The Hot Blog

It's too bad AMPAS has to be hardassed about this because Oscarwatch is nothing but good for them. Legally I understand the need to prevent certain precedents but it stinks of "Big Guy vs. Little Guy". As an Oscarwatch reader it's hard for me to not be biased.

The last time this came up, I suggested that AMPAS charge Sasha one dollar a year for use of the name, and everyone goes home happy. Now the only ones who go home happy will be the lawyers.

Well, that was big of you, Dave.

I hope Oscarwatch.com wins because that would be a huge "Up yours" to the Academy.

"The last time this came up, I suggested that AMPAS charge Sasha one dollar a year for use of the name, and everyone goes home happy."

Sounds like a reasonable solution.

It is not really a domain dispute at this point anymore. They had originally planned on going through ICANN but I guess they felt moving their army in was the smarter way to go on that. Unfortunately, the site is being punished not for using the name but for making money on FYC ads this year. They have no problem with the site existing as it is. But when ads come into play...example - there are books with "Oscar" in the title that have made lots of money over the years. Hollywood Reporter uses the term "Oscar Watch" for its Oscar section, as do many other outlets for the same purpose, which brings it back to a simple domain dispute, which they aren't arguing anymore.

p.s. Though the possibility of using a subdomain was discussed, it was never officially put on the table as an offer or solution.

Good luck. I don't know how anyone could be anything but supportive.

I remember reading Oscarwatch.com when it first started. I hope ya win Sasha!

"I hope Oscarwatch.com wins because that would be a huge "Up yours" to the Academy."

At first I thought you said "Up the Academy", which is the classic Mad Magazine-produced movie from the early '80s. Sadly I was mistaken.

Their point about the FYC ads would be stronger if there was really a danger someone might think Oscarwatch is affiliated with AMPAS. That's crazy talk, but again I suppose they have to worry about the precedent.

Anyway...good luck Sasha.

They going to start suing people named Oscar, too? The Academy have always been irrational when it comes to law suits. Oscarwatch does nothing but help them out, anyway. I probably wouldn't have watched the God forsaken Oscars this year had the ever so lovely Sasha and the members of Oscarwatch not kept me interested it, and the race toward Oscar Season. I get most of my information from there. This is just idiotic.

They going to start suing people named Oscar, too? The Academy have always been irrational when it comes to law suits. Oscarwatch does nothing but help them out, anyway. I probably wouldn't have watched the God forsaken Oscars this year had the ever so lovely Sasha and the members of Oscarwatch not kept me interested it, and the race toward Oscar Season. I get most of my information from there. This is just idiotic.

I agree with Dave. Huh. That sounded funny.

Anyway - this is simple. Sasha is creating a revenue stream on the back of another IP. Case closed. For all the good intentions of the site - its a parasitic endeavour and I would also be taking him to court to stop others from doing the same. He could have called it anything without Oscar in the title - but he didn't because he was piggybacking on an exisiting trademarked entity.

Remember though if he actually won (not) DP would be launching his own Oscar site within hours.. hypocrisy be damned!

Sasha is a she.

"its a parasitic endeavour "

Then isn't every site that writes about the Oscars a parasitic endeavor? The fact that there are sites devoted to the discussion of the Oscar race only helps the Academy Awards. And if Sasha doesn't have the right to use the word Oscar on her site, then why does Dave have the right to have an entire column called "Twenty Weeks to Oscar" and what exactly is the difference?

If the Academy Awards want to make this a trademark issue, then they must take issue with every site (like this one and Hollywood Elsewhere) that make most of their profits off of AD sales based on Oscar talk and Oscar promotions.

Noah - not really. Every site that references the oscars is not the same as one called OSCAR WATCH. There's a huge difference a registered 100% devoted oscar site earning revenue and DP having a column inside a site devoted to film. The argument that its the same is rather naive. Just because you don't feel its fair doesn't mean you are right in the eyes of the law.

But they are...similar.

I'm sorry Wrecktum. I didn't read Mad magazine in the early 80s, but then I was a fetus at that time.

In related news, everyone actually named Oscar by their parents when they were born are shaking in their boots.

I think Sasha needs to find someone named Oscar who's 80 years old and have him sue the Academy for taking his name... and then put a webcam feed of the guy in the corner of the site (so that it's understood that it's really watching *that* Oscar, not the Academy's)

Are we talking about what's right in the eyes of the law or are we talking about what is right ethically? Besides, there really isn't that much difference to having a site devoted to the Oscars or an online column devoted to the Oscars and they both have the word "Oscar" in the title. You can get to both using the internet at a specific URL.

