Posts Tagged ‘copyright office’

Copyright Myths

Thursday, 10 November, 2011 08:18 Written by Scott Nyman 3 Comments

Scott Nyman

 

You’d be surprised how often I have people tell me about how they’ve figured out way protect their intellectual property without following the patent, copyright, and trademark laws. Practicing intellectual property law, I usually have to let them down gently that their elaborate scheme won’t get them any protection. I have include a few myths below:

“Post office copyright” or “Poor Man’s Copyright”

The myth: If you send a copy of a work of art to yourself through the mail, you will protect yourself as of the date stamped on the postage.

The truth: The copyright laws of the U.S. do not include a provision for such practice. In fact, the U.S. Copyright Office expressly states that the “Poor Man’s Copyright” is no substitute for registration. All you get out of this is a waste of postage.

The 10% rule

The myth: If you change a copyrighted work at least 10%, you can’t be liable for infringement.

The truth: Some people base their faith for this myth in fair use. Fair use allows limited reproduction of copyrighted materials for specific purposes, such as review, criticism, or scholarly application. Again, the U.S. Copyright Office expressly states that “There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.”

Copyright ownership requires registration

The myth: In order to own a copyright for you work, you must register it with the U.S. Copyright Office.

The truth: You actually own the copyright the to your work of art, legally vesting your rights, the once the work is fixed in a tangible medium. The statutes clarify that, “A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.”

Followup myth: Then there is no need to register if I already own the copyright.

The truth: Owning the copyright is great and all, but to enforce your rights, you may have to bring a suit for infringement against would-be infringers. You would bring this suit in federal court, and for that you’ll need to have your copyright federally registered.

Copyrights must have a notice

The myth: In order to enforce a copyright, it must be accompanied by the “Circle-C.”

The truth, directly from the U.S. Copyright Office: “While use of a copyright notice was once required as a condition of copyright protection, it is now optional.”

 

Also, check out my previous article on the “Poor Man’s Patent” for more myth breaking goodness.

 

USPTO Announces Government-Wide Intellectual Property Training Database

Wednesday, 25 May, 2011 08:50 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments

By: Mark R. Malek

In a press release issued last week, the USPTO, in cooperation with the Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement, announced the launching of an online databasewhere U.S. Government Agencies can post information about intellectual property rights training programs that they conduct around the world.

According to Director Kappos, “[t]he database is intended to facilitate more efficient use of limited IPR training resources by sharing training materials among U.S. government agencies, avoiding duplicative programs, and identifying IPR enforcement training deficiencies.”  Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator expects that the “database will permit agencies to enhance the impact of their IPR training, by building on past programs and targeting U.S. government efforts on countries and topics where more training is needed.”

Victoria Espinel

This is just a short update, but, personally, I am happy to see a little coordination among the various governmental entities that operate in the same space.  How do you think this came about?  I would bet that at some point, someone pretty high up in the ranks inquired about some sort of training when he/she found out that the training had just been put on by another agency and they were not informed of it.  Sounds like a “government operation” eh?  Hopefully, this will alleviate some various burdens on the government and one day (yes, I know this is a pipe dream) we will let the USPTO keep the fees that it generates in order to run an even more efficient operation.  If you are wondering, the answer is yes, I will always try to work into every article my anger at the government decision to skim money off the top of the USPTO.

 

Tyson Tattoo Artist Sues for Copyright Infringement

Tuesday, 03 May, 2011 21:52 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments

By: Mark R. Malek

In a story that caught my eye, Mike Tyson’s tattoo artist has sued the producers of The Hangover II for copyright infringement.  Before you get any bright ideas – no, we have not turned into a site that focuses on legal issues revolving around tattoos (see post by Aaron Thalwitzer yesterday)  The artist that tattooed Tyson’s face apparently claims that the producers of the movie committed copyright infringement when the tattoo was placed on the face of another actor in the movie.

I can only imagine where that part of the story is going, but I will be sure to see the movie.  As illustrated, at some point in the movie, which is apparently based on a bachelor party in Thailand, “Stu” gets the Tyson face tattoo.  If you saw The Hangover, you would know that their little escapade in Vegas should have been enough to hold this group over for a while….apparently not!

As far as copyright goes, tattoos are works of art and, as such, are copyrightable.  A work of art that is fixed in a tangible medium can be worthy of copyright protection.  Many times, the tattoo artist first draws out the copyright.  It is rare, and probably not a good idea, for the tattoo artist to use the person’s skin as their first canvas.  At least when drawing the tattoo on paper, the artist has the opportunity to make some minor revisions as necessary.

After the tattoo has been fixed to the skin of the eventual wearer, it is again fixed in a tangible medium, i.e., the work of art is fixed onto the skin of the wearer.  Tattoos, however, are not normally placed on people pursuant to a license.  Instead, I believe that in the industry, it may be understood that the tattoo artist is being “commissioned” to create a particular work of art – maybe even a work for hire.  I highly doubt, however, that tattoo artists, or tattoo recipients for that matter, bother with any sort of contract outlining ownership of the work of art prior to putting the tattoo on the user.

