zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. morale+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-23 08:53:50
>The tweet is still a thorn in OA's side, of course, but that's not likely to be determinative IMO (IAAL).

It amounts to nothing as it was a single word and they could spin that any way they want, it's even a generic word, lol. The "worst" interpretation on that tweet could be "we were inspired by said movie to create a relatable product" which is not an unlawful thing to do.

replies(1): >>Topfi+Y3
2. Topfi+Y3[view] [source] 2024-05-23 09:30:38
>>morale+(OP)
I see this a lot in space like HN focused on hard science and programming — this idea that judgments couldn't possibly consider things like context beyond what has been literally spelled out. To paraphrase a fitting XKCD, they have already thought of that "cool hack" you've just come up with [0].

I lack the knowledge to make a judgment one way or another about whether this will go anywhere, because I know very little about this area of law, more so in the US. However, this idea that tweeting the title of that specific movie in the context of such a product release couldn't possibly be connected to one of those voices having a similar cadence and sound of a specific actor in that same movie they approched beforehand, couldn't have no legal bearing seems naive. Is it that doubtful that a high-priced legal team couldn't bring a solid case, leading to a severe settlement, or more if she wants to create a precedent?

Clichéd Mafia talk is not a foolproof way to prevent conviction in most jurisdictions.

[0] https://xkcd.com/1494/

[go to top]