November 6, 2009

Indiana Jonesing

LEGO-Indiana-Jones--The-Videogame-1-1.jpgDear Rich: I am a filmmaker and am preparing to make a corporate promotional film for a well known life insurance company in which the chairman will be depicted as a fedora wearing, dusty leather jacket clad character, potentially with a whip, who will recover a stone artifact from a temple of some kind. After recovering the stone he will use its power to do little more than clear the skies and raise some smiles. He may walk over a rope-bridge or use a foxline to reach the other side of a gauge, there is also a chance he may escape in a plane ... but he will be freshly shaven, and will not chased by stone boulders. Do you think this presents a problem in terms of copyright infringement? Let's make sure we have this correct. You are using the fedora, whip, and leather jacket and you want to borrow from the plots of the movie, and you're using these elements to promote a life insurance company. 
Forest or the Trees Dept. Hmm ... We could go into discussions about substantial similarity, the abstractions test, and trademark infringement (and we could review a previous post on this subject). But it really comes down to whether the folks that own the Indiana Jones trademarks and copyrights feel that your insurance company is channeling its brand. 
If You Build it, They Will Sue. Possibly, Lucasfilm's legal team may not care -- for example, if it's a one-shot promo film, the similarities are primarily generic (typical pulp adventure hero stuff) and your film has limited exposure (just shown at a company getaway). But if it smells like you're emulating the franchise for a deep-pocketed client, then you and the insurance company will be dragged into a dispute. Our suggestion would be that if the Indiana Jones motif was the insurance company's idea, seek an indemnity provision in your contract. If it was your idea, either ditch it, or check your contract to make sure that you are not indemnifying the insurance company. 
Full Disclosure: The Dear Rich Staff has never seen an Indiana Jones movie, dressed like the main character, been attracted to Indiana Jones or the women in his films, or considered the Lego possibilities.

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: character , characters , contracts , infringement , permission , trademarks , video

Bookmark: Bookmark Indiana%20Jonesing at Google.com Bookmark Indiana%20Jonesing at del.icio.us Digg Indiana%20Jonesing at Digg.com Bookmark Indiana%20Jonesing at Spurl.net Bookmark Indiana%20Jonesing at Simpy.com Bookmark Indiana%20Jonesing at NewsVine Blink this Indiana%20Jonesing at blinklist.com Bookmark Indiana%20Jonesing at Furl.net Bookmark Indiana%20Jonesing at reddit.com Fark Indiana%20Jonesing at Fark.com Bookmark Indiana%20Jonesing at Yahoo! MyWeb
November 5, 2009

How Much Public Domain Can You Eat?

eatpublicdomain.jpg
Dear Rich: I am creating a computer program that requires a lot of line art. I found a series of books ('Scan This Book', 'Scan This Book Two', and, of course, 'Scan This Book Three') that display excellent public domain line art. The legalese at the beginning of the book states that all of the art is copyright free, but that the selection and layout is copyrighted. My program has nothing to do with distributing clip art, and I do not need to use the layouts used in the books. If I were to use most of the art from these books, would I be infringing on the author's/publisher's copyright? Would it matter if I slightly altered the images by coloring them? Would it matter if I combined their selection of images with other public domain images? The short answer is that you're fine copying the material in the book. Like all-you-can-eat restaurants, owners of public domain collections don't mind how much you digest, they just don't want you taking all their stuff and selling it somewhere else. Assuming your software product is not created to sell public domain art, there's no reason to bother with any of your other questions.
Copyright Rules. As you know, you can do whatever you want with public domain artwork. However, under copyright law, the owners of the book may have a compilation copyright. We say "may" because compiling public domain works doesn't automatically amount to a compilation copyright. There must be sufficient creativity in the judgment, selection and arrangement of the public domain material -- for example, "The Best American Stories from the 19th Century" or "Sketches of Victorian Kitchens" are probably protectable because they require decision-making and selections. Even if the book constitutes a copyrightable collection, that copyright is still regarded as being "thin" -- meaning that you would need to lift nearly all of the thing "as is" to infringe it. Public domain compilers such as Dover are primarily concerned with someone taking their material and competing with them. In summary, if you are using the public domain material for aesthetic or decorative purposes and not redistributing the artwork for re-use or re-sale, you're free to do whatever you want.
BTW. The Dear Rich Staff believes that the Scan This Book series is out of print (we couldn't find new copies available online and we couldn't locate the publisher Art Direction Book Company). That doesn't mean nobody will assert copyright; but it does indicate that it's not at the forefront of a publisher's radar.

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: art , compilation , permission , public domain

Bookmark: Bookmark How%20Much%20Public%20Domain%20Can%20You%20Eat%3F at Google.com Bookmark How%20Much%20Public%20Domain%20Can%20You%20Eat%3F at del.icio.us Digg How%20Much%20Public%20Domain%20Can%20You%20Eat%3F at Digg.com Bookmark How%20Much%20Public%20Domain%20Can%20You%20Eat%3F at Spurl.net Bookmark How%20Much%20Public%20Domain%20Can%20You%20Eat%3F at Simpy.com Bookmark How%20Much%20Public%20Domain%20Can%20You%20Eat%3F at NewsVine Blink this How%20Much%20Public%20Domain%20Can%20You%20Eat%3F at blinklist.com Bookmark How%20Much%20Public%20Domain%20Can%20You%20Eat%3F at Furl.net Bookmark How%20Much%20Public%20Domain%20Can%20You%20Eat%3F at reddit.com Fark How%20Much%20Public%20Domain%20Can%20You%20Eat%3F at Fark.com Bookmark How%20Much%20Public%20Domain%20Can%20You%20Eat%3F at Yahoo! MyWeb
November 4, 2009

Can You Copyright A Blog?

Dear Rich: Can one copyright one's blog? I'm guessing yes. How does one go about it? Does each daily blog entry need to be registered? Or does one simply forego formal registration and note Copyright (c) at the bottom of each blog? Sorry, we're a little preoccupied filming raccoons outside our office window. (And one reason we posted our raccoon movie is because of this article.) As for your question, hard as it is for some people to believe, you have a copyright once you create the entry. That's right; it's automatic. If someone steals your entry, you can pursue it with a DMCA Notice (Here are Google's rules for filing the notice). If you wish to sue in court, you will need a copyright registration. You can file your application after you discover the infringement and register all of your entries at that time (filing as a text work). This article explains some strategies. There may be a delay of a few months to get the registration or you can expedite your application for about $800. 
Get Proactive. You can also register the blog entries now instead of waiting for an infringement. That's a little bit of work and requires periodic new filings. Registering now may provide some  benefits in litigation but generally is not worth the effort for most blogs. Also, as a proactive measure, include a copyright notice (You can add notice manually or using Wordpress plug-ins). 

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: DMCA , blog , copyright

Bookmark: Bookmark Can%20You%20Copyright%20A%20Blog%3F at Google.com Bookmark Can%20You%20Copyright%20A%20Blog%3F at del.icio.us Digg Can%20You%20Copyright%20A%20Blog%3F at Digg.com Bookmark Can%20You%20Copyright%20A%20Blog%3F at Spurl.net Bookmark Can%20You%20Copyright%20A%20Blog%3F at Simpy.com Bookmark Can%20You%20Copyright%20A%20Blog%3F at NewsVine Blink this Can%20You%20Copyright%20A%20Blog%3F at blinklist.com Bookmark Can%20You%20Copyright%20A%20Blog%3F at Furl.net Bookmark Can%20You%20Copyright%20A%20Blog%3F at reddit.com Fark Can%20You%20Copyright%20A%20Blog%3F at Fark.com Bookmark Can%20You%20Copyright%20A%20Blog%3F at Yahoo! MyWeb
November 3, 2009

Revoking Email Posts

computerangry.jpgDear Rich: I allowed someone to publish one of my e-mails. The other person asked permission to publish it. He said he wouldn't change the words. I simply said "yes, but make it anonymous". He published the email in segments and responded to each segment. Later he stopped protecting the anonymity of it. I've asked him to remove my email but he claims that because I gave him permission, he has full right to keep it on his website. When you give permission to someone to publish your copyrighted work (your email), you're granting a license. We're assuming that the license was made by exchange of email, and these emails form the terms of your license. 
The Terms of Your License. Your license sounds like it had only one condition: anonymity. Since the poster has now breached that condition, you have a right to revoke your license -- that is, have the email removed. If the poster is disregarding your request, you have to try a more forceful strategy. One approach may be to contact the other party's service provider and send a DMCA notice. (This book -- A Legal Guide to Web & Software Development -- explains how to do it.)  Another possibility is to hire an attorney to threaten the poster with a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement and invasion of privacy. 
Is It Worth the Effort? Keep in mind that hiring a lawyer or sending a DMCA notice should really only be used if the posted email is causing you some harm. These are not sure-fire strategies -- for example, the poster may assert valid copyright defenses -- and they prove expensive. The Dear Rich Staff realizes this may not be what you wanted to hear ... but sometimes the easiest approach may be to let go and move on.   

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: copyright , permission , websites

Bookmark: Bookmark Revoking%20Email%20Posts at Google.com Bookmark Revoking%20Email%20Posts at del.icio.us Digg Revoking%20Email%20Posts at Digg.com Bookmark Revoking%20Email%20Posts at Spurl.net Bookmark Revoking%20Email%20Posts at Simpy.com Bookmark Revoking%20Email%20Posts at NewsVine Blink this Revoking%20Email%20Posts at blinklist.com Bookmark Revoking%20Email%20Posts at Furl.net Bookmark Revoking%20Email%20Posts at reddit.com Fark Revoking%20Email%20Posts at Fark.com Bookmark Revoking%20Email%20Posts at Yahoo! MyWeb
November 2, 2009

