Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

'Hackademy Awards' Raise Hackles
February 23, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

The 'winners' at the 'Hackademy Awards' differed from the films honored at this week's Oscars -- and the recipients didn't show up to pick up their awards. But the name of the program, designed to raise awareness about smoking in movies, didn't sit well with the organizers of the Academy Awards.

The Los Angeles Times reported Feb. 19 that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) has challenged the Hackademy Awards with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office. The awards, given annually since 1997, are a project of Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails.

Breathe California trademarked the name Hackademy Awards two years ago, but AMPAS is seeking to have the trademark revoked. "We are obliged to protect our trademark in all cases because if we don't protect it in one instance, it diminishes our ability to protect it in others," said AMPAS spokesperson Leslie Unger. "We have no opinion whatsoever on what they're doing, merely the phrase they're using. We can't allow that to become confused with this organization in any way."

This year's "thumbs down" Hackademy Award went to "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," which organizers said included more than 100 instances of cigarette smoking without addressing negative consequences. The "thumbs up" award went to "What Happens in Vegas," which had no smoking scenes.

"There was no tobacco and nobody missed it," said Breathe California deputy director Kori Titus. "Nobody left the movie saying, 'I can't believe they didn't show tobacco.' The point is that it's rarely so integral to the plot and people rarely miss it when it's not there."

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Carolyn on 24 Feb 09 06:37 PM EST
I think AMPAS has a legitimate point about wanting to protect their trademark name. I'm sure Breathe California could come up with an alternate name for their awards program and still get their message across.

Posted by Phil on 25 Feb 09 09:54 AM EST
AMPAS might have had a case if they had filed their challenge immediately upon learning of the trademark filing by Breathe California. The long association between tobacco companies and Hollywood is a more likely influence in the decision to challenge the Hackademy Awards trademark. If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog and barks like a dog...

Posted by Chaz on 27 Feb 09 01:53 PM EST
Altering a name for comic or satirical effect is considered "Fair use". Just ask "Weird Al" Yankovic who makes a living spoofing popular songs.

Posted by David Bergstein on 02 Mar 09 10:17 AM EST
Hollywood has long encouraged negative behavior (alcohol, tobacco and illegal drug use, pimping, prostitution, robbery, murder, foul language...) with a smug immunity. All without caring about the damage being done. It's about time someone called them on it, and by Hollywood suing, they only bring more attention to the "Hackademy Awards."

Posted by bd on 02 Mar 09 12:16 PM EST
Education as to tobacco's deletorious effects is laudable. Airbrushing movies to fit some picket-fence view of the world is not. Art isn't supposed to serve as a blueprint for your life or your children's. At its best, it reflects all of life, dark and light. Teach your children critical thinking skills and aesthetic principles. And if you can't do that, stick with family-friendly tripe at the movies.

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 02 Mar 09 03:57 PM EST
David Bergstein points out, "Hollywood has long encouraged negative behavior (alcohol, tobacco and illegal drug use, pimping, prostitution, robbery, murder, foul language...) with a smug immunity" and I would add reckless driving with non-fatal car chases to the mix. How about we censor ALL movies with ANY of these things in them? - = -= - Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" (who is appalled they occasionally show a smoker on that nice show Dexter about the friendly serial killer hero who dismembers his victims in every episode.)

Posted by gb on 03 Mar 09 05:32 PM EST
Regarding the comment referring to Hollywood films as "art"... that ship has long since sailed. Very little of almost nothing that Hollywood generates can be considered art. For a vry long time it has been no more than the routine, commercial manufacturing of disposable video for profit by its investors. So let's not get distracted or muddy the waters regarding the issue at hand.

Posted by bd on 04 Mar 09 01:15 PM EST
gb, you've made my argument for me. Not every picture in a gallery is the quality of a Michelangelo -- there's a lot of bad art -- but if you support painting fig leaves on any of them -- well. It's kind of like the old joke, we've established what you are, now we're just haggling about price. Funny thing is, the disposable junk coming out of Hollywood is precisely the stuff made for people who want bureaucrats to decide what's "integral" to a plot and to remove anything ostensibly offensive.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines