(~8 minutes to read)

Last week, I started to write a piece in which the characters of the Cluedo board game were discussing Mrs. White’s demise, but then I discovered that the characters’ names are all trademarked. I don’t have the resources to check if my piece would have been an infringement of those trademarks, and if so, to obtain a licence, so I ceased and desisted. A pity really; I’m sure it would’ve been a real corker.

Instead, here is an entertaining and informational rant about political correctness, trademark and copyright restrictions.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to know what a person can write without incurring the wrath of… someone. Don’t get me wrong—I appreciate the concepts and principles behind the laws, and I hope to benefit from them as my writing becomes better known—but the limitations are becoming ever more onerous. The need to differentiate one’s own creations from another’s is becoming both more pressing (due to greater awareness of rights) and more difficult (due to the sheer volume of material being created).

Political Correctness

I’ve written a couple of pieces involving seagulls (1) (2) recently, and when a third opportunity came up, I did an internet search for “seagull steals coins and newspaper” to try and get some different angles on the story. Turns out the little devils (oops—that might be a politically incorrect epithet) have no concept of ownership at all. Apart from the seagull that stole a bag of one pound coins and a newspaper on a ferry in England, reports and videos abound of seagulls stealing doritos, sandwiches, fish, crisps (potato chips to western Atlanticans), chips (french fries to western Atlanticans), nuts, GoPros, false teeth, golf balls… the list goes on.

Faced with such infamy, I don’t know if it would be ethical or politically correct to continue to use seagulls’ kleptomaniac tendencies (and/or inability to distinguish between edible and inedible objects) as the basis for a humorous article. Seagull advocacy groups everywhere would be up in arms if I did, I feel sure.

Several professional comedians, among them John Cleese and Jerry Seinfeld, have spoken out about political correctness making it difficult to be funny. Cleese is quoted as saying, “All humour is critical. If you start to say ‘Ooh we mustn’t criticize or offend them,’ then humour’s gone.”

It’s right and proper that we shouldn’t use race, disability, sexual orientation, nationality or other traits in a malicious way to get a laugh. However, jokes that would at one time have involved blondes, Irishmen, Newfoundlanders, Belgians, Poles, traffic wardens, bylaw officers, nerds, geeks and the like, now either cannot be told or have to be couched in abstract or other-world terms.

“How do you confuse a Martian? You put three shovels against the wall and tell him to take his pick.”

The joke loses its impact due to the disconnection of the situation from the stereotype it was originally aimed at. But at least it’s considered inoffensive.

Until we discover that there is life on Mars (wouldn’t David Bowie have been thrilled!) and that the male of the species is, in fact, a brick short of a load.

“Did you hear about the ant that thought a meteor was a brick-built prostitute?”

The joke was originally told in a cockney accent, where “meteor” could plausibly be mistaken for “meaty whore”. Ants are thought to be quite intelligent in their own little way, and they’re not known for speaking in a broad cockney accent, so the joke (poor though it is to start with) dies completely. Changing “ant” to “sloth” or “donkey” or “lemming” really isn’t going to resuscitate the joke.

I’m an ex-Brit. I’ve heard jokes about Brits, and I don’t recall being offended. A Pakistani once told me a joke about Brits; it played on his compatriots’ belief that Brits are an odoriferous bunch. I laughed. I’ve been called a whinging pommy bastard by an Antipodean. I laughed. I worked with a French guy of Algerian extraction, who had many ways to taunt rosbifs. I was intrigued—and I laughed.

All three of those examples are from encounters in the 1980s. I don’t know if these verbal brickbats were hurled with malice aforethought, but I saw no reason to complain to the police or the Race Relations Board or my dad.

I was looking through a two-volume set called “The Complete Far Side” as part of my preparation for another piece. (If you don’t know about The Far Side, read here.) It struck me that what was acceptable in the 1980s might not get published today, due to political correctness. Road kill, kids in jars, hunters about to become food, guns, bombs, cows plotting the overthrow of the farmer—so much insensitive material!

One cartoon (from 1986) caught my attention: in a town full of cows, bulls (or maybe steers—the cartoon is not “anatomically complete”) are working at road repair, and one is clearly wolf-whistling at a pretty heifer that’s walking by. Juxtapose this with the news that Nottinghamshire (England) Police are now classifying wolf-whistling as a hate crime, and you’ll see that something is out of whack.