Mickey D Does Espresso Pronto

caffeinated.jpgDear Rich: I have a coffee business and called it 'espresso pronto.' I failed to get a trademark for it. But I did get a domain name associated with it (the dot com version). A couple of years ago McDonald's decided to get into coffee and chose my business name and got a trademark for it. I changed my business name but kept the domain name. Now I have received a letter from McDonalds stating that not only do they want me to stop promoting my domain but they want ownership of it. Can they do this? Frankly, as much as we'd hate to get involved in a dispute with the folks who invented the "Happy Meal," we're not clear who has the rights to the domain. You'll need to go through the long answer (below). 
WIPO Rules. Under domain name arbitration rules, if McDonald's has a trademark for "espresso pronto" and they can demonstrate that you registered or acquired the domain name in "bad faith," then they'll have a legal basis to acquire that domain from you. What's bad faith? It's if you own the domain primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it back to the trademark owner (or to a competitor) for more than you paid -- in other words, if you're trying to capitalize on McDonald's trademark rights.
Who Has Trademark Rights? We're not clear what trademark rights McDonald's has to the mark. Although some websites use the "R" in a circle to describe the Espresso Pronto product, we're not seeing any U.S. federal registration (or applications) for the terms and the product is not listed on McDonald's U.S. menu. We did find references to it in New Zealand and we found two trademark applications in New Zealand's TM database for the term. Both were filed by McD Asia Pacific, apparently the Singapore subsidiary of the U.S. company. One application was abandoned and the other is currently under examination. So, perhaps we should assume you're writing to us from New Zealand? (That would be exciting. The Dear Rich Staff once traveled to Kiwi country and had a great time.) 
Playing by NZ Rules. We couldn't determine whether New Zealand has a cybersquatting law, but the international rules cited above would apply for ICANN arbitrations. You say you failed to acquire trademark rights to the term when you used it. We're not sure what you mean -- as any first use in commerce generally establishes common law trademark rights --but in any case, the fact that you no longer use the term does not help your case and may hurt it. Your case could also run into problems if McDonald's has evidence that you are offering to sell the domain at a profit to others - particularly a coffee-making competitor. If you're not offering to sell it for a profit and there's no evidence of bad faith, then McDonald's legal basis for seeking the domain appears misguided.

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: cease and desist , cybersquatting , trademarks

Bookmark: Bookmark Mickey%20D%20Does%20Espresso%20Pronto at Google.com Bookmark Mickey%20D%20Does%20Espresso%20Pronto at del.icio.us Digg Mickey%20D%20Does%20Espresso%20Pronto at Digg.com Bookmark Mickey%20D%20Does%20Espresso%20Pronto at Spurl.net Bookmark Mickey%20D%20Does%20Espresso%20Pronto at Simpy.com Bookmark Mickey%20D%20Does%20Espresso%20Pronto at NewsVine Blink this Mickey%20D%20Does%20Espresso%20Pronto at blinklist.com Bookmark Mickey%20D%20Does%20Espresso%20Pronto at Furl.net Bookmark Mickey%20D%20Does%20Espresso%20Pronto at reddit.com Fark Mickey%20D%20Does%20Espresso%20Pronto at Fark.com Bookmark Mickey%20D%20Does%20Espresso%20Pronto at Yahoo! MyWeb
October 30, 2009

Film Company TM: State, Federal or International Registration?

filmslate2.jpgDear Rich: I have a film production company, the name of which I have been using for nearly 10 years, and for which I purchased a website for in 2005. I have also registered it as a business within my state. However, my goal, of course is to one day be internationally recognized. Someone from another country has begun using the same name for their own film projects. Is there something I should be doing now to gain international proprietary rights to the name? Or is that even possible? The short answer is that you should federally register the name of your film company. Registering your name as a business in your state -- for example, as a dba or as a corporate name does not give you any trademark rights. Even registering your name with your state's trademark office will not provide the protection you seek (and is usually not worth the effort). A U.S. registration will preserve your U.S. rights and enable you to stop others from using a similar name for film production services in the U.S. (Read more about enforcing TM rights, here.)  As for pursuing international rights, that may be premature since you haven't indicated that you are currently engaged in international commerce. In any case, securing rights in other nations -- there is no such thing as an "international trademark" -- has become easier in recent years with the adoption of the Madrid System. Nolo -- my employer -- can assist with federal registration, and the Dear Rich Staff prepared a helpful guide to the process.

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: Nolo , movies , trademarks , video

Bookmark: Bookmark Film%20Company%20TM%3A%20State%2C%20Federal%20or%20International%20Registration%3F at Google.com Bookmark Film%20Company%20TM%3A%20State%2C%20Federal%20or%20International%20Registration%3F at del.icio.us Digg Film%20Company%20TM%3A%20State%2C%20Federal%20or%20International%20Registration%3F at Digg.com Bookmark Film%20Company%20TM%3A%20State%2C%20Federal%20or%20International%20Registration%3F at Spurl.net Bookmark Film%20Company%20TM%3A%20State%2C%20Federal%20or%20International%20Registration%3F at Simpy.com Bookmark Film%20Company%20TM%3A%20State%2C%20Federal%20or%20International%20Registration%3F at NewsVine Blink this Film%20Company%20TM%3A%20State%2C%20Federal%20or%20International%20Registration%3F at blinklist.com Bookmark Film%20Company%20TM%3A%20State%2C%20Federal%20or%20International%20Registration%3F at Furl.net Bookmark Film%20Company%20TM%3A%20State%2C%20Federal%20or%20International%20Registration%3F at reddit.com Fark Film%20Company%20TM%3A%20State%2C%20Federal%20or%20International%20Registration%3F at Fark.com Bookmark Film%20Company%20TM%3A%20State%2C%20Federal%20or%20International%20Registration%3F at Yahoo! MyWeb
October 29, 2009

Church Steeples and Copyright

iStock_000000131834XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I took a photograph of a twin steeple church several years ago. The church has since been destroyed by fire and the location is now a retail strip mall. I would like to sell the photo of the church as art to local residents in the form of framed prints, greeting cards, etc. Do I need a property release for a property that doesn't exist anymore? No (and you didn't need a property release in the first place). As the Dear Rich Staff has indicated in previous entries, copyright law permits the copying and reproduction of publicly viewable buildings. Trademark law rarely gets in the way except if the building (or some feature of it) is used as a trademark -- not the case with a church steeple. By the way, there's always hope that your strip mall will return to church steeples.

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: architecture , copyright , photography

Bookmark: Bookmark Church%20Steeples%20and%20Copyright at Google.com Bookmark Church%20Steeples%20and%20Copyright at del.icio.us Digg Church%20Steeples%20and%20Copyright at Digg.com Bookmark Church%20Steeples%20and%20Copyright at Spurl.net Bookmark Church%20Steeples%20and%20Copyright at Simpy.com Bookmark Church%20Steeples%20and%20Copyright at NewsVine Blink this Church%20Steeples%20and%20Copyright at blinklist.com Bookmark Church%20Steeples%20and%20Copyright at Furl.net Bookmark Church%20Steeples%20and%20Copyright at reddit.com Fark Church%20Steeples%20and%20Copyright at Fark.com Bookmark Church%20Steeples%20and%20Copyright at Yahoo! MyWeb
October 28, 2009

How Much of a Plot Can I Take?

battlestargalactica.jpgDear Rich: Even after intensive legal research (i.e., an afternoon with Google), I'm still confused about the applicability of copyright protection to plots. If I stay away from specific language, from specific characters and locations, how closely can I hew to the plot of a copyrighted work? For example, say I wrote a novel about a little orphan girl who discovered she was actually a sorcerer? That much is okay, I'm sure. Then what if she attended a special sorcerer school? What if she traveled to the school via a magic airplane at a hidden gate at the airport? What if she learned that her parents were killed by an Evil Wizard who was threatening to return? What if she played a magical sport for school, and was assigned into a dorm via the Picking Stocking, and befriended a gruff janitor? At what point, despite the fact that none of the words were identical, would immoral plagiarism of plot become illegal copyright infringement? The Dear Rich Staff must preface this answer by disclaiming any knowledge of books about sorcerers and wizards so if you just provided the plot of a famous book as an example, we wouldn't have any idea. (And what's a "Picking Stocking?" Is that similar to Pippi Longstocking? Please don't rip off Pippi!)
The Standard of Review. As for your question, the standard of review is best described by Judge Learned Hand in Nichols v. Universal Pictures in which the author of the popular play, Abie's Irish Rose, sued the producers of a movie, The Cohens and the Kellys. Both plots involved children of Irish and Jewish families who marry secretly because their parents are prejudiced. At the end of each work there is a reconciliation of the families, based upon the presence of a grandchild. Beyond that, the works had little in common except for ethnic clichés. 
The Abstractions Test. Judge Hand established a standard to separate the idea from the expression. He used the term "abstraction," which is a process of removing or separating something. He stated: "Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out." In other words, every narrative work is built around an underlying idea, in this case the basic plot summary. The idea may be similar to other plots (BTW, many people believe there are only between seven and 30 basic plots), but the author's embellishments -- the series of details and incidents that separate the idea from similar plots -- trigger copyright protection. Copyright only extends to each author's unique expression, not the underlying idea. 
Still in Use. Judge Hand's abstractions test is still applied for plots (and was even modified for application in software infringements). In Litchfield v. Spielberg a writer sued the makers of the movie E.T. -- The Extra Terrestrial. The writer claimed that the film infringed her musical play, Lokey From Maldemar, a social satire designed to "illustrate the disunity of man, divided by egotism." The district court applied the abstractions test and determined that the only similarity in both works was the basic plot line -- aliens with powers of levitation are stranded on earth, pursued by authoritarian characters and finally bid their earthly friends farewell. Again, these similarities (sometimes known as nonliteral similarities) are ideas and are generally not protectable. 
Our Takeaway Points ... Nobody but a judge or arbitrator can safely tell you whether you've taken the "expression" of a plot  or the "idea" of a plot, but you will likely run into problem if you have a high profile work and you're slavishly copying the plot (and/or  characters) of a well known work. For example, that's what happened in the copyright battle between Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica (Chaim Green R.I.P.).

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: characters , copyright , idea , plot

Bookmark: Bookmark How%20Much%20of%20a%20Plot%20Can%20I%20Take%3F%20 at Google.com Bookmark How%20Much%20of%20a%20Plot%20Can%20I%20Take%3F%20 at del.icio.us Digg How%20Much%20of%20a%20Plot%20Can%20I%20Take%3F%20 at Digg.com Bookmark How%20Much%20of%20a%20Plot%20Can%20I%20Take%3F%20 at Spurl.net Bookmark How%20Much%20of%20a%20Plot%20Can%20I%20Take%3F%20 at Simpy.com Bookmark How%20Much%20of%20a%20Plot%20Can%20I%20Take%3F%20 at NewsVine Blink this How%20Much%20of%20a%20Plot%20Can%20I%20Take%3F%20 at blinklist.com Bookmark How%20Much%20of%20a%20Plot%20Can%20I%20Take%3F%20 at Furl.net Bookmark How%20Much%20of%20a%20Plot%20Can%20I%20Take%3F%20 at reddit.com Fark How%20Much%20of%20a%20Plot%20Can%20I%20Take%3F%20 at Fark.com Bookmark How%20Much%20of%20a%20Plot%20Can%20I%20Take%3F%20 at Yahoo! MyWeb
October 27, 2009

My Great Idea: Somebody Had It First!

iStock_000005164183XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I had this great idea for "something." I researched it online and found something that accomplishes the same thing but in a different way. It is has a trademark but doesn't seem to be patented. I am so upset because I thought this was a terrific idea and now I'm not sure if I can patent it. Can you help me? The short answer is that you can patent a device that accomplishes the same result as an existing invention provided that the manner in which it accomplishes that result is novel and not obvious to others in the field. For example, there are many ways to hold hair in place and no shortage of patents. An attorney would need to advise you about your particular situation since there's not enough information in your letter for us to provide much guidance.
Search on Your Own. You can certainly search the patent database to see if someone has registered a similar idea - we prefer Google's patent searching system over the USPTO database. And you can review the trademark database - lately we like Trademarkia.com more than the USPTO (although they each have searching idiosyncrasies). 
Great Ideas R Us. The Dear Rich Staff respects you for coming up with one great idea and hope you come up with more. But keep in mind, there's a reason for Thomas Edison's inspiration/perspiration equation. As Edison himself acknowledged, his success was primarily attributable to being a "hustler" rather than to any of the great ideas he instigated, cajoled or "borrowed." In other words, coming up with great ideas is not the hard part; the challenge is in selling your brainstorm.  

