It is also important to make the distinction between a song title and
an artist's moniker.
An artist's name (i.e. Aphex Twin) is, in the world of business, a brand
name. Artists and record companies go to great lengths to establish
brand identity, with the exact same goals as companies like Kimberly Clark
and Nabisco.
The titles of works of art are not subject to copyright or trademark.
Conversely, I think that you wouldn't get far calling a song title a
trademark infringement. The category error -- a Brand versus a finite
work of art, is actually recognized legally.
I think the reason Aphex didn't go after Aphex Twin more forcefully
was that it's a relatively small company, and it's not lost on them
that Aphex Twin has probably raised their brand's visibility in ways
they'd never be able to do on their own. The notice on the CDs
is a win win.
By contrast, I doubt he could have lasted long as the Coca Cola Twin
or the Kleenex Twin.
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, EggyToast wrote:
quoted 13 lines Irene McC said:
> Irene McC said:
> > Listening to Panasonic's Kulma over the weekend made me think of
> how
> > they had to change their name to Pan Sonic and Hoover and now
> > Hooverphonic.
> >
> > Yet Aphex 'gets away' with tracks titled Alberto Balsam and Ventolin.
> >
> > How does this work? And where's the logic?
>
> yet aphex has to put on all of his releases now that Aphex is a
> registered trademark of Aphex Systems, makers of some music gear.
>