out of touch are the people who run the Super Bowl?"

Just as out of touch as the people who run the Pro Bowl:

ecl: How could the GGW brand possibly be ruined when it's already as bad ast shows like Cheaters and it shows graphc pornography? I'm guessing the only way GGW has ever been profitable was through mail video scams.

Joe Francis is worth million, isn't he? I'm pretty sure he's filthy rich.

I know, it's disgusting.

Joe Francis picks me up in a black Escalade and we speed through Southern California as he regales me with tales of past Spring Breaks in Panama City, Florida. He has recently gone through a break-up and is feeling vulnerable.

We arrive at a palatial mansion off the coast of Newport Harbor. He cooks me dinner...shirtless. He sets out huge plates for the food, but when he is done cooking, all he has are these tiny purple scallops that he has painstakingly plated.

As we eat, the conversation gets kind of awkward. I notice a wedding party on the shore taking pictures and he explains that he allows weddings on his property to offset the cost of the mansion.

As much as I hate the guy, he has a point, and his lawsuit is valid. he has a copyright on the term. and if you have a copyright, you defend that copyright.
it is his prerogative to defend his copyright, no matter how sleazy he or his business may be.
defend your copyright, or loose it.. that;s how copyright law works.

with all that said.. the man is a disgusting pornographer who has no issue of ruining drunk barely legal women's lives for the cost of a T-shirt that advertises how he ruined there lives.via soft core pornography.

yes, n case you didn't know.. payment of service for a lot of those videos was a free t-shirt advertising his company
don't get me wrong, Im usually well in favor of idiots being idiots and reaping the rewards of their schinagins.. but there is a line you must draw to your own schinagins.. the man takes advantage of an easy situation and makes millions off of some random persons evening of indiscretion and poor judgement.. a beautiful business model to be sure, but one that costs one their soul..

I'm most certainly not a prude by any stretch of the measure.. but of the couple of videos Ive watched? the videos made me feel I like was commiserate in a rape. and, im sorry.. unless you are a straight up sick fark... Porn, hard core or soft shouldn't come off like that.

One dbag suing another dbag. I'm not sure who to side with here...

Of course I think it's ridiculous that you can copyright/patton/trademark a phrase. It reminds me of how Paris Hilton was suing people who were using "That's Hot" on merchandise because it was her catchphrase that she got a patton on or something. That's just stupid to me.

Didn't this guy go to jail for farking a child?

That said, I hope the lawsuit costs him a friggin mint, whatever the outcome.

PillsHere: One dbag suing another dbag. I'm not sure who to side with here...

Of course I think it's ridiculous that you can copyright/patton/trademark a phrase. It reminds me of how Paris Hilton was suing people who were using "That's Hot" on merchandise because it was her catchphrase that she got a patton on or something. That's just stupid to me.

It is stupid! But think of it this way. You make some of type of vocal gaff on a youtube video, that little vocal gaff goes viral and all of a sudden, that little vocal gaff that YOU made is sddenly part of the public lexicon, it gets so pervasive that websters has to make an ameddment to the dictonary, and its on T-shirts and bumper stkickers all over the world. Ylur little vocal gaff in its own way has gone hard core meme, and some douchbag out there is now making millions of dollars off of merchandsing and comercial products from you takeing a prat fall and saying something stupid on camera.
Would you not like some sort of leaga recurse over that

This may or may not be the best example for such a scnerio

Cerebral Knievel: It is stupid! But think of it this way. You make some of type of vocal gaff on a youtube video, that little vocal gaff goes viral and all of a sudden, that little vocal gaff that YOU made is sddenly part of the public lexicon, it gets so pervasive that websters has to make an ameddment to the dictonary, and its on T-shirts and bumper stkickers all over the world. Ylur little vocal gaff in its own way has gone hard core meme, and some douchbag out there is now making millions of dollars off of merchandsing and comercial products from you takeing a prat fall and saying something stupid on camera.
Would you not like some sort of leaga recurse over that

This may or may not be the best example for such a scnerio

You may or may not be drunk.

browntimmy: Jonathan Hohensee: Joe Francis, the founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" empire, is humiliating me. He has my face pressed against the hood of a car, my arms twisted hard behind my back. He's pushing himself against me, shouting: "This is what they did to me in Panama City!" (new window)

Francis is clearly a jack-off but that article helps confirm my theory that if more women were in charge porn would be illegal.

Wait, so because Francis was pantomiming the rape he suffered on a reporter, it therefore follows that she wants porn to be illegal? Seems more like he's really doing something he shouldn't.

That dude has a lot of face going on, doesn't he?

Bhasayate: [farm6.staticflickr.com image 640x478]

I hear that this year's video is surfboard-free.

Nice try Joe, but you hardly the first to use the phrase to sell something.

Eh, I like their vids, there's always a few in there that are really hot.

And my god this is the first Fark thread that has anti-porn people in it.

FriarReb98: gimmegimme: Tyrone Slothrop: I was going to ask "who still listens to Madonna?", but then I remembered that she's going to be singing at the Super Bowl. So instead I'll ask "how out of touch are the people who run the Super Bowl?"

Just as out of touch as the people who run the Pro Bowl:

[media.kansascity.com image 408x512]

So who is that then?

I don't know the guy's name, but he performed before the Pro Bowl. He's one of those whiny 18-year-old douchebags whose father was clearly a dermatologist or something and he's never had to work for anything ever. And the song sucked sucked sucked sucked. The lyric (sung in a bratty faux British accent) sounded like a series of Facebook status updates strung together. I had never seen him or heard his song before, but he made me very angry.

He may be an asshole and a giant douche, but he still has the right to keep people from using his brand to push their own product.

ongbok: He may be an asshole and a giant douche

And both are necessary in porn!

Lars The Canadian Viking: [i136.photobucket.com image 468x629]

Nice try Joe, but you hardly the first to use the phrase to sell something.

I prefer women gone wild. I also like whiskey, but not cigarettes.

Cerebral Knievel: some douchbag out there is now making millions of dollars off of merchandsing and comercial products from you takeing a prat fall and saying something stupid on camera.
Would you not like some sort of leaga recurse over that


No.

Because no one's stopping me from making my own merchandise to sell.

Also, Joe Francis has no case here. Art very easily falls under parody laws.

optional: browntimmy: Jonathan Hohensee: Joe Francis, the founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" empire, is humiliating me. He has my face pressed against the hood of a car, my arms twisted hard behind my back. He's pushing himself against me, shouting: "This is what they did to me in Panama City!" (new window)

Francis is clearly a jack-off but that article helps confirm my theory that if more women were in charge porn would be illegal.

Wait, so because Francis was pantomiming the rape he suffered on a reporter, it therefore follows that she wants porn to be illegal? Seems more like he's really doing something he shouldn't.

I'm talking about the article, you apparently just read the headline.

I heard this song today. It did not make me think of the GGW brand.

The song sounded like a bad Avril Levigne song.... A BAD one.

That's REALLY bad. I side with joe Francis.

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Joe Francis picks me up in a black Escalade and we speed through Southern California as he regales me with tales of past Spring Breaks in Panama City, Florida. He has recently gone through a break-up and is feeling vulnerable.

We arrive at a palatial mansion off the coast of Newport Harbor. He cooks me dinner...shirtless. He sets out huge plates for the food, but when he is done cooking, all he has are these tiny purple scallops that he has painstakingly plated.

As we eat, the conversation gets kind of awkward. I notice a wedding party on the shore taking pictures and he explains that he allows weddings on his property to offset the cost of the mansion.

Why does this story sound so familiar?

Cerebral Knievel: As much as I hate the guy, he has a point, and his lawsuit is valid. he has a copyright on the term. and if you have a copyright, you defend that copyright.it is his prerogative to defend his copyright, no matter how sleazy he or his business may be.
defend your copyright, or loose it.. that;s how copyright law works.

No. You are completely wrong here. You're confusing trade marks with copyrights. You can't copyright a phrase. You can trademark it. His trademark relates to movies. That doesn't mean that it applies to music. For instance, the Beatles (Apple Music) sued Apple Computers for trademark infringement. They lost because they were in differfen

Cerebral Knievel: As much as I hate the guy, he has a point, and his lawsuit is valid. he has a copyright on the term. and if you have a copyright, you defend that copyright.it is his prerogative to defend his copyright, no matter how sleazy he or his business may be.
defend your copyright, or loose it.. that;s how copyright law works.

No. You are completely wrong here. You're confusing trade marks with copyrights. You can't copyright a phrase. You can trademark it. His trademark relates to movies. That doesn't mean that it applies to music. For instance, the Beatles (Apple Music) sued Apple Computers for trademark infringement. They lost because they were in different industries. But this is why itunes doesn't have Apple in the name. That would infringe on the Beatles' Apple trademark.

God my typing sucks.

