Yea, tar baby. Literate people with even a modicum of education know exactly what I'm referring to. Not necessarily. I got lucky and had access to the Enid Blyton rewrites, but not everyone has access even to those in my generation because of the increasing amount of works that are out of print, and nobody can google something they've never heard of.
I had a party in the past with Sonic shots and Eggman-nog; Sega never got on my case. The fact is that if you market something with broad appeal, then you can expect unanticipated uses of your IP. That doesn't make such uses infringing just because "Think of the children!" so your appeal to morals is a strawman which fails.
The difference is that in your example, each album (and each song, incidentally) is a complete work in its own right, whereas in my example, each character is only a small part of a work which is each anime episode and each game.
No matter what, James Woods may not be a cocaine addict, but he has made it clear that he can dish it out but can't take it back when people make fun of him. What a clown. Actually, James Woods is the very opposite of a clown what with his red face and white nose. ;)
Okay, I concede your point that this is about copyright, but there were still no laws being broken. Considering the four factors of fair use: 1 The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use The purpose of the use is to advertise a franchise themed party to likeminded individuals, affirming the fandom and potentially creating more fans from the plus ones. This factor weighs in the direction of fair use. 2 The Nature of the Copyrighted Work The copyrighted work has been published internationally in various formats, so this factor swings very heavily in the direction of fair use. 3 The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken Defendants copied a few of the copyrighted images, which isn't even a fifth of the amount that have been created for the games and anime. This factor is in the direction of fair use. 4 The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market Defendants sought to throw a party, not to create a rival cartoon or game. This factor weighs heavily in the direction of fair use. 5 The “Fifth” Fair Use Factor: Are You Good or Bad? Defendants are fans of Pokémon, so that makes them good. This factor weighs in the direction of fair use. So there you have it: fair use = no infringement, and since nothing was infringed, the party and the activities surrounding it cannot be illegal. I repeat: Jones and Shore didn't break the law. Simples! (Info on fair use factors taken from the Stanford University Library website.)
Mycroft, I suppose, is a unique enough sound that the device can listen for it without the need for an additional trigger — though it remains to be seen whether it will be accidentally awoken by episodes of the BBC's Sherlock. Which would make the word 'Ubi' even more unique, so why the need to say okay first for it? Not that I'll ever find out for myself. I don't like the idea of all my conversations being captured (even if I'm assured they're not retained) on the chance I'll trigger a voice-activated command. What's wrong with the Clapper from Bruce Almighty as a trigger?
Well, I don't know about France, but in both the UK and the US, it's perfectly legal to access content via a web browser so long as that content is legally hosted. Since all of George Orwell's works are Public Domain in Australia and Canada...
Oh, for Christ's sake! Could you please use your brain this time? Plagiarism is quite simply the offence of causing people to believe that you're the creator of something written by someone else. Check a dictionary if you don't believe me.
They broke the law. Actually, no they didn't. Read the following carefully: "5th Annual Unofficial Pokémon PAX Kickoff Party." Yes, they used the word Pokémon, but so what? If the party is about Pokémon, as it would seem to be, that right there is classic nominative use. And the fact that they stated it's an unofficial party only helps their case since it's a pretty clear disclaimer of any connection with the franchise other than the fact that they are fans of it. You can't use somebody's copyright for your own financial gain. Except nobody was making Pokémon themed items to sell, they were making them for a Pokémon themed party. Come back when you have a better understanding of trademark law.
Plagiarism is where I take something suitably obscure of Shakespeare's or Byron's and put it online under my name. Copyright infringement? Of works in the Public Domain? Argument failed. Next strawman, please.