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: inventions , patents

Bookmark: Bookmark My%20Great%20Idea%3A%20Somebody%20Had%20It%20First%21 at Google.com Bookmark My%20Great%20Idea%3A%20Somebody%20Had%20It%20First%21 at del.icio.us Digg My%20Great%20Idea%3A%20Somebody%20Had%20It%20First%21 at Digg.com Bookmark My%20Great%20Idea%3A%20Somebody%20Had%20It%20First%21 at Spurl.net Bookmark My%20Great%20Idea%3A%20Somebody%20Had%20It%20First%21 at Simpy.com Bookmark My%20Great%20Idea%3A%20Somebody%20Had%20It%20First%21 at NewsVine Blink this My%20Great%20Idea%3A%20Somebody%20Had%20It%20First%21 at blinklist.com Bookmark My%20Great%20Idea%3A%20Somebody%20Had%20It%20First%21 at Furl.net Bookmark My%20Great%20Idea%3A%20Somebody%20Had%20It%20First%21 at reddit.com Fark My%20Great%20Idea%3A%20Somebody%20Had%20It%20First%21 at Fark.com Bookmark My%20Great%20Idea%3A%20Somebody%20Had%20It%20First%21 at Yahoo! MyWeb
October 26, 2009

Barbie Gets Fangs: Movie Tie-In Toy Deals

twilight-barbie.jpg Dear Rich: I am searching for samples of licensing agreements between a movie producer and toy manufacturer governing copyrights and trademarks used in movie "tie-in" products. Do you have any leads? The Dear Rich Staff assumes you're talking about a traditional movie tie-in toy product. For example, Mattel wants to sell more Barbie dolls so it creates a tie-in with a certain vampire movie, ("Mommy, why is Barbie wearing a garlic?"). 
Looking for Merchandise Agreements. Without reflecting on the pros and cons of these pre-landfill toy products -- the agreements that facilitate such deals are merchandising agreements built around a license to use the movie's copyrights and trademarks. You can see examples of a trademark license and a merchandise license (with explanations) in our book, Getting Permission. 
The Real Deal. If you'd like to see more detailed toy merchandise licenses, you might want to consider springing for License Agreements: Forms and Checklists, by Battersby & Grimes, the acknowledged leaders in toy licensing law. If that's too pricey, consider Contracts for the Film & Television Industry by Mark Litwak which provides sample agreements (and we'd also like to plug Clearance & Copyright by Michael C. Donaldson because it provides a good overview on the use of copyrights and trademarks in film). Check the TOCs for all these books online to make sure they include the right stuff. Also both of these books discuss product placements - sometimes part of the arrangement - in which the toy appears in the film. 
[FTC Disclosure: We make money from the sale of our Getting Permission book (Duh!) but not from the sale of any other books mentioned.]

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: characters , licenses , movies , toys

Bookmark: Bookmark Barbie%20Gets%20Fangs%3A%20Movie%20Tie-In%20Toy%20Deals at Google.com Bookmark Barbie%20Gets%20Fangs%3A%20Movie%20Tie-In%20Toy%20Deals at del.icio.us Digg Barbie%20Gets%20Fangs%3A%20Movie%20Tie-In%20Toy%20Deals at Digg.com Bookmark Barbie%20Gets%20Fangs%3A%20Movie%20Tie-In%20Toy%20Deals at Spurl.net Bookmark Barbie%20Gets%20Fangs%3A%20Movie%20Tie-In%20Toy%20Deals at Simpy.com Bookmark Barbie%20Gets%20Fangs%3A%20Movie%20Tie-In%20Toy%20Deals at NewsVine Blink this Barbie%20Gets%20Fangs%3A%20Movie%20Tie-In%20Toy%20Deals at blinklist.com Bookmark Barbie%20Gets%20Fangs%3A%20Movie%20Tie-In%20Toy%20Deals at Furl.net Bookmark Barbie%20Gets%20Fangs%3A%20Movie%20Tie-In%20Toy%20Deals at reddit.com Fark Barbie%20Gets%20Fangs%3A%20Movie%20Tie-In%20Toy%20Deals at Fark.com Bookmark Barbie%20Gets%20Fangs%3A%20Movie%20Tie-In%20Toy%20Deals at Yahoo! MyWeb
October 23, 2009

