Category: Copyright

Share via email

Today has been designated by the World Intellectual Property Organization as IP Day, the anniversary of the day WIPO came into force.  This celebration is provides an opportunity to appreciate how intellectual property is inextricably embedded into so many aspects of our lives.  More and more, the various forms of intellectual property, and the laws governing them, are entering into the public eye and media.

It is undeniable that the public at large is getting more involved in IP issues.  The somewhat noticeable spike in Google searches for SOPA in January of this year is not likely due to an increased interest in fried pastries.  Blogs, articles, and involvement in IP matters have been on the increase.  What’s more, there has been a noticeable uptick in IP-related cases being granted certiorari by SCOTUS.

Given this preamble, one must ask what the best way to celebrate this ever increasingly important holiday?  I have a few suggestions.

There are innumerable top ten lists about weird and strange IP registrations.  A recent favorite of mine is Context-Free Patent Art which, well, should just be experienced.  Or, you can always just take a gander at the most recently issued patents and trademarks (in the U.S., at least).  Or engage in a lively discussion with this guy.  No matter what, know that merely by engaging in your own edification and contributing to the ongoing discussion, you elevate IP practice and direct its progress towards a more perfect system.

Share via email

By Daniel Davidson

The trial, which started in Mach of this year, has finally ended with the accused being the victors.  The suit which was filed by brothers and writers, Aaron and Mathew Benay, accused producers Marshall Herskovitz, Ed Zwick, and their production company, of stealing the script that their agent pitched, also titled ‘The Last Samurai,’ and including an American civil war hero becoming a samurai.

The jury, after seven days, finally came to a decision that the script was never put in front of Bedford Falls, and therefore, could have never been stolen.  This left the remaining matters of the lawsuit, including the issue that an implied contract existed between the parties, moot.

Earlier in this drawn out litigation, an appeals court affirmed the dismissal of a copyright infringement allegation and remanded the matter to the lower court to ultimately determine if there was any implied contract between the parties.  The answer to that question was no, without the question ever being answered.  From the jury’s deliberation, they came to the conclusion that the initial element of there even being a potential implied contract was lacking.  No script, no contract, no money for the brothers.

It must be huge relief for the producers that have been battling the allegation for more than six years.  Also, they were the last defendants on the hook after a judge dismissed Warner Brothers from any liability in the matter.

Although the brothers have lost a copyright infringement battle for a script that could have potentially made them a vast amount of money with ‘The Last Samurai’ grossing close to $400 million, not all is lost.  Well, maybe it is.  Cheers.

Share via email

By Daniel Davidson

On January 31, 2012, I reported that, like many others before him, Newt Gingrich was sued for copyright infringement by Frank Sullivan.  Sullivan is the co-author, and former member of Survivor, of the rock ballad, “Eye of the Tiger.”

Gingrich, sued for copyright infringement for his use of the rock song as entrance music at some of his presidential nomination rallies, has finally responded to the complaint filed by Rude Music, Inc.  As I predicted in my last post, a major defense to the allegations is that Newt’s campaign purchased an ASCAP license which would allow for him to use songs, such as “Eye of the Tiger,” that are affiliated with ASCAP.  Why would you need any other defense?  A license is a license.

Well, the response didn’t stop there.  They also included that Jim Peterik, the only other co-author of the song, has been very vocal in his opposition to the lawsuit.  Even quoting him as saying, “’Eye of the Tiger’ as a ‘motivational’ song which he felt was appropriate for use in motivating people into action like voting and to ‘shake ‘em out of their doldrums.’”

I had commented in my previous post that I was hoping to see this instance of copyright infringement go to the end so that it could answer the question of whether political candidates were covered under fair use when using songs at their campaign rallies.  John McCain and Charlie Crist settled their suits out of court, leaving the question unanswered, and it looks like the question will remain unanswered because, inevitably, the question going to be answered is whether there was a valid license to use the song.

To me it seems that this complaint was filed with the sole end game being to receive a monetary settlement.  With Sullivan jumping at the opportunity to follow the likes of Jackson Brown and David Byrne, he seems to have not done the homework.  If the ASCAP license exists, I could see the pages being turned on Sullivan, and him looking to settle this case.

Federal law allows for a prevailing party in a copyright case to collect attorney’s fees.  Therefore, if Rude Music goes down, they could be on the hook for Newt’s bill.  Although this is true, it is my understanding that judges are very hesitant in awarding attorney’s fees unless it can be shown that the lawsuit was frivolously filed.  In the case at hand, if Sullivan’s attorney’s fired off a cease and desist letter, and Newt’s attorney’s came back with a license, then the suit was filed anyways, there could be a better chance that Newt could collect his attorney’s fees and costs.

Share via email

I regularly get calls from clients who think they need a copyright when in fact they need a trademark (or even a patent!). The confusion is completely understandable, since other than intellectual property lawyers and those in related fields, our educational system simply doesn’t teach about intellectual property. In fact, my schooling on property didn’t go beyond “don’t take what’s not yours”. Let’s get the basics out of the way:

What’s a Copyright?

Copyright is protection for authors of “original works” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. Copyright owners have the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.

What’s a Trademark?

A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. Trademarks protect the name, not the good or service itself. You can sell all the cola you want, but you can’t sell it as Coca-Cola, even though your beverage may be chemically identical. Therein lies the potential value of a trademark: the price difference between Chek Cola and Coke.

Copyright vs. Trademark

Copyrights protect authorship in tangible forms of expression, including: two and three-dimensional art, images, songs, music and sound recordings, written works, plays and other performance arts, and videos of performance arts.

Trademarks protect words, phrases and logos used in federally regulated commerce to identify the source of goods and/or services.

Copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, if you copyright a description of a widget, you could prevent others from copying your description. You would not, however, be able to prevent others from writing a new description or from making (or using) the widget.

Sometimes both copyright and trademark protection are useful. For example, a new slogan for your widget may also appear in print ads for the widget. You will likely want both copyright and trademark protection, since they offer different protections for different things. The ad’s text and graphics are covered by copyright, but the slogan may be protected by trademark law. Cover your bases by getting both — your copyright will not protect a bare slogan, or trade name.

Additionally, registering a trademark is entirely different from registering a copyright. Copyrights are cheaper and generally easier to register, as opposed to trademarks, which require a longer and more adversarial, as opposed to ministerial, process.

Of course, copyrights come with mandatory licensing and royalty payments. Trademarks do not.

Lastly, the tests for infringement are quite different for copyright and trademarks (that’s a whole ‘nother article right there!).

Share via email

Danie Roy

Although I’ve been declaring the end being near for the much-disliked copyright troll Righthaven, a judge’s order requiring the firm to surrender all of its copyrights might just be the final nail in the coffin. Maybe. Finally.

Since Righthaven’s business model consisted of “acquire copyright, threaten, profit,” the loss of its copyrights prevents the second and thirds steps.  Allowing the cases to go to litigation wasn’t part of the plan, and never ended well for Righthaven.  In fact, Righthaven’s court losses got them into this pickle.

See, going to litigation can be lucrative… hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars could be up for grabs.  But, it’s a bit like playing Russian Roulette… if you lose, you pay, whether you brought the complaint or were the accused.  Righthaven’s business model, didn’t bring in the BIG bucks, but it was steady and relatively reliable income.  Most people would rather throw money at a problem than face it in court, but once someone does fight back, the results are a bit like the scene in The Chronicles of Riddick where one Vin Diesel threatens to kill a bully with his teacup and follows through: the bully is left shocked, humiliated, and dead.  Sound familiar yet?

There are a few lessons to be learned here: the first is that Grandma’s fine China is a deadly weapon.  The second is that fighting the troll works if the law is on your side.


THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1148 access attempts in the last 7 days.