Cerebral Knievel: defend your copyright, or loose it.. that;s how copyright law works.

That's trademark law, not copyright. Then again, the lawsuit is based on trademark law, so in the end the statement still applies, more or less.

Al Zeimer: Cerebral Knievel: As much as I hate the guy, he has a point, and his lawsuit is valid. he has a copyright on the term. and if you have a copyright, you defend that copyright.it is his prerogative to defend his copyright, no matter how sleazy he or his business may be.
defend your copyright, or loose it.. that;s how copyright law works.

No. You are completely wrong here. You're confusing trade marks with copyrights. You can't copyright a phrase. You can trademark it. His trademark relates to movies. That doesn't mean that it applies to music. For instance, the Beatles (Apple Music) sued Apple Computers for trademark infringement. They lost because they were in different industries. But this is why itunes doesn't have Apple in the name. That would infringe on the Beatles' Apple trademark.

God my typing sucks.

But what if he says that the reason why she used that name is because she is using the notoriety that his trademark created for that name to sell her product. So she is using his brand to sell her product.

Would he have a case then?

mantabulous:
You may or may not be drunk.
I admit as much, but my opinion stands despite drunken mobile farking

contrapunctus: Cerebral Knievel: some douchbag out there is now making millions of dollars off of merchandsing and comercial products from you takeing a prat fall and saying something stupid on camera.
Would you not like some sort of leaga recurse over that


No.

Because no one's stopping me from making my own merchandise to sell.

Also, Joe Francis has no case here. Art very easily falls under parody laws.

no one is stopping you from making your own merchandise, except the guy who owns the copyright to your likeness. Like it or not.. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping ANYONE from doing a copy write camp on the viral internet video of you falling on your ass, merchandise the hell out of it, and when YOU try to market YOURSELF, being a dumb ass, from suing YOU to protect his brand because you are causing confusion in the market place.
And besides, by the time it gets to that point anyways, all the money that is to be made, has been made, and anything is going to be tied up in litigation forever, and the only people making ANY money off of it at that point are the Lawyers.

and Parody as art? I don't see Madonna Pulling a Weird Al here. She's making a song, perhaps an attempted Anthem out of a catch phrase that is now a copyrighted property on a known pornographer, who unfortunately has the law on his side in this case. I certainly don't like it any more than you do, but thems the breaks.

when all is settled and done.. they'll settle. she'll get the song, and he'll get a bit of a cash pay out. and shiatloads of publicity for everyone's troubles.

ongbok:

But what if he says that the reason why she used that name is because she is using the notoriety that his trademark created for that name to sell her product. So she is using his brand to sell her product.

Would he have a case then?

That's my drunken point in all this, sorry folks. but it looks like I spurred on the discussion. And I guess I did misuse trademark and copyright. so, sorry for that as well... but I hope y'all get my point.

otherwise? Dude can go fark himself... I'm sure we can all agree on that.

I am normally a pacifist, but I would probably cheer if someone just straight-up raped this guy until he was dead.

Oh, I'm sorry, I meant "raped this guy again"

This was a very informative thread discussing the merits, similarities, and differences of trademark and copyright law and how it relates to Girls Gone Wild. A product consisting of uninhibited, nubile but legal girls, taking off all their clothes...I hope all of you are really proud of yourselves.

^{/not a bookmark}

As far as I understand it, he owns the trademark so that nobody else can come out with a line of videos/movies called girls gone wild, but that's about where it ends. You cant own those three words of the English language, if that were the case there would be no new music, movies, TV shows or literature because everything has already been said/used before.

Cerebral Knievel:

and Parody as art? I don't see Madonna Pulling a Weird Al here. She's making a song, perhaps an attempted Anthem out of a catch phrase that is now a copyrighted property on a known pornographer, who unfortunately has the law on his side in this case. I certainly don't like it any more than you do, but thems the breaks.
.

You obviously know nothing of how far reaching and vague the interpretation of parody law in the US is. Them's not 'the breaks'. Courts have overwhelmingly come down on the side of artistic license and free expression in these matters:

Exhibit A:
Link (new window)

Exhibit B (semi NSFW) where a well established brand name (owned by a notoriously litigious LucasArts) is being used in the title for Christ's sake:
Link (new window)

Furthermore, a trademark only applies insofar as there is a reasonable expectation of confusion on the part of the public. Francis has no case. This will easily be laughed out of court. Whether or not Madonna chooses to settle to avoid the hassle of it getting that far is another matter entirely.