Animal Mascots, Therapy, and Fair Use

Thumbnail image for TrixMagnets1979-Front.jpg
Dear Rich: I am an artist studying the use of corporate mascots such as the Trix rabbit. One of the main points in my thesis is the lack of freedom in discussing the mascots  used to sell products to children (and the danger that poses). As part of my exploration of the topic I am creating artworks made out of these mascots, cutting up toys and making sculpture from the pieces. I am doing this for my Masters degree and may continue onto a Ph.D. I have some questions. Am I infringing copyright if I: (1) show the work at my degree show? (2) show the work in a commercial gallery? (3) publish images of the work in a commercial book (4) make drawings or paintings of the works and publish these commercially? or (5) were to claim they were produced in art therapy sessions would they count as informational? I understand that I would be allowed to reproduce these animal mascots for informational purposes, for example in a textbook or news article. (6) Does the exception only apply to reproductions of the mascots as they are? I noticed, for example, that someone had been prosecuted for putting Barbie and Ken dolls in lewd positions and photographing them. (7) Is there any way around this problem such as publishing in a country with no laws on copyright or publishing anonymously? I feel very passionately about this topic and would be willing to consider creating the artworks as anonymous graffiti if necessary. 
NIMBY Please. The Dear Rich Staff feels your passion but prefaces this response with one request - if you are going to take the graffiti route, could you please avoid tagging our street. (We live in the outer Richmond District in San Francisco, a few blocks from the Walgreens). We've got this law in the city that requires the residents to remove graffiti within 30 days and frankly we're tired of using toxic cleaning products and paint. 
You Have Quesitons. Your letter included seven questions and to avoid exceeding the short attention span of our loyal readership, we're going to try and keep our answers brief. As for questions 1 and 2, yes you are infringing, but you have a powerful fair use argument and are not likely to be discovered by anyone who might care. Re: question 3 and 4, yes, you are infringing and commercial uses make the fair use arguments a tougher sell. Still, the trend is to permit this type of use and we think you will likely qualify under a fair use defense (which by the way means you may have to defend yourself in court). 
You're in Art Therapy. As for question 5, you got us with this one. We understand art therapy and its implications and we're fascinated by the argument that copying someone's work is a transformative use (as required for a fair use defense). Alas, we believe that while you are being transformed by the therapy, the underlying work is not. On that basis (and with no caselaw to support our position), we don't think the art-therapy-as-fair-use argument will fly. 
Informational Uses and Trademarks. In question 6, you ask about informational uses. Here you're confusing copyrights and trademarks, a common error since mascots function as both. The "informational" issue relates to use as a trademark. All of your potential uses appear to be informational since you are using these images to make editorial statements. As for making Barbi and Ken do lewd things, that's a whole other issue we'll address in another blog. In any case, we understand that everyone can go through an I-hate-my-Barbie phase.  
The Land of No Copyright. As for question 7, we think you're imagining an off-shore world where you can infringe to your heart's content. The reality is that if your work is sold or distributed in the U.S., you can be sued for infringement here, as can any retailer offering your work. If you're a U.S. citizen that makes it even easier to go after you. So unless you're planning to move somewhere where the residents have set up servers with infringing or illegal content (often a country that ends with the suffix, "stan"), then you will be a target for lawsuits. 
Some Random Thoughts. In a surprising cross-species mascot switcheroo, we were surprised to learn that Trix was once promoted by stick figures and Mickey Mouse. 

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: animals , art , character , copyright , fair use , permission , trademarks

Bookmark: Bookmark Animal%20Mascots%2C%20Therapy%2C%20and%20Fair%20Use at Google.com Bookmark Animal%20Mascots%2C%20Therapy%2C%20and%20Fair%20Use at del.icio.us Digg Animal%20Mascots%2C%20Therapy%2C%20and%20Fair%20Use at Digg.com Bookmark Animal%20Mascots%2C%20Therapy%2C%20and%20Fair%20Use at Spurl.net Bookmark Animal%20Mascots%2C%20Therapy%2C%20and%20Fair%20Use at Simpy.com Bookmark Animal%20Mascots%2C%20Therapy%2C%20and%20Fair%20Use at NewsVine Blink this Animal%20Mascots%2C%20Therapy%2C%20and%20Fair%20Use at blinklist.com Bookmark Animal%20Mascots%2C%20Therapy%2C%20and%20Fair%20Use at Furl.net Bookmark Animal%20Mascots%2C%20Therapy%2C%20and%20Fair%20Use at reddit.com Fark Animal%20Mascots%2C%20Therapy%2C%20and%20Fair%20Use at Fark.com Bookmark Animal%20Mascots%2C%20Therapy%2C%20and%20Fair%20Use at Yahoo! MyWeb
October 22, 2009

DVD Duping? Edited Movies? Ixnay!

the_proposal01-1.jpgDear Rich: I purchased a number of edited DVD movies a year or so ago, when several professional editing companies went out of business. Can I make copies of these DVDs and sell them on eBay? Does someone still own the copyright to the edited versions? The short answer is yes, someone owns the copyright (unless it's one of those movies that fell in the public domain) and your duplication and sale infringes that copyright. 
Edited DVDs? We're not sure what you mean by "edited DVDs" but we think they are the kind that used to be sold by places like CleanFlicks until the courts shut them down in 2007-2008. For example, if your version of The Proposal is missing the scene where Sandra Bullock collides nude with Ryan Reynolds, then you've got a CleanFlicks DVD. (Wait...that movie came out this year!). CleanFlicks thought they had a way around copyright law by selling a legit copy of the DVD with their sanitized version. Alas, that didn't fly since the copyright owner controls the right to make modified versions. Based on that court ruling it would be illegal for you to sell dupes as well as any unauthorized edited versions. 
Of course, that's just the opinion of the Dear Rich Staff and who are we but a bunch of geezers who sit around eating vegan donuts and drinking green tea. It's possible that somewhere in an alternate blog universe, there's another crew who thinks you should proceed with this potentially infringing activity. We'd like to meet them but until then we want you to stay healthy and out of trouble. 

