From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Use of Putting People First (was Re: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd))
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 23:07:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.201351.23756@wixer.cactus.org> lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.235026.2652@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford
>.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>> "Putting People First" is the name of an organization that spends a
>>>> lot of its time opposing animal rights folks.  This organization
>>>> PREDATES the Clinton campaign.  They've asked him repeatedly to
>>>> get his own slogan, to stop using theirs for his ends.  He's
>>>> blown them off.
>>>>
>>>> He's raising money using their name.  Should they raise money using
>>>> his?
>>>
>>It show that Clinton doesn't respect other people's property when it
>>comes to pushing his agenda.  Like his buddy Joe Biden, he steals his
>>best slogans, only Biden had the decency to stop when exposed, even
>>though the author gave him permission to continue.  Clinton continues
>>even though the PPF organization has asked him not to.  He's
>>effectively destroying the name and reputation they've built up by
>>tieing it to his partisan activity.
>>
>>We're willing to believe that Bush is dirty; Clinton seems determined
>>to prove that he is too.  It's an interesting tactic.
>
>Okay, first off - is the "putting people first" trademarked (I don't _think_
>you can copyright a phrase)?

Phrases can be owned through both copyright and trademark.  "Close
cover before striking" and the sniglets case proved that.

There isn't a "product" so it isn't obvious that trademarks are the
applicable legal concept.  It's a lot like "Democrat Party".  We know
that Clinton would scream if unauthorized people used that name, even
if they could legally do so, but he feels completely justified in
hijacking some other group's name.  Do you really want to argue that
it's okay because it might be legal when Clinton does it, but not
okay, even though it is, when someone else does it?

>If it ain't, this PPF group has nothing they can do.  I find it very
>hard to consider using a phrase which the Clinton campaign most likely
>came up with independent of this group as "dirty."

There's probably nothing LEGAL that PPF can do if only because Clinton
will stop using it, win or lose, long before the system gets around to
considering whether or not that's illegal.  The group probably doesn't
have the resources to stand up to the Democrat machine in court
anyway.

The interesting issue is that it is sleazy; it reveals that Clinton
will steal to advance his campaign.  Clinton has hijacked this group's
name.  Before he knew that, one could argue that his use is innocent,
but he now knows, and doesn't care.

The legality really isn't all that relevant.  We know that Clinton
would scream if he was in their position; double-standards are a
CHARACTER issue.

>Sounds more like PPF is trying to get some free publicity.

PPF tricked him into using it?  Wowsers!

PPF had the name before he started using it.  They didn't ask him to
use it, have asked him to come up with a different catch phrase for
whatever he means by it, and he can stop using it any time he wants
to.  Why are you blaming them for Clinton's actions?  It's "free
publicity" that they don't want.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu