Talk:Allied Artists
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
POV[edit]
Respective articles are currently under dispute. Please see talk pages therein for details. Ocaasi c 22:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to possible BLP Violation[edit]
- I've bolded a few key points, since this stuff is 'long and arcane'. Ocaasi c 20:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
This article presently includes a redirect to a new article that concentrates on United Assurance Company, but focuses on the fraudulent conduct of its founder Robert Rooks. In addition to a number of fraudulent investment schemes, Rooks formed shell corporations under the name of Allied Artists Pictures Corporation and then had a publicly traded corporation he controlled claim it had acquired the original Allied Artists Pictures Corporation. Allied Artists International filed a lawsuit against Rooks, a number of co-defendants and the fraudulently formed imposter corporations for trademark infringement and a number of other causes of action. The thrust of AAI's lawsuit was that Rooks was falsely claiming to own Allied Artists in order to trick unsuspecting investors into giving him their money believing they were investing in the real Allied Artists. AAI prevailed in that lawsuit and Rooks and all of the defendants are enjoined from further infringement. While Rooks' actions were unlawful, the Allied Artists brand, name and trademark is not notable for Rooks' infringement. Allied Artists is a federally trademarked name that was assigned to AAI by the original Allied Artists Pictures Corporation 27 years ago. That corporation is the successor-in-interest to the original Allied Artists Pictures Corporation. The federal trademarks for Allied Artists should only direct to articles about the real Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, it's successor-in-interest, Allied Artists International, Inc. or the original corporate name Monogram Pictures, which is now a wholly owned subsidiary of AAI. To direct to an article about Rooks, any of his companies or a story about his fraudulent use of the Allied Artists trademark victimizes AAI all over again, by helping to confuse the public as to who owns the "Allied Artists" trademarks. Accordingly, I ask for consensus that this page direct only to: 1) Allied Artists International, and 2) Monogram Pictures.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any independent secondary sources for this.
- The following is my non-binding, personal opinion: Wikipedia rarely takes into account the incidental ramifications of posting information, moreso when the 'victim' is a corporation rather than an individual, but all of that only if we have reliable sources to support the relevant claims. Within that, we can do our best to disambiguate and inform the reader of any dispute so that they can make their own judgment and avoid confusion, but again, we need reliable sources to do so as well.
- If you have an actual legal concern regarding 'injury', 'damages', a 'tort' of some kind, you need to contact the WMF directly, or have someone from the AAI do so. We are not lawyers, we are editors, and though we want to avoid WP:HARM if possible, we do not consider nuanced, hypothetical spillover effects due to byzantine trademark disputes within our purview. Ocaasi c 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing "AAI" and "AA" with "AAPC", in your using the expression "the real AA", and your not using the expression "the real AAPC". According to the sources in the respective artices, either Warner Brothers - [1], or KCET - [2], is the closest thing to a real "successor-in-interest to the original Allied Artists Pictures Corporation". What reliable source have you used to reach the legal conclusion that a record company filing for one of many unused trademarks (without paying anything for them beyond a filing fee), gives "successor-in-interest" distrubution rights over Warner Brothers, or "successor-in-interest" studio rights over held by KCET? Have you contacted Warner Brothers and KCET, as you wrote you did with AAI, to clear things up for you? It is likely both studios would want to know about thier not having successor in interest rights for the treademark used on the DVD box by Warner Brothers, or use of the studio by KCET. KCET might even want to do a news story about it, and distribute it via their production control for PBS, especially with the uptick in activity regarding all the PBS related news stories coming out of DC in recent weeks related to the budget debate. 173.13.132.244 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Could we resolve this by specifying that AAI is the successor-in-interest to all that remained of the original AAPC, although some parts of it had been sold or liquidated over the years and through the bankruptcy? KCET and PBCS are not reliable, independent secondary sources, even if we call them, although they might be able to direct us to some. You both seem personally interested in getting to the bottom of this; maybe a phone-call would be helpful (even if we can't use any insights from it directly).
- Is it fair to say the AAI 'bought up' what was left of AAR/AAPC and have continued operating under that name, but without making it seem like AAI had direct connections to Monogram/AAPC historically in any way? Ocaasi c 20:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your voice of reason Ocaasi. Yes, I think that's fine. But, keep in mind that from a legal standpoint, the film library and real estate are just assets of a company, no different than a desk or typewriter. If you recall, Ted Turner bought United Artists, retained the entire library and sold the trademarks back to Kirk Kerkorian. United Artists was no less United Artists because Ted Turner then owned the library. Same thing here. The trademarks were lawfully assigned to AAI and that makes AAI the successor-in-interest. The problem is that PPdd wants to split Allied Artists into two separate categories, directing people to the United Assurance (Robert Rooks) fraud story, which further confuses the public as to who actually owns the Allied Artists trademarks. That is exactly what the Federal Court did not want to happen when it granted an injunction against Rooks, et al. I believe that the Allied Artists (disambiguation) has no business directing to the United Assurance article. At most it should direct to AAI and Monogram. Does that make sense to you? And yes, I would be more than happy to participate in a telephone conversation to resolve it all. Just let me know how and when. Thanks for your help.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your point is noted. Businesses (and assets) change hands all the time, and this sales is not more or less legitimate. However, in trying to affirm AAI's legal status, by using terms such as successor-in-interest, we really confuse readers (who are not lawyers). Far better to explain in lay terms and then (parenthetically) say (successor-in-interest) rather than use the jargon outright. Actually, WP:JARGON is nice on this point. I'm less concerned about this particular disambiguation page, since it will resolve once the AAI dispute resolves. I think you're right, however, that the disambiguation page should not link to UAC. Except perhaps in a WP:SEEALSO section, with a clear note. You seem to be underestimating the potential of disambiguation pages--they disambiguate! Their whole purpose, when well crafted is to let readers know what is not what, and what is what. Assuming it's not controversial, we can actually make an explicit note that Company A is not Company B, at least in theory. (Oh, I meant phone call to those KCET or other companies). Ocaasi c 21:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I contacted KCET today and discovered that they bought the original lot in 1970, almost ten years before the AAPC bankruptcy and that AAPC had already relocated. They have since expended the lot to include additional parcels. I hope that resolves the KCET connection to AAPC.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your point is noted. Businesses (and assets) change hands all the time, and this sales is not more or less legitimate. However, in trying to affirm AAI's legal status, by using terms such as successor-in-interest, we really confuse readers (who are not lawyers). Far better to explain in lay terms and then (parenthetically) say (successor-in-interest) rather than use the jargon outright. Actually, WP:JARGON is nice on this point. I'm less concerned about this particular disambiguation page, since it will resolve once the AAI dispute resolves. I think you're right, however, that the disambiguation page should not link to UAC. Except perhaps in a WP:SEEALSO section, with a clear note. You seem to be underestimating the potential of disambiguation pages--they disambiguate! Their whole purpose, when well crafted is to let readers know what is not what, and what is what. Assuming it's not controversial, we can actually make an explicit note that Company A is not Company B, at least in theory. (Oh, I meant phone call to those KCET or other companies). Ocaasi c 21:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your voice of reason Ocaasi. Yes, I think that's fine. But, keep in mind that from a legal standpoint, the film library and real estate are just assets of a company, no different than a desk or typewriter. If you recall, Ted Turner bought United Artists, retained the entire library and sold the trademarks back to Kirk Kerkorian. United Artists was no less United Artists because Ted Turner then owned the library. Same thing here. The trademarks were lawfully assigned to AAI and that makes AAI the successor-in-interest. The problem is that PPdd wants to split Allied Artists into two separate categories, directing people to the United Assurance (Robert Rooks) fraud story, which further confuses the public as to who actually owns the Allied Artists trademarks. That is exactly what the Federal Court did not want to happen when it granted an injunction against Rooks, et al. I believe that the Allied Artists (disambiguation) has no business directing to the United Assurance article. At most it should direct to AAI and Monogram. Does that make sense to you? And yes, I would be more than happy to participate in a telephone conversation to resolve it all. Just let me know how and when. Thanks for your help.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is an assignment of trademark rights on file with the USPTO from the ORIGINAL Allied Artists Pictures Corporation that documents the purchase of those rights by Allied Artists Records in 1983. You are confusing the sale of some library rights with the sale of corporate and trademark rights. KCET purchased the real estate that was owned by the original AAPC, while Lorimar purchased some of the film library rights. The reason you're finding Warner Bros. in the equation now is because Lorimar was later acquired by Warner Bros. You have to be very careful how you portray the ownership rights of the trademarks. The sale of assets (such as real estate, film rights, desks, etc) does not convey right and title to the name. Only a transaction that assigns the trademark rights results in the transfer of those rights. There is no question that AAPC assigned all of its trademark rights to the company that is now AAI in 1983. Those records have been cited and are on file with the USPTO. Those rights were recognized by a federal court on March 1, 2010 as belonging to AAI, during the AAI v. Rooks, et al litigation. You seem to have some reason for insisting that someone other than AAI owns the rights to the Allied Artists trademarks. AAI actually has multiple trademarks, including a standard character mark