tom moody June 29, 2012 at 9:35 pm

Anyone can trademark something, but then you have to establish a property interest in the mark. This isn’t the same as a patent. Apple has an app called Cinemagram, and Google is using something they’re calling Cinemagraphs to announce events. Beck/Burg will have to sue to “police their mark” if they want it to be anything other than an official-looking “TM” logo on their website. They will likely lose when courts decide what the rest of us already know: there’s nothing new or unique about a photo with a single moving element. (Or the name that describes it.)

Paddy Johnson June 30, 2012 at 9:41 am

My bad. I added that link and the comment saved wonkily. There’s a part of me that wants this to go to court, just so I can read their argument. That’s one wish though, that I can live without seeing filled.

tom moody June 30, 2012 at 12:12 pm

Surfing around looking for the term “cinemagraph” it appears both Google and Microsoft are using that word to describe animated GIFs with a single moving element.

Google is using them for events and calling them “cinemagraphs,” as described here: http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/google-plus-events-cinemagraphs-party-mode-post-event-reminders/

Probably copying Apple’s “cinemagrams,” Microsoft has an app called “cliplets” that you can use to make what they refer to as cinemagraphs (along with other effects): http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/cliplets/

Apple’s cinemagram app is here: http://itunes.apple.com/app/cinemagram/id487225881?mt=8

If Beck/Burg successfully sued one of these giants they might demonstrate a protectable interest in that word. But the fact that there are quick-and-dirty apps available to make animated GIFs with a single moving element suggests that the artistic breakthrough they ballyhooed on PBS just isn’t that special (and by extension, neither is the word they use for it).


sex toys for women May 25, 2013 at 6:20 am

Yeah, I agreed with you and must appreciate you. I think they might be demonstrate safe and secure stuffs in those words.

fatesbeckoner July 1, 2012 at 12:28 pm

That first link is really disturbing to my sense of feminism.  I mean, for that site to pay a female reporter to listen to their accounts of their jerking off–how is that different than phone sex?  Why didn’t one of those “men” who work there and did write it themselves?  I’d be thoroughly creeped out and embarrassed if I was that female blogger.  A bunch of dudes just basically tricked her into letting them masturbate for her and then making her listen to all the various accounts of their junk and how they get off.  In any other office, that might qualify as sexual harassment.  Kind of pathetic that any woman would let themselves be coaxed into that.

Will Brand July 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm

AFAIK, Marina (the person you’re white-knighting for here) is neither creeped out nor embarassed; knowing her, and knowing blogging, I’m pretty sure the piece was her idea. She’s behind just about all the even vaguely art-related content on Animal, and I don’t know many blogger-editors who would come up with a quick, guaranteed-traffic post idea like that and then let someone else get the byline. It just doesn’t make sense, in this industry.

So yeah, maybe she was pathetically tricked and needs a hero and you’re gonna save the day, but it’s much more likely that she’s a grown-ass woman who can write about sex, even other people’s sex, when it suits her.

(and THAT’S how you white-knight!)

tom moody July 2, 2012 at 9:48 am

Will Brand is pretty sure the piece was Galperina’s idea, but instead of checking, he will unleash the white hot power of his sarcasm.
I want the old AFC back!. Paddy always handled commenters deftly.

Paddy Johnson July 2, 2012 at 10:01 am

I think it’s pretty clear this person is a Marina-specific troll. Speaking of which I’m going to delete both comments. I don’t want this kind of bullshit on the blog. 

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: