New Rough Cut show

As some of you may know, Fine Woodworking and PBS are now showing a new Rough Cut with host Tom McLaughlin.
It's showing locally here in the SF Bay Area but not yet on the premium PBS channel.
I saw one show an have another recorded which I expect to watch today or tomorrow.
I enjoyed the previous version of the show but can see that this one is not only different in scope but of a high level of craftsmanship. No dog houses will be built here.
What to you all think?
MJ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'll look for it - thanks for the heads up. John T.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

WGBH-TV is sued by woodworking show host Tommy Mac
By Emily Sweeney Globe Staff April 27, 2018
Thomas J. MacDonald, who goes by the nickname "Tommy Mac," spent years filming himself while he built fine furniture. He posted the videos online for his weekly webcast, "The Rough Cut Show," and developed such a following that WGBH-TV eventually picked up the show.
MacDonald went on to host "Rough Cut: Woodworking With Tommy Mac," for seven seasons on WGBH, and after the last season ended in December 2016, he thought the series was over.
But it wasn’t. Last fall, MacDonald was surprised to find out that WGBH was promoting Season 8 of "Rough Cut," with a new host named Tom McLaughlin.
MacDonald is now suing WGBH for trademark infringement.
After not renewing his contract, WGBH partnered with Fine Woodworking magazine and changed the name of the show to "Rough Cut with Fine Woodworking." In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Boston, MacDonald alleges that WGBH pirated his name and image "to produce a counterfeit show."
WGBH disagrees and says it owns all the trademarks related to the series.
"The claims in this case have no basis in fact," WGBH said in an e-mailed statement. "Our agreement with Mr. MacDonald makes clear that WGBH owns the series title and all other trademarks relating to the series. WGBH has in no way suggested that Mr. MacDonald is involved with our new production. We hope to be able to resolve this issue."
The Fine Woodworking magazine website says, "WGBH has spent the last seven years building the Rough Cut brand. The brand is synonymous with the craft of fine woodworking."
"Tommy MacDonald has decided to branch out and pursue other opportunities on his own," the website says. "WGBH and Tommy MacDonald had seven great seasons working together on Rough Cut. Rough Cut is the strongest woodworking brand on public television and that brand continues on, with a new host."
According to the complaint, MacDonald worked as a carpenter until he injured his shoulder in 1997. He then embarked on a new career in cabinetry and woodworking and enrolled in the North Bennet Street School in the North End, and went on to promote himself and his work through online videos.
From 2006 to 2009, MacDonald produced a weekly, Web-based woodworking show called "The Rough Cut Show," "which ultimately had over 2 million page views and hundreds of thousands of followers," the complaint states. MacDonald filmed the show at his workshop in Canton, and the episodes appeared on Bob Vila’s website (www.BobVila.com) and on his own website, the complaint states.
MacDonald’s lawsuit alleges that WGBH, The Taunton Press, Inc. (the company that publishes Fine Woodworking magazine), and Laurie Donnelly, the executive producer of the series, "are infringing on the trademarks, name, picture, and reputation" of MacDonald.
In the complaint, attorney John J. E. Markham II argues that under the terms of MacDonald’s contract, WGBH was allowed to register a trademark for the title of the show (‘Rough Cut: Woodworking with Tommy Mac’) but should not have registered standalone trademarks for "Rough Cut" or his nickname, "Tommy Mac."
Markham filed a motion for a preliminary injunction Friday alleging that the defendants are "attempting to pirate" MacDonald’s "good name, his reputation, and his trademarks."
The motion seeks to stop WGBH from promoting the new show as "Season 8" and from using photos of MacDonald and the phrases "Rough Cut" and "Tommy Mac."
A memo filed in support of the motion states that "MacDonald has been known since the early 2000s as ‘Tommy Mac’ of ‘Rough Cut,’ the latter name being his longtime woodworking show. For many years, strangers have approached him on the street and called out ‘Hey, you’re Rough Cut!’ or ‘Hey, Tommy Mac!’?"
Markham said MacDonald is "very saddened" at the situation.
"Tommy MacDonald put his heart and soul into that show for seven years," Markham said in a telephone interview. "He is very saddened at what they’re doing, and he looks forward to having a quick court resolution."
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/04/27/wgbh-sued-woodworking-show-host-tommy-mac/N72LnhoElILTKPC9vxvMFO/story.html <https://current.org/2018/04/former-host-of-wgbh-woodworking-show-files-trademark-infringement-suit/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/24/2018 6:09 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:

Sounds like Tommy should have had a sharper lawyer up front and did some trademark filings.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/25/18 9:47 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Exactly. He's being a bit of a crybaby. Good news is, maybe I'll be able to watch that show now that he's not on it. I couldn't take more than 30 seconds of his annoying voice and exaggerated mannerisms.
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/25/2018 10:47 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Cohen was busy with other things at the time and didn't return his calls...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

It's all about the Benjamins. I predict a fairly swift payout to T Mac to make it go away.
WGBH: "We hope to be able to resolve this issue." T-Mac's lawyer: "looks forward to having a quick court resolution."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My bet is that he signed over the rights when they hired him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 10:50:26 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

I am in 100% agreement with you. Somewhere in the body of the contract tha t is no doubt 2" thick between TM and the station, and more importantly sin ce the producer is the station, there will be nomenclature similar to "WGBH (hereinafter known in this document as "the station") shall retain complet e and total ownership of all trademarks, copyrights, patents, devices, prot ocols, methodology, inventions, or any other work developed, displayed or e mployed by the TM for WGBH, the station, its affiliates, its associates, or the production company. Further, the station retains ownership of all int ellectual property, promotional material including, but not limited to, lik enesses, slogans, promotional videos, accompanying music, theme music, tran sitional video techniques, used in the show that are developed for the use of the show at the request or expense of the production company while in pr oduction."
Think of 50 pages defining their view of intellectual property, or ideas an d inventions that were discussed during the production of the show but neve r realized. Still, in these cases, if you thought of it while you worked f or the, your thoughts are their property.
I have read a lot about PBS and their development and production of shows. They learned a lot from the people that owned "Barney", that insanely moro nic purple dinosaur. PBS needed the money, and since they produced the sho w and were the sole broadcasters of it, they sued for a share of the insane profits that show made. PBS lost. They sued again, and lost again. The people that created that purple dinosaur only allowed PBS to produce and br oadcast the show. There were books, dolls, etc., and all manner of income streams that were generated, and PBS saw nothing from it. ZERO.
The admin that ran PBS at the time released a statement after the second lo ss in court that said the "Barney" business model would never again be used by PBS. They would either own outright, or not produce. Broadcast, yes. But if they were to go through the development, writing, producing, promot ion and all the other tasks of bringing a show alive, it was to be theirs.
Check it out:
https://current.org/1995/03/what-did-barney-earn-and-why-didnt-pbs-get-more /
Hard to believe the federal government paid to have the show made and when successful, the owners of the show kept ALL the money.
Betcha TM never read (or understood) the contract...
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/26/2018 1:51 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

You're going to give me how much? When? Where do I sign?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/26/2018 6:29 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Exactly! Wasn't Tommy's series a spin off from SNL's Wayne's World? ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/25/2018 10:50 PM, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

Agreed, Tommy probably wet his pants with the opportunity of being on a nationwide TV show came up. WGBH saw this is one of thousands that they have signed on and are well versed in crossing the t's and dotting the I's long before they approached Tommy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/25/2018 10:50 PM, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

Then again, wouldn't put it past WGBH to try to get away with more than what is actually in the contract, either.
Too little information available to be able draw any conclusions.
--




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure but every employment contract I've signed has a clause saying that whatever I do, they own. Usually, they try to say that everything I've ever done belongs to them, too, but I don't worry about such silliness.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:33:21 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

g
k court

ome

That's why I don't do anything when I'm at work. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 27 May 2018 17:44:13 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. There's no way you can prove anything!     -Bart Simpson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/27/2018 7:33 PM, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:
...

But those contracts didn't include owning you or your name or previous work and value created ere employment or outside of the specifics conveyed by the contract did they?
What, specifically was and was not covered in what could be considered within and without the bounds of registering trademarks, use of name and similar is totally unknonswt here; they want it all; he thinks he didn't give it all away -- a judge will decide or they'll reach an out of court settlement most likely. How big a settlement will be a clue as to just how out of bounds they are altho, of course, likelihood will be it'll one of those claimed of "no fault, settled to avoid costly litigation" as the excuse to not have to 'fess up to being way out of bounds.
--




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some did, sure. They're unenforceable, though. Some wanted a list of everything I'd done that I considered exempt from the contract (yeah, that's going to happen).

It was stated as "intellectual property" - a pretty broad brush. In this case, they picked up his show and had to have rights to the name. It may be that the contract stated that they could use the name (it would have to) but likely that they now owned the name.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Per the USPTO web site:
"ROUGH CUT WOODWORKING WITH TOMMY MAC" registered April 12 2011, registrant WGBH, with Thomas MacDonald's consent to register on record. "Woodworking" explicitly excluded from the trademark.
"Rough Cut" registered March 1, 2011, WGBH.
"Tommy Mac", first use in commerce 12/30/2010, filing date May 21, 2018, applicant Thomas J. MacDonald LLC.
Now, whether WGBH misrepresented the authorization to the USPTO is another story, but it looks like he's trying to close the barndoor after the horse has left.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe en ought to cover the cost of his new shop and tools too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.