The Funniest Thing About the Billboard Tax
The record shows, that “the game of ‘Monopoly’ was first played from 1920 to 1932 on various college campuses by a small group of individuals, many of whom were related by blood or marriage.
It is true that Darrow, in his correspondence with Parker Brothers, claimed to have invented the game and offered to sign an affidavit stating his story. However, Robert B. M. Barton, the former president of Parker Brothers, who negotiated with Darrow in 1935, testified that he did not believe Darrow’s claim.
-Supreme Court of the United States, Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 1982
You remember the Billboard Lobbyist Sanitizers, of course:
Well this week we received this letter [PDF] from Hasbro’s lawyer:
Hasbro and Parker Brothers do not own Monopoly and never have. The game has always been in the public domain.
This is our response to Hasbro:
I deny manufacturing and distributing, selling or ever being in the possession of a hand sanitizer, which is called “Billboard Lobbyist Sanitizer.” Please be advised that you appear to be mistaking a theoretical Photoshopped image for something physical that existed in actual fact.
The artwork on the Photoshopped image was created and uploaded to Flickr.com by a third party.
This artwork appears to be entirely original and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the “Mr. Monopoly” graphic depicted in your letter; however, I have no way of knowing the particular origin of the original artwork.
In addition, even if the artwork on the Photoshopped image bore a resemblance to the “Mr. Monopoly” graphic, the graphic is well within in the public domain, as the original copyright for the Monopoly game was obtained in 1935.
Furthermore, the term “Monopoly” cannot fall within the purview of the Copyright Act as the term is generic.
In addition, the graphic in your letter is merely a stock image of a man wearing a dinner jacket with a hat and is also generic enough to fall outside the purview of the Copyright Act.
And, even if the graphic or the term “Monopoly” did fall within the purview of the Copyright Act, your client’s history of abusive and bad faith suppression of the origin of the game (see The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle) renders your supposed copyright unenforceable in Canadian courts under the doctrine of unclean hands. Lastly, given this history, there is no evidence that your client is the bona fide owner of the supposed copyright to the stock image in question.
I deny that my web site, IllegalSigns.ca, is depicting the Photoshopped “Billboard Lobbyist Sanitizer” image. The images appear to be displayed by Flickr.com. I would suggest that your client make a claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act against Flickr.com, although the aforementioned doctrine of unclean hands ought to prevent that claim from being successful.
Furthermore, even if my web site was depicting the image, and even if you were the owners of this image, a contextual analysis of the blog post, along with a full understanding of all intended irony, parody and jest, would result in the conclusion that this depiction would be protected by the Copyright Act for numerous reasons, including but not limited to the fact that I was merely reporting and expounding upon a newsworthy item related to a public policy matter that Toronto City Council was about to debate.
I therefore cannot cease “selling” the supposed theoretical “product” as none existed, and I certainly cannot “destroy” non-existent theoretical containers. I also cannot provide you with an “accounting” of my “profits” as no money changed hands in this matter other than the money transferred from your client to yourself, of which you are already keenly aware. I cannot provide you with a “list” of material referred to in paragraph ii of your letter, as there are no such materials in my possession and there never have been.
Even in the outlandish possibility that a third party created and distributed a hand sanitizer product based on the images another third party uploaded to Flickr.com, I cannot be held vicariously responsible.
I look forward to litigating this matter in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Lastly, I will be publishing your letter, in its entirely, and this response, in its entirety, on my web site.
Sincerely,
Rami Tabello
This is Hasbro’s response:
Dear Mr. Tabello,
Your reply advises that the sanitizer product pictured on your website (not Flickr.com) on November 27, 2009 is non-existent, and is a spoof. If true, that resolves the issue of distribution.
You have, however, misstated the facts and the rights of Hasbro in the Mr. Monopoly graphics. The graphic shown in the pictures of the non-existent product displayed on your web site on November 27, 2009 is identical to the Mr. Monopoly graphic. The page in question was found at http://illegalsigns.ca/2009/11/27/free-billboard-lobbyist-sanitizer-now-available-for-all-members-of-council/#comments and can be currently found at http://illegalsigns.ca/page/2/.
This is not a generic stock image. It is protected under Federal Trade-Mark Registration No. TMA461,613, a copy of which was sent to you. In addition, the copyright protection in this graphic has not expired in Canada. We trust that you will respect these rights and refrain from any further display of this graphic on your web site.
Yours truly,
Lloyd Sarginson
C. Lloyd Sarginson
B.Sc. (Chem. Eng.), LL.B.
It took a chemical engineer to write that.
We will not be making any changes to our web site. Don’t tase me, Hasbro.
