Lose Your Respect for the Chili Peppers too!

[The Sam Kinnison Corps]

I'm sure the Red Hot Chili Peppers were the first ones to ever use the term "Californication." As such, they deserve bajillions of dollars for inventing such a grand word.

[J12]

I wouldn't have thought much of it if the show was simply called Californication, but to also have a character named Dani California is slightly odd.

Granted, I don't necessarily agree with the Chili Peppers here, but it does make me raise an eyebrow over the situation.

[K5]

i'm fairly positive frusciante gives a damn about his fans, and i don't really care what anyone has to say to that.

[Deleted]

chilli peppers suck. they're all old and burnt out.

[King Shocker the Monumentous]

j122 said:

I wouldn't have thought much of it if the show was simply called Californication, but to also have a character named Dani California is slightly odd.

...except she's hot.

Mac Culkin must've been high to divorce that shit.

[amxfiles]

I lost most respect for at least Flea when he was all pissy on the Weird Al behind the music complaining about Weird Al's parody.

[Revvie®]

I'm not really sure if her name is Dani California. I know her name is Dani(sp) im not really sure if its spelled that way and she was only once referred to as Dani California in a mockingly way by Duchovny during one episode as if he were making a small reference to the song or w/e, not really her actual name. And If her name is just Dani and there is not immediate proof that her full name is Dani California then it makes the lawsuit even more bogus.

Then not only do you have a claim of ownership of a word that was never originally theirs but also claim of her name being something that it never was save for a smart ass remark by a character in reference to said name.

This lawsuit has no groundings...its just sad.

[King Shocker the Monumentous]

greyshadow04dna said:

I'm not really sure if her name is Dani California. I know her name is Dani(sp) im not really sure if its spelled that way and she was only once referred to as Dani California in a mockingly way by Duchovny during one episode as if he were making a small reference to the song or w/e, not really her actual name. And If her name is just Dani and there is not immediate proof that her full name is Dani California then it makes the lawsuit even more bogus.

If you look really closely at the ep where she sends Charlie the pictures (I know I did ), you'll see that her Suicide Girls screenname is Dani CA.

[Revvie®]

cantstoptheshock said:

greyshadow04dna said:

I'm not really sure if her name is Dani California. I know her name is Dani(sp) im not really sure if its spelled that way and she was only once referred to as Dani California in a mockingly way by Duchovny during one episode as if he were making a small reference to the song or w/e, not really her actual name. And If her name is just Dani and there is not immediate proof that her full name is Dani California then it makes the lawsuit even more bogus.

If you look really closely at the ep where she sends Charlie the pictures (I know I did ), you'll see that her Suicide Girls screenname is Dani CA.

that again could be mere play on words b/c of the song. unless it says in the scripts and such that her name is indeed dani california, they cant really hold that to anything pluse i dont think you can sue over a name of a character b/c it resembles a song name.....or anything else for that matter.

[heartbreakkid2k3]

I kinda took that to mean "Dani from California", not that her name is Dani California.

[compton]

greyshadow04dna said:

cantstoptheshock said:

If you look really closely at the ep where she sends Charlie the pictures (I know I did ), you'll see that her Suicide Girls screenname is Dani CA.

that again could be mere play on words b/c of the song. unless it says in the scripts and such that her name is indeed dani california, they cant really hold that to anything pluse i dont think you can sue over a name of a character b/c it resembles a song name.....or anything else for that matter.

Actually, yeah you can sue. Why do you think that ALL movies have the same "...any resemblance is purely coincidence" disclaimer?

[compton]

crofsblogs.typepad.com/fiction/2005/01/any_resemblance.html


Any Resemblance is Purely Coincidental


A writer recently asked me:
I'm working on a novel and want to use the names of colleges, counties, and landmarks. Are there any legalities that I need to be aware of? The use of these names are not to suggest any type of culpability on their part, but to make the novel more realistic.

(Example: For the first time in the history of Brigham Young University, their men's basketball team was on the verge of capturing the school's first national title; little did anyone know that it was to be a moment everyone would remember for the disaster that was about to unfold.)

Read almost any mainstream novel and you'll find plenty of references to real places, real organizations, and even real people. It looks as if you could mention them all with impunity. But it's not always that easy.

Certainly it lends believability to the story to set it on the campus of BYU, or Harvard, or Microsoft. But we should be careful when we do so—for literary as well as legal reasons.

The legal reasons have to do with characters who may be identifiable to those who know the organization. I have no idea who's coaching BYU's basketball team these days, but a lot of people must. Just changing the name won't be enough. Any trait that coach possesses could cause people to say "Aha! So that's what the guy is really like."

Fictional Invasion of Privacy
You don't even have to say false and libelous things about the coach. Even saying nice things about him could get you sued for invasion of privacy...and even more so if you're saying nice things about the coach's spouse. The coach, after all, is a public figure; under the principle of fair comment, he has to expect some public criticism. His spouse, however, is probably minding her own business and therefore doesn't have to put up with BS from the media.

No less a figure than John Le Carré went out of his way, in his recent novel The Constant Gardener, to assure his readers that the British embassy he portrayed in his fictional Nairobi was utterly unlike the real one—especially in the staff. And as an ex-spy, he has always taken pains to remind us that the techniques and shop talk he invented for the George Smiley novels are not the "tradecraft" of real intelligence agencies.

Only at BYU
We should use real settings if we have solid literary reasons for doing so. If we set a novel on the BYU campus, we're telling our readers that only at BYU, and nowhere else, could this story take place. The university is itself a character in the story, and its culture influences the characters and the story's outcome. Set the story at U of Nebraska, or Brown, or McGill, and it will be a different story.

Sometimes an author will create a fictitious setting, like Tom Wolfe's "Dupont University" in his latest novel. Then he can invoke the Ivy League aura of Harvard or Yale without tripping on technical details (or accidentally portraying a real professor). Evan Hunter, in his 87th Precinct novels, rotates Manhattan 90 degrees, changes New York's name to "Isola," and sends his cops out into streets that are familiar but designed for the author's convenience. These are often useful strategies, though many readers really do want that documentary feel of strolling through Harvard Yard or necking in the subway station at 116th and Broadway.

Well, that's the long answer. The short answer is: Use real settings when you need to; always make the characters are your own invention, however much they share the culture of their settings.

[ogsean]

uwf said:

ogsean said:

I started watching the show today. But it's ridiculous. I mean, it's like the makers of King Kong suing Peter Jackson for stealing their name. That's the thing, it's not possible!

There can be no copyright on a name, so you can't sue for infringement, there is no problem!

A name is a name, there is no stealing, because there is no ownership!

That's why it's ridiculous, and intellectually- disabled, and the RHCP are obviously bitter that this show has become successful, and they feel they are owed something for naming a different medium by the same name.

lmao, bitter?

Why would they be bitter if its dong well? Californication was a pretty succesfull album.

And so what if they dont like that they've took the name? Loads of people would do the same ffs. Im not gonna stp listening to them.

To the comment above, the chili peppers obviously care about their fans, considering they have just completed a 18 month tour for Stadium Arcadium all around the world non-stop ffs. Tell me how thats is being selfish and in it for the money?

Tell me, how much did it cost to get into their concert?


Now, if it were free, or less than $30, I would say maybe they're just doing it barely above operation costs. No, they're doing it (on an EXTRA LONG tour) to bleed as much money as they can.