Mastercard thought so. They sued Ralph Nader in 2000 for running campaign ads in their "priceless" style. They were unsuccessful. The ruling came four years later in 2004 in Nader's favor. To view the commercial on YouTube, click here.
Apparently the court ruled that copying the style or format of Mastercard's ad campaign did not break copyright law. However, Florida state gained permission from Mastercard before launching a "priceless" style campaign in 2006 to promote hurricane preparedness among residents. In fact, they used the same advertising agency that created the original priceless campaign.
Would you have found Nader guilty of violating Mastercard's trademark and copyright? Or, after viewing the commercial, do you believe it would qualify as parody?
I am undecided.
2 comments:
After viewing the commercial, it would be quite clear to the average person that this commercial could be confused with a Mastercard commercial and Mastercard could be wrongly associated as supporting Nader as a candidate. I do not think this commercial is satirical enough to be considered a parody.
I can see where the confusion between the tow spots could occur, but as an issue of copyright, I do not feel they infringed upon it. They simply copied the style and tone, not the actual words or content (with the exception of the word "priceless").
I definitely do not see it as a parody. That is for sure.
Post a Comment