Dear Rich: Nolo’s Patent, Copyright & Trademark Blog

I work for a non-profit and my board members are obsessed with getting photo releases - but as they don't have a good one and they often want to photograph events with LOTS of people - they refrain from taking photos at all. I was under the impression that unless a photo was going to be sold, no release was needed. Is there a guideline that will enlighten both myself and my board about when photos and video that will be used for things like social media and newsletters require releases from their subjects?  I am afraid this question is going to lead to a "it varies from state to state" answer. Actually, the answer doesn't vary from state to state (and in any case the Dear Rich Staff would never do you like that!) By the way, you might get more out of reading this discussion or by having your nonprofit spring for this book.

Dear Rich: I work for a law firm that advertises on BART. We're preparing some new ads and we want to use the phrase NO SOUP FOR YOU (which you may recognize from a series of Seinfeld episodes). Our research shows that there are no live registrations at the USPTO for the phrase. We found a domain name using the phrase, "Nosoupforyou.com," which appears to be a Gainesville, Florida local restaurant web-guide. And according to the Dear Rich blog, copyright laws disfavor protection for short phrases. Are we correct to conclude that we're safe to use this phrase in our ads as long as we don't use it in connection with Seinfeld images. Absent any other Seinfeld connection in the ad, you should be good to go. Nobody appears to be exploiting "No Soup for You," as a trademark for legal services (and it's hard to imagine that anyone would). As you indicated, applications were made for restaurant services but both applicants never filed a statement of use indicating that they were actually using the mark. You are correct as to short phrase protection as well. It's possible that the Seinfeld creators could object under principles of unfair competition, arguing that your use confuses consumers as to Seinfeld's association with the law firm--a long shot that seems extremely unlikely.