Reality check: the only reason Oscarwatch is even making any revenue is because of the content. OW has always only drawn buzz and attention to the Oscars themselves, especially at a time when American Idol is a more popular awards show - they need all the help they can get. Plenty of sites use the word Oscar in their URL and don't a third of OW's traffic. Its place on its web, its forums and its content are what made it popular, not the fact that it had the word Oscar in the URL. So if it switches to awardsdaily, it will still murder the competition. :-)

You'd think the Academy would be grateful that anybody even wants to support them so much as to actually pay for a domain and to continue running it for years on end.

The thing with Oscarwatch is that focuses soley (that don't look right) on the Oscars. It doesn't make sense to call it awardswatch.com or moviewatch.com or whatever Sasha is going to have to change it to. And I can't imagine someone casually surfing the net would rather find out all the latest Oscar news from a site like that than one actually called oscarwatch.com.

If it doesn't look right KCamel, it's because it's written "solely" pffft! I had to look it up ;)

This whole lawsuit thing feels wrong! On what grounds? Just because the use of the name? (and Sasha includes the registered R symbol right after Oscar on her title page) For this to even be remotely justifiable they'd have to go after EVERY website that has an oscar-named page! Sheesh! With the interest Sasha drums up each year for the Oscars, it's almost like the Academy is biting the hand that feeds them!

USA... land of the "we'll sue you for any little thing that bugs us"! Frequently bordering on the absurd.

Dave, who leaked the lawsuit to you? Not that I presume anyone can't go a court docs website and view it.

I am on the road, T.H., and really didn't know it was much of a leak. I assumed that it was floating around and still don't know who else has or has not posted it.

And again, I don't have a problem with Oscarwatch or them keeping their URL, but the notions that they are being singled out or being attacked by AMPAS randomly don't hold up. The AMPAS has been pursuing sites using the name and/or URL for years.

It is absolutely true that Oscarwatch has been built on its content and not the name, though there is little doubt that the name has its own advantages. MCN would consider a name change of our awards page if AMPAS loosened up, but it was just a few years ago that we dumped the following page in order to not get sued ourselves.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/2004/central.html

And we have continued to grow annually. So I suspect that Sasha and her site will be just fine, either way.

I guess a courtesy email to Sasha Stone would be too much trouble, eh, Poland? Classy.

Dave, agreed, just trying to understand -- Stone writes, "...yeah, we know that Movie City News put the court doc on Page 1 this morning." and Wells says, Stone "didn't send me those May 1st AMPAS lawsuit papers...."

I'd like to send all of you praises on OSCADRAMOLOGY. Yes I said, oscadramology. In music terms, Sasha's site is Gospel. HE is Freaky Jazz. MCN is Country. TOH is Opera. Incontention is Classical, with Tech Support a lovely Chamber Orchestra. Carpetbagger is Rap. O'Neil is Pop. For Awards, Sasha's site is the zenith at the top of the food triangle because of her POV.

For many years the National Hot Rod Association referred to the trophies given to its race winners as "Oscars". That changed no doubt when AMPAS threatened the NHRA with a lawsuit.

Lets keep this going for the hell of it.

Dave says "My position on this will probably be unpopular, but I believe in copyright."

Previously Dave spoke about buying bootle Hollywood films from Canal St. I guess you believe it's okay not to honor copyright.

If Oscarwatch makes it clear on their page that they have no association with AMPAS and that "Oscar" is a trademarked AMPAS entity, they should have no problem. it comes down to the level of notification...

Maybe his lead banner should be a disclaimer...

If we're going to discuss this issue, first let's understand our terms. We're discussing possible trademark infringment. Copyrights, on the other hand, refer to creative works like plays, songs, books, etc., where temporary or permanent rights of use can be sold (such as when a stage producer pays a fee to the holder of the play's copyright in order to have it performed.

A trademark refers to the legally established proprietary rights of use to a particular word, words or image that represent a specific brand of goods or services. "Tylenol," "Jell-O," "Velveeta" and even "Jack's(R) Pizza" are registered trademarks whose legal use for commercial purposes is limited to the owner of the trademark.

Now, there. Although Oscarwatch may be technically violating the Oscar trademark, I don't feel the spirit of the law is being violated because income generated from the site's ads doesn't impinge upon the revenue domain of AMPAS. On the contrary, if anything, Oscarwatch contributes to the vitality and marketplace prestige of the Oscar/Academy Awards brand. What's more, the amount of ad monies at stake here not only is a drop in the bucket but probably would never increase substantially.

AMPAS is worried about the slippery slope, and in this case I think they're wrong. I like Zimmergirl's comment (among others). Oscarwatch doesn't earn its revenues from the Oscars, it earns its revenues from "watching" the Oscars. This distinction probably wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny, but anway I feel the issue should become one of public relations, not the law. Thanks, David Poland, for mentioning the media. I hope Entertainment Tonight reports on this.

If anyone has a problem with the law suit, I'd suggest contacting the Academy about it.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: