The Guardian reports that in a recent episode of Film 2003, a poppy – the symbol of remembrance of Britain’s war dead worn at the beginning of November - was digitally superimposed on the presenter Jonathan Ross after the programme had been recorded. He had neglected to wear a poppy for that episode as he had also been shooting episodes to be viewed on other days. The BBC therefore stepped in, to avoid allegations that Ross was not paying due respect.

The IPKat wonders if the BBC obtained permission from the Royal British Legion to use its IP rights before taking this step. The Legion will have copyright in the design drawings of the poppy and in the poppy itself, perhaps as a sculpture, or a work of artistic craftsmanship which could be infringed by a 2-D digital copy. It may also have a trade mark right that could be infringed by the BBC’s actions – it could argue that the BBC’s digital poppy referred back to the real poppy and hence was a referential use, referring to the Legion’s use of its poppy mark for its services and hence is an identical mark, identical service situation. However, there is no design right case since infringement there requires making an article that embodies the design. The IPKat is still pondering the possibility of an action based on infringement of a plant varieties right ...

Poppy history here
How to grow poppies here

BBC IN FAKE POPPY FURORE <strong>BBC IN FAKE POPPY FURORE</strong> Reviewed by Unknown on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.