A real problem has likely arisen in the past when a tattoo artist has put a very original piece of work on a person, and that tattoo was copied by another artist when put on another person.  I am actually positive that this is a common occurrence – mainly due to ignorance about copyright law.  As for The Hangover II case, we can expect the producers of the movie to put forth several fair use defenses.  I suspect, however, that this is the last we will hear of the story.

Hey! Hands off that face! – Marley family wins battle over Bob’s likeness

Friday, 28 January, 2011 16:45 Written by danieldavidson 1 Comment

By Daniel Davidson

You may be familiar with the late legend Bob Marley.  You may have even seen a shirt or two that display his familiar face.  Fortunately for the Marley family, you will not be seeing him on any apparel sold by the company Avela.

Avela, a Nevada company, is owned by Leo Valencia, who created toys and shirts that displayed the reggae singer’s likeness.  Unfortunately, it was without the authorization of Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, the companies that Mr. Marley’s heirs run his empire under.  This, as I hope we are all beginning to understand, is not permissible, in most cases, under U.S. Copyright Code.

Avela and Mr. Valencia were stuck with a $300,000 bill for their unauthorized use of the likeness from a U.S. Federal Court and hopefully an injunction will follow that keeps Bob Marley’s off of bobble heads seeing that his children do not want to see their father portrayed in this manner.

Kudos to the Marley family on this victory.  I wouldn’t mind seeing a growing trend of victories for the family since the punch to the stomach they received in a previous copyright case.  You can read about it in an article I wrote here.

If Avela is looking for a substitute face, mine is available for printing on anything.

The Ugly Side of Intellectual Property – Infringement!

Sunday, 07 November, 2010 22:23 Written by Mark Malek 3 Comments

Gravatar Iconby Mark Malek

A downturn in the economy has resulted in a significant rise in the development of new technologies and new business models.  Many of these new technologies and business models are born of creative people that are looking for new ways to make a living.  A number of these creative people had either been laid off or were business owners that were looking for alternative sources of income.  Many of them were successful in their new endeavors, while others failed.  Those who were successful in their new endeavors sought to protect their intellectual property in a number of various ways.  For example, inventors filed patent applications, artists filed copyright applications, and others who came up with new brands for high quality products filed trademark applications.

Along with the rise in intellectual property filings has come the rise of infringement.  The infringement is not necessarily directed to the newly filed intellectual property.  Many times, the infringement has been of well-established technologies, copyrights and trademarks.  Unfortunately, the owners of the intellectual property that is being infringed find themselves in an unenviable position of needing to take legal action to put an end to the infringement.  The owners of the intellectual property have generally worked for many years at developing their intellectual property and have gone through much expense to do so.  Turning a blind eye to infringement weakens that intellectual property.

If you find yourself in the position of having your intellectual property rights trampled upon, then there are some steps that you likely want to consider.  The first step in attempting to stop an infringement of intellectual property is to simply put the infringer on notice of your rights in the intellectual property and demanding that they stop their infringing activities.  Many times, such a notice will result in stopping the infringement.  In some cases, however, you may be required to enter into some negotiations.  For example, and only in appropriate cases, you may enter into an agreement to “phase out” the infringing matter.  In other cases, you may even enter into a licensing agreement with the infringer.  Sometimes, the notice may be ignored, or the infringer may respond by contending that they do not infringe.  If, after further investigation, you still believe that infringing activity continues to be an issue, one option that remains is litigation.  Although undesirable and costly, litigation may be the only way to stop infringing activity.

As you can imagine, there has been a rise in intellectual property litigation as less creative people have tried to generate revenue on the proverbial intellectual property backs of others.  There have been many recent examples of these types of behavior.  One example is cybersquatting.  In this case, the infringer attempts to extort a trademark owner by holding a domain name hostage.  Another is creating derivative works on someone’s copyrights and then attempting to profit off of those works.  Yet another example is making an identical product as that of the intellectual property holder that bears an identical name.  It is sad to report that these are not hypothetical situations.  These are examples of cases that I have handled in just the past six months.

The Way Litigation Can Feel

If you are an intellectual property holder, do as much as you can to secure your intellectual property.  This can be achieved by marking your intellectual property with notices that inform the general public of your rights.  If you believe you are a victim of infringement, try to seek the advice of an attorney whose practice is focused on intellectual property.  Attorneys that focus their practice in this specialized field are generally able to recognize the appropriate intellectual property issues, and provide you the proper advice on dealing with an infringement.  The same advice goes for those accused of infringement.  If you are actually infringing, defending the action based on bad legal advice will end up being far more costly than simply swallowing your pride and stopping the infringing activity.

« Older Entries

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1588 access attempts in the last 7 days.