The Oxford Dictionary defines a wolf whistle thus: “A whistle with a rising and falling pitch, directed towards someone to express sexual attraction or admiration.” Am I being totally insensitive by todays’ standards or is a whistle of admiration really a hate crime?

I’m pretty sure I can predict the arguments in favour. “Uncouth louts leering at pretty females in a most ungentlemanly way; their intended message is not admiration—it’s sexual interest pure and simple” might be a typical statement.

But is that attitude and sentiment not classist; judgemental; presumptuous? Who are these people to judge others? I’m not a wolf-whistler, and never have been, but I’ve never regarded the blowing of a wolf-whistle as anything more than an expression of admiration for or appreciation of a well-turned-out appearance. Maybe I’m naïve, but I fail to see why anyone should be offended by the giving of such a compliment, let alone regard it as a hate crime.

Now—if a wolf-whistle is accompanied by leering calls inviting the young lady to attend upon the callers in some unladylike fashion, then that is undoubtedly unwanted attention and should be treated as sexual harassment or something similar. But a whistle?

Perhaps it is me that’s naïve. After all, it’s called a wolf whistle, and wolves aren’t known for their subtlety or appreciation for the finer things in life. In fact, they’re known more as accomplished predators, hunting in packs. Perhaps when the whistle was given that name, a wolf whistle was a predatory action.

Ouch! 320 words about wolf-whistling! I hadn’t intended to be so specific!

Trademark

Trademark is another impediment to creativity, although I can appreciate the reasons. For example, Disney would likely take a dim view of Mickey and Minnie being placed in less than wholesome scenarios by a third party writer. Likewise, Harry Potter shouldn’t really be placed in a situation where he’s combatting the menace of Darth Vader (however well-intentioned) unless the respective trademark owners grant permission (which I doubt would be given.)

The piece I had started to write that imagined the Cluedo characters reacting to the demise of Mrs. White would not have harmed sales of the board game one iota. Yes, I was using the characters’ backstories to put words in their mouths and give them character-appropriate reactions. But I was casting aspersions on the moral integrity of Dr. Black’s wife, and conjectured on the possibility of Dr. Black and Mrs. White having been more than employer and employee. And that might have offended the game’s trademark owners. And since parody and satire are grey areas for me, I decided to steer clear.

I wonder if I should trademark my seagull characters?

Copyright

So much has been written about copyright that I’m pretty sure I have little if anything to say that’s new. But here’s one thought.

Copyright law has not kept pace with technology, and the heavy-handed efforts of certain mega corporations to eradicate copyright abuse did little to convince the population-at-large to respect copyright. Innocuous use of copyrighted material (such as music playing in the background during a recorded interview or someone wearing a recognizable logo while being filmed) is, if I understand correctly, strictly speaking, illegal. If that’s the case, then TV and film production companies must spend a fortune trying to stay out of trouble.

Surely, in our connected world, governments or third party organizations can come up with a micro payment collection service that would allow (for example) film makers to not worry about a coffee shop’s logo being in the background, or a clothing logo being worn by an interviewee.

If the fee were pennies, people would pay, I’m sure. (assuming the payment facilitators didn’t ding you a couple of bucks/quid/euros/whatever per transaction for the privilege.) And those pennies would add up, as would the savings from creating ever more complex and intrusive methods of mechanically protecting copyright.

Summary

So many people are self-publishing now. Whether it’s writings, or drawings or paintings, or music or photographs, people are able to do it, both online and on physical media. The downside is that there’s a lot of dross being published (including, some would say, my verbal voidings). The upside is that there’s a lot of good stuff out there that would never have seen the light of day when the record companies, publishing houses and Hollywood had the monopolies.

With self-publication comes the increased risk of infringing copyright, trademark, libel, and (apparently, if I wolf-whistle at a book signing in Nottinghamshire) hate crime laws. There’s also that whole political correctness thing which, in an effort not to offend, makes the edge of edginess (i.e., the line between acceptable and unacceptable) retreat further and further into blandness.

I still have faith in the pendular nature of attitudes and fashions, although, as age wearies me and the years condemn me, I wonder if I’ll live long enough for the pendulum to swing back to an age of enlightenment in which people don’t take offence by proxy and do realize that not all jokes and razzing are malicious.