The phrase Netflix adultery popped out at me when I read this Maureen O’Connor column in New York magazine. Netflix adultery is when you secretly watch a show that you had promised to watch with your partner.
A quick Googling shows that O’Connor didn’t coin the term, but it is quite recent. There are numerous hits from various sites, all within the last two weeks.
I immediately thought of the construction _____ porn, as in food porn or war porn, and wondered if there were other similar _____ adultery terms. Sure enough, Urban Dictionary has movie adultery going back to 2004. Urban Dictionary also records soapdultery from 2008, although that is slightly different in that entails watching a different soap opera.
Is Netflix adultery going to catch on? (As a term, that is; as a phenomenon it’s inevitable.) Or is it just a flash in the pan, a flurry of articles about a topic the media is temporarily interested in?
A month ago I reported on the unfortunate situation with funding for the Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE). The situation has improved significantly.
A number of contributors have stepped up to the plate. An anonymous donor has contributed $100,000 and the American Dialect Society has pitched in $30,000. The University of Wisconsin has also given the project $100,000 and budgeted and additional $130,000 for the next three years. So the immediate crisis has passed.
But while this funding will keep the lights on, it’s not sufficient for all their needs. If you’re able to contribute, you can do so (tax free in the US) via this page.
Trademarking “Día De Los Muertos”
This is a bit off topic for wordorigins.org, but I’ve addressed intellectual property issues before, and while I mostly focus on copyright, distinguishing between copyright and trademark is an important thing to do—especially if you’re a reporter writing a story about it.
Disney’s Pixar Studios has an upcoming film based on the Mexican cultural celebration, and Disney made an initial effort to trademark the phrase Día de los Muertos and several other movie related terms and images. After the public outcry, Disney announced they were withdrawing the trademark application.
Let me make clear, Disney’s attempt to create trademarks around Día de los Muertos was a very bad idea, but only because the reaction to it was so predictable. People were bound to assume that Disney was trying to “steal” a cultural tradition. You even got respectable outlets like Language Log publishing an article titled “Is Christmas Next?” It’s purely a public relations problem, not an example of an evil corporation attempting to appropriate a cultural tradition. Not that I don’t think Disney is capable of doing bad things—it has, for example, a reputation in Hollywood as a horrible place to work—but in this case I don’t think Disney intended anything nefarious.
The problem is that people don’t know what a trademark is. They confuse it with patents and copyrights, but it’s really quite different. Trademark law is essentially a consumer protection measure that ensures that products and services are labeled in such a way that one doesn’t confuse one company’s products with another. Trademark is not “ownership,” like copyright or patent. Disney, if had been successful in its trademark bid, it could not have prevented people from celebrating the holiday, or collected royalties from those that did. All it could do under trademark law would be to prevent people from making knock-off products and duping consumers. Trademark law protects a company’s profits from being poached by manufacturers of cheap knock-offs, and it protects consumers by ensuring they’re not mistakenly buying an inferior product. When trademarks are associated with widely known phrases, like Día de los Muertos, the trademark is usually limited to a specific graphical and typographical reproductions. In other words, other companies can still sell Día de los Muertos products, they just can’t label them in the same manner as the Disney movie and its associated products are labeled.
This is a case where a company took what was legally the correct course of action, but which was an incredibly stupid thing to do. Situations like this arise when you put lawyers in charge with no checks on their authority. Lawyers do what’s best for their client under the law, not necessarily what is smart.
[Addition: Svinyard118 makes an excellent point in the comments which I probably should have included when I originally wrote this post. The degree to which Disney’s action truly is objectionable depends on the scope of the trademark claim, which we don’t really know. (We know the categories of products that fall under Disney’s claim, which are numerous and broad, but we don’t know exactly what Disney was trying to trademark.) I assumed that the claim was that the phrase “Día de los Muertos” itself is not trademarked, but that Disney was only trying to trademark specific graphical representations of the phrase, as is typically the case when someone tries to trademark a term or phrase that is in common use. It’s possible that Disney threw out a wider net, claiming that all uses of the phrase in relation to marketing products in a number of broad categories is trademarked, which would be an evil act. Such a wide claim would likely not stand up to a legal challenge, but few companies have the deep pockets needed to go head-to-head with Disney in court, so a wide claim might work.
A Surfeit of Canadian Slang
There is a particular genre of news article in which a columnist attempts to pack in as many slang words into the available space as possible. The news “value” of such an article is that it supposedly shows “how weird our language is” or “what the cool kids are saying.” In actuality, there is little value in the articles. They’re usually written by going through lists of slang terms and constructing sentences that use as many of the words as possible, so language researchers find little value in them. And, since no one in the real world ever uses so many slang terms at once, these articles give a false impression of how slang is actually used. In real speech, when one comes across an unfamiliar slang term, it’s meaning can usually be deduced from the context. By packing in as many weird words as possible, all context is lost. If there was any context to begin with, since, after all, the point of the article is to make use of random words.
Yet, these articles can be fun.
One such appeared yesterday in The National Post by Dave Bidini that features Canadian slang and regionalisms. A sample from the opening paragraph:
I got off the chesterfield, threw on my old housecoat and thongs, hucked a forty pounder, half-sack of swish and mickey of goof in a Loblaws bag over my shoulder before leaving my bachelor apartment to head due west past fire halls and hydros and parkades and corner stores in the direction of Dead Rear, Oilberta looking for some kind of joe job — cleaning eavestroughs; stitching hockey sweaters; packing Smarties; anything! — although damned if I knew whether I would find work once I got there.
I’ve been living in Canada for almost three years now. I can understand roughly half of the article.
Interactive Map of San Francisco Toponyms
Noah Veltman, a Knight-Mozilla News Fellow at the BBC, has created an interactive map that displays the origin of place names (mostly street names) in San Francisco. It’s well-designed and easy to use.
I can’t vouch for the accuracy, which is notoriously difficult to achieve with toponymic etymologies, but if the account in this KQED article is correct, it’s probably as accurate as can be: “Reliability was an issue, he said. He tried to cross-check all his facts, because often one source would tell one story and another source would tell it slightly differently. ‘It’s a lot of just manual legwork,” Veltman said. “Looking at old archives, school books, old newspaper articles from The Chronicle, checking out historical society pages. There were certainly no shortcuts.’”
[Tip o’ the Hat to Mic Michelsen]
Copyright 1997-2014, by David Wilton