for the name "Allied Artists," a design mark for both the original "AA" design mark and the redesigned "Allied Artists" mark. The FACT that a legally filed assignment is on file with the USPTO makes AAI the successor-in-interest. That is a legal fact. Section 8 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1058(a)(1) and Section 15 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1065 deems AAI's trademark rights incontestable under the law. On top of those irrefutable facts, a federal court has ruled that AAI is the successor-in-interest to the trademarks and held Rooks, his co-defendants and his imposter corporations guilty of trademark infringement, as well as granting AAI a permanent injunction against Rooks, et al from further infringement of AAI's trademark. Rooks appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice and lost both times. The only court higher than the Ninth Circuit is the U.S. Supreme Court. Consequently, everybody but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that AAI is the successor-in-interest to the original AAPC and owns the Allied Artists trademarks. You should not be writing articles that deal with the conveyance of intellectual property rights if you don't understand the difference between the sale of real estate assets, film library / content assets and corporate governance and trademark assets. I believe you mean well, but you are not viewing the facts from a neutral perspective. Please accept the authority of the USPTO, the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- ip 173, does that answer your question? Your suspicion that AAI is a shell company used by Rooks to perpetuate a fraud, could be (mis)informed by a partial understanding of the legal dispute. It strikes me that we are confusing a massive legal confusion (AAI vs. Rooks' AAPC) and an editorial issue (making sure readers know that AAI 'bought up' AAR/AAPC). They are two very separate issues, but it appears poor handling of one is furthering the appearance of the other. Warriorboy, a less generous and descriptive historical connection between Monogram/AAPC/AAR and AAI, in the AAI article, would help to disabuse readers of the notion that AAI was in some way directly connected to this legacy, as opposed to a more venture-minded acquisition of a company that had basically gone dark. Ocaasi c 20:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is an assignment of trademark rights on file with the USPTO from the ORIGINAL Allied Artists Pictures Corporation that documents the purchase of those rights by Allied Artists Records in 1983. You are confusing the sale of some library rights with the sale of corporate and trademark rights. KCET purchased the real estate that was owned by the original AAPC, while Lorimar purchased some of the film library rights. The reason you're finding Warner Bros. in the equation now is because Lorimar was later acquired by Warner Bros. You have to be very careful how you portray the ownership rights of the trademarks. The sale of assets (such as real estate, film rights, desks, etc) does not convey right and title to the name. Only a transaction that assigns the trademark rights results in the transfer of those rights. There is no question that AAPC assigned all of its trademark rights to the company that is now AAI in 1983. Those records have been cited and are on file with the USPTO. Those rights were recognized by a federal court on March 1, 2010 as belonging to AAI, during the AAI v. Rooks, et al litigation. You seem to have some reason for insisting that someone other than AAI owns the rights to the Allied Artists trademarks. AAI actually has multiple trademarks, including a standard character mark for the name "Allied Artists," a design mark for both the original "AA" design mark and the redesigned "Allied Artists" mark. The FACT that a legally filed assignment is on file with the USPTO makes AAI the successor-in-interest. That is a legal fact. Section 8 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1058(a)(1) and Section 15 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1065 deems AAI's trademark rights incontestable under the law. On top of those irrefutable facts, a federal court has ruled that AAI is the successor-in-interest to the trademarks and held Rooks, his co-defendants and his imposter corporations guilty of trademark infringement, as well as granting AAI a permanent injunction against Rooks, et al from further infringement of AAI's trademark. Rooks appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice and lost both times. The only court higher than the Ninth Circuit is the U.S. Supreme Court. Consequently, everybody but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that AAI is the successor-in-interest to the original AAPC and owns the Allied Artists trademarks. You should not be writing articles that deal with the conveyance of intellectual property rights if you don't understand the difference between the sale of real estate assets, film library / content assets and corporate governance and trademark assets. I believe you mean well, but you are not viewing the facts from a neutral perspective. Please accept the authority of the USPTO, the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals.--Warriorboy85 (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ocaasi, I mostly agree with you and applaud your understanding that Rooks attempted to counterfeit the Allied Artists Pictures Corporation name, which created the trademark dispute that AAI won. However, AAR/AAI was a subsidiary of AAPC when AAPC went into bankruptcy. AAR/AAI continued operations under the Allied Artists trademarks, and thus the company never went dark. The issue of rights to a motion picture is legally complicated. After a period of time rights revert back to the original producers, who often are not the studio. By the same token, even though those rights revert back, the studio often still administers the reverted rights on behalf of the producers. The trademark or brand on the motion picture is the hallmark of the film, and the legacy of the studio. That's exactly what is purchased when a trademark is acquired. I think it's fair to point out that the film library went to Lorimar, while AAR/AAI became the successor-in-interest. Having said that, I don't think it's appropriate to direct people looking for information on "Allied Artists" to an article about Rooks' unlawful fraud. If you want to include a section in the main AAI story that says that AAI sued and prevailed, and then directs to the United Assurance story, I think that's fair. Thanks again. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)