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: copyright , derivative , movies , permission , video

Bookmark: Bookmark DVD%20Duping%3F%20Edited%20Movies%3F%20Ixnay%21 at Google.com Bookmark DVD%20Duping%3F%20Edited%20Movies%3F%20Ixnay%21 at del.icio.us Digg DVD%20Duping%3F%20Edited%20Movies%3F%20Ixnay%21 at Digg.com Bookmark DVD%20Duping%3F%20Edited%20Movies%3F%20Ixnay%21 at Spurl.net Bookmark DVD%20Duping%3F%20Edited%20Movies%3F%20Ixnay%21 at Simpy.com Bookmark DVD%20Duping%3F%20Edited%20Movies%3F%20Ixnay%21 at NewsVine Blink this DVD%20Duping%3F%20Edited%20Movies%3F%20Ixnay%21 at blinklist.com Bookmark DVD%20Duping%3F%20Edited%20Movies%3F%20Ixnay%21 at Furl.net Bookmark DVD%20Duping%3F%20Edited%20Movies%3F%20Ixnay%21 at reddit.com Fark DVD%20Duping%3F%20Edited%20Movies%3F%20Ixnay%21 at Fark.com Bookmark DVD%20Duping%3F%20Edited%20Movies%3F%20Ixnay%21 at Yahoo! MyWeb
October 21, 2009

Deceased Dad's Patent Rights

iStock_000000320896XSmall.jpgDear Rich: My father passed in 1999. He holds an original patent that was copied by his employees and they eventually kicked him out of his own company. I have not received any information about the company or his patent since his demise. Do children inherit patent rights? What is the usual scenario? The short answer is that if your father owned patent rights they should have become part of his estate and passed on to his beneficiaries according to the instructions in his will or trust. If he died without a will, your state's intestate rules would have caused the rights to likely go to his spouse and/or children depending on state law. If the patent was not listed as part of the estate, you may need to do some research (discussed below). If the patent is still valid and you can prove your father was an owner at the time of his death, an estate attorney should be able to determine how it will pass to the heirs. The Dear Rich Staff believes there are a couple of unknowns here. 
Patents expire. Patents issued after June 8, 1995 expire 20 years from the date of filing; patents issued before that date expire 17 years from date of issue. So, for example, if your father's patent issued in 1991, it would now be in the public domain. That's not to say you couldn't bring a claim against someone for actions that took place while the patent was active but that's a very tricky type of claim to bring (and the clock is ticking).
Patents are assigned. We're not sure of the situation but it sounds like some funny business occurred regarding your father's patent, his company, and his employees. If your father transferred his rights in the patent to his company, that information can usually be located by searching at Google Patents or the USPTO. Use the Advanced Search features, put in your father's name as inventor and find the patent. Check the dates to see if it has expired and look to see if an "assignee" is listed. If so, the assignee owns the patent rights. That doesn't mean that your Dad gave up all revenue. The assignment may have been an agreement promising him payments. So you would need to find the assignment document to see what the terms were. You can also search assignment documents at the USPTO here (in case the assignment was filed at a later date than the patent). Whatever you do, you should act quickly, as the passage of the ten year period since your father's death may have caused you to lose rights.

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: estate planning , patents

Bookmark: Bookmark Deceased%20Dad%27s%20Patent%20Rights at Google.com Bookmark Deceased%20Dad%27s%20Patent%20Rights at del.icio.us Digg Deceased%20Dad%27s%20Patent%20Rights at Digg.com Bookmark Deceased%20Dad%27s%20Patent%20Rights at Spurl.net Bookmark Deceased%20Dad%27s%20Patent%20Rights at Simpy.com Bookmark Deceased%20Dad%27s%20Patent%20Rights at NewsVine Blink this Deceased%20Dad%27s%20Patent%20Rights at blinklist.com Bookmark Deceased%20Dad%27s%20Patent%20Rights at Furl.net Bookmark Deceased%20Dad%27s%20Patent%20Rights at reddit.com Fark Deceased%20Dad%27s%20Patent%20Rights at Fark.com Bookmark Deceased%20Dad%27s%20Patent%20Rights at Yahoo! MyWeb
October 20, 2009

Onions, Camels, and Perl Trademarks

iStock_000007402648XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I want to create a trademark called AlchemicPerl. Perl is a programming language and the Perl Foundation, who owns the registered trademark has told me that I cannot use the word Perl. Does AlchemicPerl violate their trademark? AlchemicPerl will be used to market software and consulting services related to the Perl programming language. I know there is also a trademark called ActiveStatePerl which seems not to have a problem but I just wanted to be more certain. The short answer is that we're not sure what will happen if you proceed but we have a feeling it's not going to be good. The Perl Foundation does have a federal registration for the word PERL combined with the image of an onion. The registration is for computer software among other things and the Perl Foundation warns others against using the word, Perl, as part of a software product (and even counsels about using an onion, the Perl mascot, too). The foundation's desire to protect this mark has something to do with its intention to maintain the Perl language as an authenticated open source language without worrying about commercial interlopers preventing others from using the name --  a tactic that can have unexpected publicity consequences for those seeking open source freedom. 
What's a bit confusing for us ... and for you as well is that the ActiveState Software company, as you point out, also owns registrations -- we counted at least four -- for other Perl-related trademarks. Possibly the foundation and ActiveState -- which makes and sells commercial proprietary Perl software --  have reached an agreement as to their mutual use, possibly based on ActiveStates' prior registrations. That's just a guess and hopefully a reader will provide more details for a follow-up response. By the way, ActiveState also applied for VISUAL PERL as a trademark but that application was rejected for the Principal Register (as being descriptive) and was relegated to the less-than-cool Supplemental Register. In any case, there are two entities claiming federal trademark rights for PERL and that does not bode well for your intended use.
Let's not forget about the camel ... There's also a third Perl trademark in action and that's the camel associated with O'Reilly Perl books. (O'Reilly also owns the "perl.com" domain.). Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that Larry Walls, the creator of Perl, works for O'Reilly, and is the author of their guide to Perl, nicknamed the Camel Book. 
Hurdles and More Hurdles. The Dear Rich Staff believes that you have a series of challenges ahead of you -- for example, a trademark examiner may object to your use based upon the existing registrations; or ActiveState and the Perl Foundation may oppose the registrations as being likely to confuse. For these reasons, we'd probably back off the choice of AlchemicPerl. In addition, you might be concerned about the use of the prefix, "ALCHEMIC" and "ALCHEMY." We just got a solicitation in the mail from an Alchemy Software company in Texas, and we see a company in Florida is seeking a federal registration for ALCHEMY (which might be a problem considering there already is an existing registration for ALCHEMY for computer software for data and document capture.) And there's also a web production company called Alchemic Productions.

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: software , trademarks

Bookmark: Bookmark Onions%2C%20Camels%2C%20and%20Perl%20Trademarks at Google.com Bookmark Onions%2C%20Camels%2C%20and%20Perl%20Trademarks at del.icio.us Digg Onions%2C%20Camels%2C%20and%20Perl%20Trademarks at Digg.com Bookmark Onions%2C%20Camels%2C%20and%20Perl%20Trademarks at Spurl.net Bookmark Onions%2C%20Camels%2C%20and%20Perl%20Trademarks at Simpy.com Bookmark Onions%2C%20Camels%2C%20and%20Perl%20Trademarks at NewsVine Blink this Onions%2C%20Camels%2C%20and%20Perl%20Trademarks at blinklist.com Bookmark Onions%2C%20Camels%2C%20and%20Perl%20Trademarks at Furl.net Bookmark Onions%2C%20Camels%2C%20and%20Perl%20Trademarks at reddit.com Fark Onions%2C%20Camels%2C%20and%20Perl%20Trademarks at Fark.com Bookmark Onions%2C%20Camels%2C%20and%20Perl%20Trademarks at Yahoo! MyWeb
October 19, 2009

Roller Derby Blues: Do Jammers Need BMI License?

iStock_000005773107XSmall.jpgDear Rich:I'm a member of a small roller derby team that contracts with a local roller derby rink for 3 or 4 games a year. In our contract with the rink, it says that we will split the proceeds 50/50 (each game grosses about $2,000 in total), and that the rink is responsible for providing a DJ and music during pregame and halftime. The rink has an ASCAP & BMI license. Does the roller derby team need one too? The short answer to your question is no, the rink's license is probably sufficient. Generally, a venue's performance license -- which permits public performances of copyrighted music -- will cover all the traditional activities within the venue. (Here's a story about one roller skating fan's quest for similar information.) However, like all things legal, there are a few exceptions. If the rink signed limited licenses with these performing rights societies and those licenses only cover certain events or uses, your league could run into a problem and may need to pay additional license fees. (Here's a roller derby posting on this issue.) That's not likely, but ask the rink if it is limited to certain uses or whether the license covers all music played there. In any case, we hate to see you reach for your checkbook if your agreement states that the rink will provide and pay for the music. (We assume the agreement is silent as to your BMI and ASCAP obligations). Check your paperwork with the rink. Anyway, the Dear Rich Staff is sorry you have to think about these details when you should be concentrating on your backwards whips.

Posted by Rich Stim | | Email This Post

Posted In: music , permission

Bookmark: Bookmark Roller%20Derby%20Blues%3A%20Do%20Jammers%20Need%20BMI%20License%3F at Google.com Bookmark Roller%20Derby%20Blues%3A%20Do%20Jammers%20Need%20BMI%20License%3F at del.icio.us Digg Roller%20Derby%20Blues%3A%20Do%20Jammers%20Need%20BMI%20License%3F at Digg.com Bookmark Roller%20Derby%20Blues%3A%20Do%20Jammers%20Need%20BMI%20License%3F at Spurl.net Bookmark Roller%20Derby%20Blues%3A%20Do%20Jammers%20Need%20BMI%20License%3F at Simpy.com Bookmark Roller%20Derby%20Blues%3A%20Do%20Jammers%20Need%20BMI%20License%3F at NewsVine Blink this Roller%20Derby%20Blues%3A%20Do%20Jammers%20Need%20BMI%20License%3F at blinklist.com Bookmark Roller%20Derby%20Blues%3A%20Do%20Jammers%20Need%20BMI%20License%3F at Furl.net Bookmark Roller%20Derby%20Blues%3A%20Do%20Jammers%20Need%20BMI%20License%3F at reddit.com Fark Roller%20Derby%20Blues%3A%20Do%20Jammers%20Need%20BMI%20License%3F at Fark.com Bookmark Roller%20Derby%20Blues%3A%20Do%20Jammers%20Need%20BMI%20License%3F at Yahoo! MyWeb