CazGirl Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 I don't see why she had to copyright the name in the first place. HER NAME IS SOPHIE. I know her surname begins with "Micha" or something, and Mika was her nickname or something or other... but.. Okay. My family nickname is Pidge. Has been since I was a baby and no-one knows why. It's like me wanting to become famous, copyright the name Pidge even though my name is Caroline, and then someone whose real name IS Pidge (God help them) comes along. I'm not being funny, but if it's THEIR REAL NAME, they should also have the right to keep it. If it were me I would respect that. But ofcourse, I'm not Sophie. *grumble grumble* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikaaloverr Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Here's the picture of that woman....Her hair gives me nightmares...like it will come to life! *runs to the Mikagasmic Pics thread to compliment the trauma* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becky Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 ^^I just truly woudn't bother copyrighting my name. Jeez, do you know how many Becky's I know? The arguements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindor_love_today Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I just think it's ridiculous and pathetic that she's doing this 20 years after she even released her single. I mean Abba had a song called Ring Ring. You don't see them coming along suing Mika for releasing a song with the same name. The way I see it, unless it's causing her an actual loss, the law shouldn't allow her to win. Whether they do or not is a case of wait and see (if it even gets that far). If Mika has to change his name, though, I'll be disgusted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CazGirl Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 *runs to the Mikagasmic Pics thread to compliment the trauma* LMFAO I'm sorry but that was so funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikaaloverr Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 LMFAO I'm sorry but that was so funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikaaloverr Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Hey guys. Just thinking... I know how the MFC has wanted to become the OFFICIAL Mika fan club for a while now. If he DOES change his name to Mica, for example... would it still be mikafanclub.com ? Or micafanclub.com ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soangel Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I just think it's ridiculous and pathetic that she's doing this 20 years after she even released her single. I mean Abba had a song called Ring Ring. You don't see them coming along suing Mika for releasing a song with the same name. The way I see it, unless it's causing her an actual loss, the law shouldn't allow her to win. Whether they do or not is a case of wait and see (if it even gets that far). If Mika has to change his name, though, I'll be disgusted! Ok, firstly, why are we still talking about this For ythe record, for those who may have got confused, there is no law stating you cannot release a song by the same name. Copyright forbids relelasing the same song, or sampling a song without paying royalties but names are fair game, and often songs by the same name can be found released at the same time. For example, my mum once own a cd called the power of love, which has a collection of songs from the 80s called the power of love. There is no problem with this and no grounds to sue Yeah, but Caz is right. The law is the law. He can't just ignore it. Though, she'd could have done it with a little more dignity. I honestly dont think she would be able to get him to properly change his name or get universal to give her some money. Becuase, like you say, she ISNT known, so it doesnt make any difference. They might have to be reffered to as Mika of London or Mika of Belgium or whatever. The way in which she has gone about this is the reason why universal will, inevitably, pay her off. By making a big fuss over it there is no way Universal can ignore her, or her claim. Yes it would be desirable that she not go to the press about it, or cause a scene in the way she has, but think about it this way. If she hadn't gone to the press, universal could have given her a small payout, problem solved. However, because she has gone to the press everyone knows about it, and while they are ridiculing her, most people admit she is in the right. It follows then, that if she is in the right then Universal is in the wrong, and so ultimately they will pay her, to settle it. If she is smart she will accept an out of court settlement, there is less fees involved and less risk. And because she went to the press this settlement will be a greater one than if she had quitely approached them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lollipop_monkey Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 However, because she has gone to the press everyone knows about it, and while they are ridiculing her, most people admit she is in the right. You know, thinking about it, I don't know if she is in fact in the right. Admittedly I don't know enough about copyright law - particularly Belgian copyright law - to know if a solo artist can in fact call dibs, so to speak, on a particular stage name. She said she "registered" the name, but with whom? And if it's a Belgian entity she registered it with, does that entity have any jurisdiction outside of Belgium? I'm sure knowing who's really right would involve a law degree and about 46 very heavy legal textbooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IngievV Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 You know, thinking about it, I don't know if she is in fact in the right. Admittedly I don't know enough about copyright law - particularly Belgian copyright law - to know if a solo artist can in fact call dibs, so to speak, on a particular stage name. She said she "registered" the name, but with whom? And if it's a Belgian entity she registered it with, does that entity have any jurisdiction outside of Belgium? I'm sure knowing who's really right would involve a law degree and about 46 very heavy legal textbooks. I think it will only be legitimite in Belgium, since she registered it at a Belgium organisation that, as far as I'm concerned, isn't international... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn Mastin Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Its more likely that if she talks enough there will be a settlement before these things go to court. Personally... I think I'd rather if Mika did change his name rather than give her money. After all, that and free publicity is what she is after (and, really is what we are giving her, even if it is negative publicity, by constantly posting on here, are we not?) The problem with copyrght law is, it would work in Mika's favour if someone was trying to steal his work, but this just plain sucks! I've been racking my brains, but if our maestro called himself Mika Penniman, she couldn't do anything about it. WE... of course would still call him Mika, and the only time he would get Penniman, would be on the record labels, and other such official stuff. I actually don't thind he needs to change his given name to c, instead of k. From Marilyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now