I would say lets Kitsune do her thing, but sadly this thing:Well we have to do something about this. Doof is too petty to not.
Exist, and she has one of the highest Diplomacy (Goofy too, but I want to start the college thing this next turn)In-vest-inator: This machine puts you and everyone in a 3-mile radius in some very unfashionable vests - tightly enough you can't get them off! -5 to Diplomacy rolls for the turn - except for quests, as your fortunate subordinates are out of range!
I am deeply offended by this. When has Heinz "Petty Vengeance" Doofenshmirtz ever been constrained by the legality of something when contemplating petty vengeance? Now where's that old Poop-inator?Waddle has been released to critical acclaim! Their newest commercials are making them a smashing success online that absolutely everyone is talking about. Unfortunately for you, you're memeing fast and none of it is good. The mere existence of these 'Doofus' commercials has left you incensed, but unfortunately you don't really have a leg to stand on, since this is, technically, a work of parody and any court battle would be long and costly. You're very tempted to do it anyway.
You even tried to look into Waddle to see if you could nail him for ripping off DoofOS, but you haven't had any luck there, either! Waddle is in no way derived from LOVEMUFFIN's work.
Well, logically speaking, if Alan was playong fast-and-loose with the firewall and we set him on making a new OS and scrapping the old, he'll port over those programs.if there wasn't weird wording about Alan's "critical firewall failure is my fault" I'd be down for scrapping.
but
there's a chance he opened the firewall in order to save refugees running from ENCOM or Cybug
so I think we have to stick with it, and just try to let refugees in and Cybug/ENCOM out.
Typical, it's always something with these people. Anybody else wanna bite the bullet and spend an action to-Speaking of LOVEMUFFIN, they are furious at "Mark Beaks revealing the truth." According to an extremely long-winded letter from Rodney, he "deeply resents how you took their hard work and slapped your name on it.
STEAL THE HOOVER DAMN, PLACE IT IN THE MOST TOXIC, UNINHABITABLE ZONE IN THE WASTELAND, AND SHOVE THESE BUFFONS SO FAR INTO THE BOTTOM OF IT THAT THEY SPEND THE REST OF THEIR DAYS PLAYING GO-FISH WITH TEAMO FREAKING SUPREMO
I've always considered "Return Of Jafar" severely underrated. Great adaptation!
Waddle has been released to critical acclaim! Their newest commercials are making them a smashing success online that absolutely everyone is talking about. Unfortunately for you, you're memeing fast and none of it is good. The mere existence of these 'Doofus' commercials has left you incensed, but unfortunately you don't really have a leg to stand on, since this is, technically, a work of parody and any court battle would be long and costly. You're very tempted to do it anyway.
You even tried to look into Waddle to see if you could nail him for ripping off DoofOS, but you haven't had any luck there, either! Waddle is in no way derived from LOVEMUFFIN's work.
Speaking of LOVEMUFFIN, they are furious at "Mark Beaks revealing the truth." According to an extremely long-winded letter from Rodney, he "deeply resents how you took their hard work and slapped your name on it. DoofOS is a stupid name, by the way."
Get him on being a xenophobe! That was clearly an insensitive stereotype of Drusselsteinians!
That looks like it would create legal trouble because they are using another company's copyrighted character without permission not because of defamation.Anyone remember that Burger King ad where Ronald Mc Donald buys food from them and gets called out by name? Burger King had to take that one down pretty fast fpr being malicious and it wasn´t even that insulting in comparison to what Beaks just did. Additionally, He is only a Duke, but we are a King - time to throw our weight around *the right way*
That looks like it would create legal trouble because they are using another company's copyrighted character without permission not because of defamation.
As was pointed out earlier, and might have been a joke but we could still potentially use, he also used an insulting caricature of a Drusselsteinian to represent us, thereby using a racial stereotype to mock an immigrant and his business. He probably didn't intend it that way but...Beaks still explicitly used our brand name (which by itself is protected by copyright) to make himself look good...it might not be *quite* as explicit as using our likeness (or that of our mascot/logo...does DoofOS/DEI even have its own mascot, @Made in Heaven ?), but it´s still a clear violation of copyright in my opinion,
As was pointed out earlier, and might have been a joke but we could still potentially use, he also used an insulting caricature of a Drusselsteinian to represent us, thereby using a racial stereotype to mock an immigrant and his business. He probably didn't intend it that way but...
Brand names are protected by trademark not copyright. Using brand names isn't a violation of trademark unless you use them in a way that implies the trademark owner produced or endorsed something it did not. An explicit representation of DoofOS agreeing that people should move to Waddles seems pretty clearly be "putting words in our mouths" in a way that wouldn't be covered by copyright. There is a reason the old ads use "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" instead of "I'm a Mac and I'm a Windows" even though everybody knows what it meant by "PC". Personal computer is a generic term, not a trademark.Beaks still explicitly used our brand name (which by itself is protected by copyright) to make himself look good...it might not be *quite* as explicit as using our likeness (or that of our mascot/logo...does DoofOS/DEI even have its own mascot, @Made in Heaven ?), but it´s still a clear violation of copyright in my opinion,
So you're saying... Beaks might have made a mistake that potently removes the ad's parody protection, and we could have a legitimate lawsuit? I don't know enough about copyright law to say anything but this does seem promising...Brand names are protected by trademark not copyright. Using brand names isn't a violation of trademark unless you use them in a way that implies the trademark owner produced or endorsed something it did not. An explicit representation of DoofOS agreeing that people should move to Waddles seems pretty clearly be "putting words in our mouths" in a way that wouldn't be covered by copyright. There is a recent the old ads use "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" instead of "I'm a Mac and I'm a Windows" even though everybody knows what it meant by "PC". Personal computer is a generic term, not a trademark.
That so it isn't really important. Beak could have released an attack ad that refers their competitor indirectly like a number of real ads. Doofus would be too close to the trademark but they could compare to an idiot OS. Perhaps have a slapstick routine caused by its own incompetence instead of doing the obvious and unfunny Doofus/DoofOS wordplay. Maybe have a slogan of "Smart tech for Smart People".