<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: If the Shoe Fits: Analyzing Lohan and Sgt. Sarver Right of Publicity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/if-the-shoe-fits-right-of-publicity/id=9718/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/if-the-shoe-fits-right-of-publicity/id=9718/</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:33:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/if-the-shoe-fits-right-of-publicity/id=9718/#comment-11893</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:28:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9718#comment-11893</guid>
		<description>Thank you for the analysis of the Sarver case -- good information for fiction writers/screenwriters to know. After the suit was filed, I read the original Playboy article. To my mind, there is no doubt that many parts of the film were adapted from the article, including dialogue. On that count, then, Boal is being misleading in calling the character of Will James an amalgam, or Boal passed off to Playboy a non-fiction article that was highly fictionalized (and Sarver didn&#039;t speak up then). But, as this legal analysis points out, from a legal perspective, that point is moot. In this case, what&#039;s legal and ethical (or generically, &quot;the right thing to do&quot;) might arguably be at odds.  Though The Hurt Locker is a fiction, that fiction wouldn&#039;t exist without the model of Sarver.  How do you make that right?  A donation and sworn statement?  A bunch of money?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the analysis of the Sarver case &#8212; good information for fiction writers/screenwriters to know. After the suit was filed, I read the original Playboy article. To my mind, there is no doubt that many parts of the film were adapted from the article, including dialogue. On that count, then, Boal is being misleading in calling the character of Will James an amalgam, or Boal passed off to Playboy a non-fiction article that was highly fictionalized (and Sarver didn&#8217;t speak up then). But, as this legal analysis points out, from a legal perspective, that point is moot. In this case, what&#8217;s legal and ethical (or generically, &#8220;the right thing to do&#8221;) might arguably be at odds.  Though The Hurt Locker is a fiction, that fiction wouldn&#8217;t exist without the model of Sarver.  How do you make that right?  A donation and sworn statement?  A bunch of money?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pop</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/if-the-shoe-fits-right-of-publicity/id=9718/#comment-11861</link>
		<dc:creator>pop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:44:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9718#comment-11861</guid>
		<description>I am a vet, and I was deployed to Iraq twice. Even though I agree with your points that Sgt. Sarver doesn&#039;t have a case, I think it is pretty crummy of that studio to make that film without getting permission first. Even if nobody else cares, he still knows that it is him and his buddies, and that those events are meant to portray events he lived through. I think the money is a much smaller issue compared to his respect. He and his buddies may not want to have their likeness and story paraded around for all to see. Not everybody wants to have that part of their life shoved in there face. Morally, I think they are guilty of one of the greatest crimes.

As far as that *ahem* loose lady Lindsay Lohan in concerned, does she honestly believe that she has obtained single-name status? What a joke. Just another reason to hate her in my book.

*and for the record, I haven&#039;t watched the hurt locker; I don&#039;t watch war movies at all*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a vet, and I was deployed to Iraq twice. Even though I agree with your points that Sgt. Sarver doesn&#8217;t have a case, I think it is pretty crummy of that studio to make that film without getting permission first. Even if nobody else cares, he still knows that it is him and his buddies, and that those events are meant to portray events he lived through. I think the money is a much smaller issue compared to his respect. He and his buddies may not want to have their likeness and story paraded around for all to see. Not everybody wants to have that part of their life shoved in there face. Morally, I think they are guilty of one of the greatest crimes.</p>
<p>As far as that *ahem* loose lady Lindsay Lohan in concerned, does she honestly believe that she has obtained single-name status? What a joke. Just another reason to hate her in my book.</p>
<p>*and for the record, I haven&#8217;t watched the hurt locker; I don&#8217;t watch war movies at all*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene Quinn</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/if-the-shoe-fits-right-of-publicity/id=9718/#comment-11844</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:36:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9718#comment-11844</guid>
		<description>It is like a car accident.  You just can&#039;t help but look despite what your better senses are telling you.

-Gene</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is like a car accident.  You just can&#8217;t help but look despite what your better senses are telling you.</p>
<p>-Gene</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike D.</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/if-the-shoe-fits-right-of-publicity/id=9718/#comment-11842</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:06:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9718#comment-11842</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m stunned on a couple of levels - one that so much digital space was devoted to this wholly frivolous lawsuit and (two) that I read this whole thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m stunned on a couple of levels &#8211; one that so much digital space was devoted to this wholly frivolous lawsuit and (two) that I read this whole thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

