It seems to me that the church has a valid case to go after an organization that has the word 'Mormon' in their name and is essentially acting against the mission and purposes of the church.
It will be interesting to watch and see how it all pans out.
Regards,
MG
Go after!
That would be smash the printing press, Mormon tradition
I probably was not built from the ground up to accept such repression.
......adding
I am not particularly a fan of Mormon stories but I respect its right in a free world to present Mormon stories. I would financially support resistance to outrageous efforts at communication repression.
I mean what kind of church would contemplate repressing peoples stories?
Perhaps one that is threatened by the contents of the stories becoming public.
I wonder if we're going to see the operation of the Streisand Effect.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
It seems to me that the church has a valid case to go after an organization that has the word 'Mormon' in their name and is essentially acting against the mission and purposes of the church.
It will be interesting to watch and see how it all pans out.
Regards,
MG
Yeah, I think it stinks. Talk about schizophrenic regarding the name Mormon. In a just world, the lawyers representing the church would get their butts handed to them on a platter for taking on such a suit.
No one owns the word Mormon.
Four things to consider:
Trademark and Brand Protection (historical argument/precedent)
Preventing Misrepresentation (public assumptions of relationship)
Consistency With Policy (protecting the good name of the church)
Demonstrable Harm (mitigating losses)
I wonder if we're going to see the operation of the Streisand Effect.
I was just thinking the same thing. Something tells me Dehlin wouldn’t exactly mind the surge in traffic that kind of attention will bring. I’m not sure the church thought this one through.
I wonder if we're going to see the operation of the Streisand Effect.
I was just thinking the same thing. Something tells me Dehlin wouldn’t exactly mind the surge in traffic that kind of attention will bring. I’m not sure the church thought this one through.
The Church can use this moment to clarify its message rather than view it only as a loss. More people out in the mission field and also along the Wasatch Front may have more questions which may result in asking Mormon friends or missionaries in for a glass of lemonade, or should I say, hot cocoa (they can have their coffee). It's getting cold here in Utah.
And if they win against Dehlin that will be a net gain I would think. Publicity goes both ways.
Trademark and Brand Protection (historical argument/precedent)
Preventing Misrepresentation (public assumptions of relationship)
Consistency With Policy (protecting the good name of the church)
Demonstrable Harm (mitigating losses)...
Mentalgymnast needs to ask his AI to finish its thought, and then post the results in the appropriate AI thread. This cut-and-paste is not helpful.
I wonder if we're going to see the operation of the Streisand Effect.
I was just thinking the same thing. Something tells me Dehlin wouldn’t exactly mind the surge in traffic that kind of attention will bring. I’m not sure the church thought this one through.
Especially given their history of trying this (and failing) on other small companies and groups. There doesn't seem to be much continuity across regime changes, which seems to indicate far more infighting and animosity than we thought.
I was just thinking the same thing. Something tells me Dehlin wouldn’t exactly mind the surge in traffic that kind of attention will bring. I’m not sure the church thought this one through.
Especially given their history of trying this (and failing) on other small companies and groups. There doesn't seem to be much continuity across regime changes, which seems to indicate far more infighting and animosity than we thought.
I’m honestly not familiar with the examples you’re referring to. I didn’t realize there had been previous attempts like this—or that regime changes produced internal friction (I mean outside of the historical power struggle following Joseph’s death).
I’d be interested in examples because I’m not really aware of this infighting or animosity.
Especially given their history of trying this (and failing) on other small companies and groups. There doesn't seem to be much continuity across regime changes, which seems to indicate far more infighting and animosity than we thought.
I’m honestly not familiar with the examples you’re referring to. I didn’t realize there had been previous attempts like this—or that regime changes produced internal friction (I mean outside of the historical power struggle following the Joseph’s death).
I’d be interested in examples because I’m not really aware of this infighting or animosity.
By regime change I was referring to the change from Nelson to Oaks as president.
It seems there was a lack of continuity because this attempt to intimidate with the phrase 'trademark infringement' seems to have some history, earlier in Nelson's presidency and Monson's. Here's a representative post from my reading, but of course I can't verify its accuracy.
curious_mormonTruth never lost ground by enquiry. 41 points 10 years ago*
The LDS church does have a trademark on Mormon, but only in a specific context such as the Mormon tabernacle choir or as genealogical services provider. They actually lost and then abandoned the application for the Mormon trademark in general use because they do not own sole rights or origins of the word. Note that this is only the US.
That doesn't stop them from pretending like they have a broader reach or from trying to throw their weight around or attacking TBMs using the term, but whether they have grounds or not isn't so cut and dry.
Edit: Here's information on the failed trademark claim, and here's information on the trademarks they actually hold and in what context. Here are also links showing that non-commercial sites may even be exempt in those cases, such as for parody purposes.
I’m honestly not familiar with the examples you’re referring to. I didn’t realize there had been previous attempts like this—or that regime changes produced internal friction (I mean outside of the historical power struggle following the Joseph’s death).
I’d be interested in examples because I’m not really aware of this infighting or animosity.
By regime change I was referring to the change from Nelson to Oaks as president.
It seems there was a lack of continuity because this attempt to intimidate with the phrase 'trademark infringement' seems to have some history, earlier in Nelson's presidency and Monson's. Here's a representative post from my reading, but of course I can't verify its accuracy.
curious_mormonTruth never lost ground by enquiry. 41 points 10 years ago*
The LDS church does have a trademark on Mormon, but only in a specific context such as the Mormon tabernacle choir or as genealogical services provider. They actually lost and then abandoned the application for the Mormon trademark in general use because they do not own sole rights or origins of the word. Note that this is only the US.
That doesn't stop them from pretending like they have a broader reach or from trying to throw their weight around or attacking TBMs using the term, but whether they have grounds or not isn't so cut and dry.
Edit: Here's information on the failed trademark claim, and here's information on the trademarks they actually hold and in what context. Here are also links showing that non-commercial sites may even be exempt in those cases, such as for parody purposes.
Thanks, Marcus—that actually helps clarify what you meant. I wasn’t aware of the earlier trademark attempts under Monson and Nelson.
If the Church has already tried to secure some sort of control over the word “Mormon” and either lost or abandoned those efforts, there might just be a continuity issue.
You’d think they’d have some sort of passdown log.
