Hatrack River Forum: Nitpick: It's not "Claymation"...

This is topic Nitpick: It's not "Claymation"... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=040473

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

...reading the latest OSC reviews everything column, I felt compelled to pick a nit. [Big Grin]

King Kong did not use "Claymation". That term is a registered, active trademark of Will Vinton's studio. They did the "California Raisins" commercials years ago.

KK and other films using stop-motion models may or may not use clay...all use Stop Motion animation. Most of them use a mixture of puppets, models, and tools made out of all sorts of materials.

Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :

was Gumby claymation?

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :

Did you know this from your own studies, or was it brought it up somewhere else and you're repeating it?

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

I know this from a letter Will Vinton Studios sent to Mad Magazine when the magazine referred to someone as a "claymation dwarf" in one of their articles.

Gumby was made by Art Clokey (sp?) not Will Vinton.

It's like "Kleenex" or "Jell-O"...one brand grew so famous that people began referring to every other product of the kind by that name.

Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :

that's sad, I liked thinking Gumby was claymation.

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

It was clay, animated. But Clokey cannot use the term "claymation" without Mr. Vinton objecting. [Razz]

Posted by sarcare (Member # 8736) on :

But I think that OSC actually used the term clay animation to describe the previous King Kong, and then said it would upset fans of claymation, not that they were the same.

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :

quote:

I know this from a letter Will Vinton Studios sent to Mad Magazine when the magazine referred to someone as a "claymation dwarf" in one of their articles.

That's really interesting.

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :

I do note that he capitalized "Claymation" in the article, so disregard this thread. My mistake. [Smile]

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :

I'm guessing that's one of those trademarked names that's pretty impossible to defend. It's been appropriated by the English-speaking public.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

*continues to call it claymation*

Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :

So, I can call it Klaymation? But not Claymation?

Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :

I prefer to refer to it as kleighmeishun.

[Wink]

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :

My Dad is a copyright lawyer- you can't stop people from using your trademarked word as a descriptor, except that for instance, a new studio can't call their process "Joe's Claymation." However most likely, if the new studio described what it did as claymation, and the process was indeed similar or identical, then the word is used fairly and the inventor has no claim to it in that context. You can't stop people from using any words whatsoever, except where those words are specifically used to describe your product in a unique phrase which is Trademarked.

An interesting AP English topic was about this in the 90's. Some may be familiar with the Grove Press Vs. Coca Cola inc. argument over the phrase: "Its the Real Thing." But in that case, the phrase was not even trademarked.