strange places to find PMG on the net???
17 views
Skip to first unread message
carolinedunstable
May 10, 2012, 8:04:14 PM5/10/12
to colony3
Found this while wandering around the web in the wee hours...MGM v
Honda had "himself" offer rebuttal testimony (as a "Danger Man"
expert) along with Brian Clemmens, amongst others, when Honda spoofed
Bond and claimed in its defence that it was actually spoofing DM/
Avengers etc ....Didn't seem to get them anywhere...
http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/mgmamericantext.htm
Honda had "himself" offer rebuttal testimony (as a "Danger Man"
expert) along with Brian Clemmens, amongst others, when Honda spoofed
Bond and claimed in its defence that it was actually spoofing DM/
Avengers etc ....Didn't seem to get them anywhere...
http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/mgmamericantext.htm
carolinedunstable
May 10, 2012, 8:05:08 PM5/10/12
to colony3
Kari Banta
May 10, 2012, 8:57:14 PM5/10/12
to col...@googlegroups.com
I can imagine his wry smile now!
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "colony3" group.
> To post to this group, send email to col...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to colony3+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/colony3?hl=en.
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "colony3" group.
> To post to this group, send email to col...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to colony3+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/colony3?hl=en.
>
Moor Larkin
May 11, 2012, 6:59:48 PM5/11/12
to colony3
Reading the relevant section, I think you've slightly misinterpreted.
It is Brian Clemens and David Rogers who sent testimony. Patrick was
not involved other than that his name is dragged into it as a way of
adding authority to that of David Rogers. Why either of the two should
be going in to bat for the James Bond Machine is beyond me. A
fascinating insight into the way these all-encompassing companies all
try to eat one another however.
I recall Patrick expressing annoyance that Renault ran an Ad-campaign
using "Prisoner" imagery, but I'm guessing Renault had bought the
privilege from whoever held the imagery Rights by then.
Lombard ran some adverts once too, utilising Prisoner images, but it
is noticeable that the silhouette of No6 is certainly NOT that of
Patrick McGoohan. I have wondered if they were careful not to infringe
HIS image rights, assuming such things technically exist, or maybe
Lombard just feared the possibility... :-D.
http://david-stimpson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/out-of-archive_05.html
It is Brian Clemens and David Rogers who sent testimony. Patrick was
not involved other than that his name is dragged into it as a way of
adding authority to that of David Rogers. Why either of the two should
be going in to bat for the James Bond Machine is beyond me. A
fascinating insight into the way these all-encompassing companies all
try to eat one another however.
I recall Patrick expressing annoyance that Renault ran an Ad-campaign
using "Prisoner" imagery, but I'm guessing Renault had bought the
privilege from whoever held the imagery Rights by then.
Lombard ran some adverts once too, utilising Prisoner images, but it
is noticeable that the silhouette of No6 is certainly NOT that of
Patrick McGoohan. I have wondered if they were careful not to infringe
HIS image rights, assuming such things technically exist, or maybe
Lombard just feared the possibility... :-D.
http://david-stimpson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/out-of-archive_05.html
carolinedunstable
May 12, 2012, 1:55:44 PM5/12/12
to colony3
OOO I bet Lombard did!! Certainly those rights exist...Leonard Nimoy
was just one example ....forced the advertising company and the
product company to pull down a major, very expensive and funny lager
campaign after it was launched when they used him (as Spock) without
his permission. Lombard wouldn't have wanted to rattle PMG's cage...he
was no lover of Madison Avenue....
.As for Renault, I remember those ads....goodness they were awful.. as
PMG said it was a lousy car as well...I have been a passenger in the
Laguna and that was "well rubbish" although I did love my little
Renault 5 even though it was a bugger to get fixed! Would have loved
the little mini that John Drake drove.....
Entertainment Law and it's close partner, Intellectual property law is
a minefield though....What is in the general consciousness and can be
plundered, and what isn't? And who should be either paid or at least
credited?????? Whose permission do you seek? What if a "credit" isn't
given or not given correctly??? PMG used to (and quite rightly) get v.
angry if his (sole) creator" role in "The Prisoner" wasn't correctly
cited..
Although the MGM v Honda case, on the face of it, seems rather comical
and pretty trivial it does go to the heart of this issue and I think
PMG (who was also not afraid to sue if necessary) might well have been
following it closely.
Now, having read the case in daylight.... essentially Honda (who must
have known they were on a "loser") claimed that "perhaps" their ad may
have a "tenuous" connection with Bond but they weren't infringing on
the Bond movie franchise, so much as, other "spy" TV series, and in
particular they named two, being" The Avengers" and" Danger Man" (AKA
Secret Agent in the US.) They contended that they HAD ALREADY
infringed on BOND, without penalty, thereby creating the precedent.
The legal crux of their argument was that "James Bond" was now so
closely associated with the SPY genre that it had either become a
genre in itself, or so closely alligned in the mind of the public with
the Spy Genre as to be one and the same,therefore BOND was in the
public domain and that the character, actor's image (in this case SEAN
CONNERY) and movie set pieces were "fair game."
The judgement, was that BOND, (unlike the character of Sam Spade the
fictional detective, associated strongly with that genre and oddly
enuf the "Bogart" image) was in fact an "owned" brand and although
part of the spy genre, was definitely not a "genre" of its own; as a
result it was NOT public domain and copyright/rights infringement
applied.....And furthermore HONDA had definitely been spoofing Bond
the character not John Drake or any other spy; the movies themselves,
NOT the named TV series' and of obvious interest to actors like PMG,
alluding to /using the characteristics/performance/ image of the
actor, Sean Connery without payment or permission.(There was a lot of
evidence concentrating on Connery's lack of hair and his "Bond" wigs!)
I found a much fuller article on the evidence, arguments and
testimonies in that august publication," The Harvard Law Review,"
Anyway, whatever testimony our "boys" gave it must have worked because
Honda didn't win...
Wonderful to think that those old Hell Driving buddies, Sean Connery
and PMG will always be bracketed together through this judgement and
have earned a place in casebook law, probably the case is regularly
cited as a precedent in intellectual property cases in Court!!
As to Clemens and Rogers being involved... well, I expect that as
professional writers and, certainly in the case of Clemens, creator of
The Avengers, they would have had a vested interest in NOT having
authorial rights infringed. I should imagine there was a lot of
interest in this case within the industry... hoping that legal
precedents were NOT being set by a judgement siding with Honda. A lot
of actors (just like PMG and Sean Connery) fight hard against
typecasting and having "their" image used without their permission in
a major ad campaign is just driving more nails in their "career
coffin." Although, I am sure that Ralph Smart and Brian Clemens (plus
ITC/ATV) would certainly not have wanted anyone thinking that DM and
The Avengers were "treading on Bond's toes." Who knows, DM and The
Avengers might well have found themselves bogged down in a legal
quagmire long after they had both finished production, and we might
never have got our DVDs!
One last thing (Shades of Columbo).....
I love the way David Rogers was quoted as being an "expert" on both DM
and PATRICK MCGOOHAN:)))
Not to cast any aspersions on Mr Rogers,who I am sure gave the court
all the information it could have wanted on the genesis of JD (right
thru the aborted James Bond TV series to "Lone Wolf" and finally the
v. different character of JD from Bond...mostly due to the input of
PMG), but it must have been a bit gauling for poor Pat, esp given his
love of a good argument. There he was (at that time)very much alive,
finding his cherished DM involved in a legal bruhah and someone else
giving "expert" testimony on the grounds that he was the font of all
things McGoohan,,,,Very Schizoid Man:)) Perhaps he offered his
services but was turned down in favour of someone more
knowledgeable:O))) Could so easily be an episode of The
Prisoner...all very Kafka and very No 6!
It would have made a wonderful comic skit, worthy of Monty Python, Fry
and Laurie or even Milligan's Q9 as PMG found himself having to debate
with Rogers (or any other expert) on things McGoohan and perhaps
losing:O)))!!!
O one more LAST thing...
.....Moor, PMG could be your MASTERMIND subject! I bet u wd beat any
London Cabbie to the title:)).
Be Seeing You...
was just one example ....forced the advertising company and the
product company to pull down a major, very expensive and funny lager
campaign after it was launched when they used him (as Spock) without
his permission. Lombard wouldn't have wanted to rattle PMG's cage...he
was no lover of Madison Avenue....
.As for Renault, I remember those ads....goodness they were awful.. as
PMG said it was a lousy car as well...I have been a passenger in the
Laguna and that was "well rubbish" although I did love my little
Renault 5 even though it was a bugger to get fixed! Would have loved
the little mini that John Drake drove.....
Entertainment Law and it's close partner, Intellectual property law is
a minefield though....What is in the general consciousness and can be
plundered, and what isn't? And who should be either paid or at least
credited?????? Whose permission do you seek? What if a "credit" isn't
given or not given correctly??? PMG used to (and quite rightly) get v.
angry if his (sole) creator" role in "The Prisoner" wasn't correctly
cited..
Although the MGM v Honda case, on the face of it, seems rather comical
and pretty trivial it does go to the heart of this issue and I think
PMG (who was also not afraid to sue if necessary) might well have been
following it closely.
Now, having read the case in daylight.... essentially Honda (who must
have known they were on a "loser") claimed that "perhaps" their ad may
have a "tenuous" connection with Bond but they weren't infringing on
the Bond movie franchise, so much as, other "spy" TV series, and in
particular they named two, being" The Avengers" and" Danger Man" (AKA
Secret Agent in the US.) They contended that they HAD ALREADY
infringed on BOND, without penalty, thereby creating the precedent.
The legal crux of their argument was that "James Bond" was now so
closely associated with the SPY genre that it had either become a
genre in itself, or so closely alligned in the mind of the public with
the Spy Genre as to be one and the same,therefore BOND was in the
public domain and that the character, actor's image (in this case SEAN
CONNERY) and movie set pieces were "fair game."
The judgement, was that BOND, (unlike the character of Sam Spade the
fictional detective, associated strongly with that genre and oddly
enuf the "Bogart" image) was in fact an "owned" brand and although
part of the spy genre, was definitely not a "genre" of its own; as a
result it was NOT public domain and copyright/rights infringement
applied.....And furthermore HONDA had definitely been spoofing Bond
the character not John Drake or any other spy; the movies themselves,
NOT the named TV series' and of obvious interest to actors like PMG,
alluding to /using the characteristics/performance/ image of the
actor, Sean Connery without payment or permission.(There was a lot of
evidence concentrating on Connery's lack of hair and his "Bond" wigs!)
I found a much fuller article on the evidence, arguments and
testimonies in that august publication," The Harvard Law Review,"
Anyway, whatever testimony our "boys" gave it must have worked because
Honda didn't win...
Wonderful to think that those old Hell Driving buddies, Sean Connery
and PMG will always be bracketed together through this judgement and
have earned a place in casebook law, probably the case is regularly
cited as a precedent in intellectual property cases in Court!!
As to Clemens and Rogers being involved... well, I expect that as
professional writers and, certainly in the case of Clemens, creator of
The Avengers, they would have had a vested interest in NOT having
authorial rights infringed. I should imagine there was a lot of
interest in this case within the industry... hoping that legal
precedents were NOT being set by a judgement siding with Honda. A lot
of actors (just like PMG and Sean Connery) fight hard against
typecasting and having "their" image used without their permission in
a major ad campaign is just driving more nails in their "career
coffin." Although, I am sure that Ralph Smart and Brian Clemens (plus
ITC/ATV) would certainly not have wanted anyone thinking that DM and
The Avengers were "treading on Bond's toes." Who knows, DM and The
Avengers might well have found themselves bogged down in a legal
quagmire long after they had both finished production, and we might
never have got our DVDs!
One last thing (Shades of Columbo).....
I love the way David Rogers was quoted as being an "expert" on both DM
and PATRICK MCGOOHAN:)))
Not to cast any aspersions on Mr Rogers,who I am sure gave the court
all the information it could have wanted on the genesis of JD (right
thru the aborted James Bond TV series to "Lone Wolf" and finally the
v. different character of JD from Bond...mostly due to the input of
PMG), but it must have been a bit gauling for poor Pat, esp given his
love of a good argument. There he was (at that time)very much alive,
finding his cherished DM involved in a legal bruhah and someone else
giving "expert" testimony on the grounds that he was the font of all
things McGoohan,,,,Very Schizoid Man:)) Perhaps he offered his
services but was turned down in favour of someone more
knowledgeable:O))) Could so easily be an episode of The
Prisoner...all very Kafka and very No 6!
It would have made a wonderful comic skit, worthy of Monty Python, Fry
and Laurie or even Milligan's Q9 as PMG found himself having to debate
with Rogers (or any other expert) on things McGoohan and perhaps
losing:O)))!!!
O one more LAST thing...
.....Moor, PMG could be your MASTERMIND subject! I bet u wd beat any
London Cabbie to the title:)).
Be Seeing You...
The Unmutual
May 14, 2012, 1:46:02 PM5/14/12
to col...@googlegroups.com
>
> Lombard ran some adverts once too, utilising Prisoner images, but it
> is noticeable that the silhouette of No6 is certainly NOT that of
> Patrick McGoohan. I have wondered if they were careful not to infringe
> HIS image rights, assuming such things technically exist, or maybe
> Lombard just feared the possibility... :-D.
> http://david-stimpson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/out-of-archive_05.html
>
he died (and now through Joan) PMcG owned his own image rights and would
have refused usage of it in that context, hence why other stills from the
series were used (which were Polygram owned of course).
Rick
Moor Larkin
May 15, 2012, 7:09:17 PM5/15/12
to colony3
I daresay that at the time Dave Rogers was more an expert on Patrick
McGoohan than anyone else around at the time. I find his Channel 4
book is more reliable than many that havew hit the streets of shame
since.
Patrick's name was also drawn into some kind of scam in a theatrical
context in the Nineties too. Some guy was selling tickets on the basis
of a theatre production that would include him, but the whole thing
was fictional. He'd already ripped off John Gielgud apparently,
although seeing the price Gielgud charged for a voice-over tape, I'm
not sure who was ripping off who..... :-D
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-carol30-2008dec30,0,6567495.story
McGoohan than anyone else around at the time. I find his Channel 4
book is more reliable than many that havew hit the streets of shame
since.
Patrick's name was also drawn into some kind of scam in a theatrical
context in the Nineties too. Some guy was selling tickets on the basis
of a theatre production that would include him, but the whole thing
was fictional. He'd already ripped off John Gielgud apparently,
although seeing the price Gielgud charged for a voice-over tape, I'm
not sure who was ripping off who..... :-D
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-carol30-2008dec30,0,6567495.story
The Unmutual
Jun 14, 2012, 3:34:48 PM6/14/12
to col...@googlegroups.com
Couple more forthcoming DVD releases of interest (apologies if they've
already been mentioned and I missed the posts):
The Laughing Prisoner (which features clips from The Prisoner) released
August 2012:
http://www.theunmutual.co.uk
Brass Target R1 release July 2012:
http://www.wbshop.com/product/brass+target+1000308583.do?sortby=ourPicks&from=Search
Rick
already been mentioned and I missed the posts):
The Laughing Prisoner (which features clips from The Prisoner) released
August 2012:
http://www.theunmutual.co.uk
Brass Target R1 release July 2012:
http://www.wbshop.com/product/brass+target+1000308583.do?sortby=ourPicks&from=Search
Rick
Kari Banta
Jun 14, 2012, 3:54:17 PM6/14/12
to col...@googlegroups.com
Hallelujah!
Thanks Rick.
Thanks Rick.
Linda Schley
Jun 15, 2012, 12:19:19 AM6/15/12
to col...@googlegroups.com
thanks rick for the info. i went ahead and preordered brass target and also
left wb my biweekly message about rafferty. slow but sure. hopefully the
image quality will be better than my existing copy, that was probably taken
from vhs.
left wb my biweekly message about rafferty. slow but sure. hopefully the
image quality will be better than my existing copy, that was probably taken
from vhs.
carolinedunstable
Jun 22, 2012, 6:55:03 PM6/22/12
to colony3
Thank you so much Rick for that link definitely one for the
collection....
> Brass Target R1 release July 2012:http://www.wbshop.com/product/brass+target+1000308583.do?sortby=ourPi...
>
> Rick
collection....
>
> Rick
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages