Barack the Builder??

Trippy

Trippy

ALEA IACTA EST
Staff member
I'm not sure if this is a question of Ethics and Justice, or one of Politics.

I've often wondered if perhaps the Obama administration should have been paying royalties to Keith Chapman and CBBC for their campaign slogan "Yes we can".

I'm unsure of how widely this is known in the US, but for those of us priveleged enough to recieve UK Television, there is a terribly popular childrens TV show called "Bob the Builder" who's opening chorus is:

Bob the builder,
Can we fix it?
Bob the Builder,
Yes we can!

Bob the Builder Theme Song

Yes We Can is even the name of a Bob the Builder product.

I'm sure I'm not the only person that this paralell must have occured to:
barack_obama_posters_yes_we_can_blue.jpg
51QZFVGQDWL._SL500_AA300_.jpg


So the question is, did Obama's campaign manager pay royalties for/liable for this apparent infringment of trademark/copyright law? And if he didn't, should he have?
 
Last edited:
Well look at it this way: If it said "i like pizza" would it be copyrightable? No. It is Trademark issue but then no one would trademark those three words and probalby cant anyway. :)
 
John99 said:
Well look at it this way: If it said "i like pizza" would it be copyrightable? No.
Click to expand...
No. Not copyright but trademarked.
Phrases can be trademarked to prevent others from using them.
Click to expand...
http://www.businessknowhow.com/qanda/phrasetm.htm

It is Trademark issue but then no one would trademark those three words and probalby cant anyway. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right. That's a silly as asking if "Let's Get Ready to Rumble!" is trademarkable. Or "Let's Roll", or "That's hot".
 
John99 said:
Well look at it this way: If it said "i like pizza" would it be copyrightable? No. It is Trademark issue but then no one would trademark those three words and probalby cant anyway. :)
Click to expand...

I don't think de minimis applies here, also compare it to Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters where 400 words were deemed to be substantial, or for that matter Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc where it was deemed that a portion of a song qualified as substantial, with the end result that samples now have to be liscenesed if they "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation" - which was over a 2 second sample from an NWA song.

Going by those precedents "Yes we can" forms a substantial portion of the Bob the Builder 'Franchise', and so the use of it by the Obama administration could be considered to fall outside auspices of 'fair use'.

And that's without going into the DVD title.

Oh, and one more thing - not only is 'Yes we can' a catchphrase/hook used repeatedly throughout the show.

It's also the title of the theme song.

Addendum:
The US Court of Appeal recognizes 'Just do it' as part of the Nike brand - according to Kasky v. Nike

So the Precedents are all there.
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind we are referring to american laws here: you cant copyright three common words. Basically what we are concerned with here is Trademark and not Copyright. First the words have, most likely, not been trademarked. Secondly, it would only be eligible for something very specific and you need to show it is used commercially.
 
John99 said:
Bear in mind we are referring to american laws here: you cant copyright three common words. Basically what we are concerned with here is Trademark and not Copyright. First the words have, most likely, not been trademarked. Secondly, it would only be eligible for something very specific and you need to show it is used commercially.
Click to expand...

See above (including the Addendum).
 
You dont seem to understand. Nike own the Trademark for sneaker, shoes or maybe other related items (it is uses in trade\commerce is also required) that i really dont feel like looking into. Does not mean someone would be barred fro m writing a song or making a movie called "Just do it".:)
 
John99 said:
You dont seem to understand. Nike own the Trademark for sneaker, shoes or maybe other related items (it is uses in trade\commerce is also required) that i really dont feel like looking into. Does not mean someone would be barred fro m writing a song or making a movie called "Just do it".:)
Click to expand...

And you don't seem to understand that 'Yes we can' is the name of the theme song, and the name of a marketed product - arguably the pricnciple of initial interest confusion may be applicable.
 
Trippy said:
And you don't seem to understand that 'Yes we can' is the name of the theme song, and the name of a marketed product - arguably the pricnciple of initial interest confusion may be applicable.
Click to expand...

The point is that the slogan and the way it is used is so different that there is no claim.

Trippy said:
Do try and stay on topic - this isn't the claim I made. :bugeye:
Click to expand...

I am explaining it to you. If Obama wrote a book with that in the title then it may be an issue but only in relation to the way it is presented in the original theme.

Bob the Builder: Yes We Can!

Maybe some variations would apply but that would need to be determined. It gets too involved to explain the differences between copyright and trademarks. In the terms of the book and whatever is associated with it then first is it a trademark? This has not even been established yet.

Even still "yes we can" can certainly be used throughout the book because it is too general. How can you stop someone from using those three words?

Case in point:

Bruce Springsteen has a song "I'm on fire"

He cant stop anyone from using it in a trademark for firewood or writing a book with it in the title and of course copyright is different.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line is: these are viewed on a case by case basis. Bear in mind, i have not researched any trademarks associated with the slogan. To give you an example: "Yes we can" can be trademarked for political campaign slogan but does not mean it is an across the board mark.;)
 
John99 said:
Bear in mind we are referring to american laws here: you cant copyright three common words.
Click to expand...
Except that my links shows that you are wrong.

John99 said:
Bottom line is: these are viewed on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is: you're talking out of your arse. Again.
Your "argument" is summed up neatly here:
Bear in mind, i have not researched any trademarks associated with the slogan.
Click to expand...

To give you an example: "Yes we can" can be trademarked for political campaign slogan but does not mean it is an across the board mark.;)
Click to expand...
Evidence for your "point of view" please.
If something is trademarked then use of that registered trademark, ESPECIALLY if used for promoting something different from the original, will be considered an infringement. It would be a case of deliberately using a previously-registered (and in the bob the Builder case, well-known) phrase for purposes other than the original.
Trademark infringement results when there is a likelihood of consumer confusion as to source, sponsorship, endorsement or affiliation. There can also be a concern with dilution, which either lessens the source-identifying character of a trademark, or causes tarnishment.
Click to expand...
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/taking-care-business/24047-trademarked-phrases.html
In this case it could be deemed to lessen the original, i.e. take away "ownership" from Bob and transfer it to Obama, in effect diluting Bob's recognisability. And, possibly, an endorsement of Obama by Bob/ Bob's creators.
And, having checked (something you consistently fail to do before dumping your uninformed opinion on us) the infringement need not particularly public or visible to be at least considered actionable:
Someone just contacted me letting me know, informally, that a phrase I'm using in my new blog's tagline has been trademarked by them "for use on the Web, books, pamphlets, and online stores." They have asked me (nicely) to please not use it.
Click to expand...
http://ask.metafilter.com/124073/Am-I-infringing-on-a-trademark
 
And they are Trademarked for specific items\purposes. Big difference...which is what i have been saying all along.
 
I dont have to look at the links, i already know.

But since i just looked at them:

Heroic Choices, the charitable organization formerly known as the Todd M. Beamer Foundation, trademarked the phrase in order to sell merchandise with proceeds going to the charity. But 16 additional claims were granted to other companies, for use on other types of merchandise including rolling back packs, roller sports, soft pretzels, paint rollers, metal building materials and tapes. Even Rolling Rock beer offers you to "Let's roll... and rock with Rolling Rock."
Click to expand...

I added the emphasis because that is important.:)
 
John99 said:
Those are "Trademarks" i sadi copyright. If you dont know even know difference then you shouldn't be discussing this.
Click to expand...
Do try to keep up:
Dywyddyr said:
No. Not copyright but trademarked.
Click to expand...
You can't copyright a phrase but you can register it as trademark.
Why are you harping on about copyright?

John99 said:
And they are Trademarked for specific items\purposes. Big difference...which is what i have been saying all along.
Click to expand...
Fail again. Read my last post: particularly the quotes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top