Recently in copyright Category

March 11, 2010

Copyrighting tracks with vocal samples

vocalist.jpgDear Rich: I would like to ask about pre-licensed sample packs. I purchased a CD with vocal samples, in the licensing agreement there was information that "You can use the sounds in any type of non commercial music production without permission." So I asked the producer of the samples if I can use them freely in commercial production and he agreed. When I finished the track I copyrighted it. But because the track has the vocal samples and they are quite popular if I release my track may I have a conflict with other producer as to "who came first?" You won't run into any disputes over the samples.Copyright law doesn't care who came first. All that matters is whether you copied somebody's work without permission. Keep in mind that if the only thing in common between your recording and someone else's is the fact that both of them use the same licensed samples, there is no infringement. You can both co-exist in sampled harmony.
The good and the bad. The great thing about licensed samples is that you have inexpensive access to great sounding audio clips. The downside is that anybody else can also purchase the same rights, and end up sounding like your tracks. (Just like anybody can license the same photo in their blog as the one we licensed from istockphoto.) By the way, if you register your new tracks, the Dear RIch Staff suggests that you state that you are not claiming rights to the samples (in section 4 of Form CO).   
March 10, 2010

Supercalafragalisticexpialidocious! Can you protect coined words?

Jabberwock.jpgDear Rich: I'm creating a cartoon world which contains several coined words describing things, actions and types of creatures, a little bit like Tolkien's "Lord Of The Rings". Does copyright give me the exclusive right to use these words in money-making ways? For example, could Tolkien have restricted the sale of T-shirts that used the word "Hobbit", either by itself or as part of a phrase? 
As a general rule, copyright does not protect single words or short phrases, even if those words or short phrases are nonsense. 
Tell it to the Hand. There is an odd collection of copyright cases that indicate that nonsense words may be protectable in different contexts. In a case in which a book of meaningless code words was protected (Reiss v. National Quotation Bureau), the great jurist Learned Hand  (and odd-couple pal to J.D. Salinger) wrote, "Conceivably there may arise a poet who strings together words without rational sequence-perhaps even coined syllables-through whose beauty, cadence, meter and rhyme he may seek to make poetry." (Hand's logic in that case was later used as the basis for protecting  Apple's operating system object code. The protection of inventive words was part of the copyright-software debate  in the late 1980s since nonsense words (source code) are essentially  what facilitate our 'human-machine' communications.)
The Jabberwock. In another case, the great Justice Jerome Frank also mentioned a phrase from Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky, "Twas brillig and the slithy toves" as an example of a nonsense phrase with sufficient originality to achieve copyright protection. There's also a case involving the word 'Supercalafragalisticexpialidocious' in which the court held that copying an inventive word could 'conceivably' create liability. And finally, a British court reviewing the word "Exxon' indicated that inventive words might be protected in some contexts. So, it's possible a sufficiently original collection of coined words will be protected.
When inventive words are character names. If you use the inventive word as a character name, you can likely achieve trademark protection without much problem. You may also get some peripeheral copyright protection for the character name as well -- for example, in one case, merchandisers were stopped from using the phrase "E.T. Phone Home" under copyright law. 
Alice's House. Yes, the new Tim Burton movie features the Jabberwock as well as the complete version of the Jabberwocky poem.

March 5, 2010

Needs License for Watching the Detectives

Dear Rich: I want to use the melody (we will do the lyrics) of the 1977 Elvis Costello song Watching the Detectives in a promotional video. It is for a medical device company. Term is 9 months (this year). Do I need a sync license? Who is this sent to? (Costello is within the Universal Music Publishing Group). Wow, the Dear Rich Staff loves that song. Using it to promote medical devices is really thinking outside the box -- like way outside.  
Right, you had a question ... Yes, you need a sync license and you would need permission to modify the lyrics. You should speak with the publisher -- yes, it's Universal Music Publishing. Contact them at  2440 Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 100, Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 235-4700. If you run into a problem -- the typical one being that nobody takes your calls -- you may need to hire a clearance expert. You can read more about that stuff in our book. If you create your own version of the song and don't imitate the singing style of Elvis Costello -- imitating artists in ads leads to problems -- you will only need the permission of the publisher (or administrator).
March 1, 2010

Optioning Theatrical Rights From Heirs

theater.jpgDear Rich: I'm optioning theatrical rights from an author's heirs. I'm using a boilerplate option contract to option the rights. Before I enter into the contract, should the heirs have to provide right of title from the Copyright Office and proof of ownership? We don't know what language is included in your option agreement -- the Dear Rich Staff finds 'boilerplate' to be a deceptive term (with even more deceptive origins). However, you're on the right track by wanting some form of assurance or verification.
Good title; bad title. How do you verify that someone owns copyright? You can start by searching Copyright Office records, or you can hire a search company to research the copyright history. Search results, alas, are not always conclusive. The heirs may not yet have registered ownership in their name, may not have filed documentation evidencing the transfer, or they may have filed documents that have not yet been recorded. There is also the possibility that the records reflect that the heirs own copyright ... but don't reflect the fact that they have since transferred rights.  Finally, the heirs may have provided incorrect information to the Copyright Office. A registration doesn't verify that the person owns the copyright; it creates a presumption that the person owns it. 
Assurances. So, a wise approach may be to research on your own and to also seek assurances in your option agreement. You can include warranties -- guarantees as to representations of fact -- and indemnities -- promises to pay for all damages and costs if a third-party sues over the ownership issue. At the absolute minimum your option agreement must include a warranty from the heirs that they have the power and authority to enter into the option agreement. You can also ask that the heirs provide you with documentation from the Copyright Office evidencing ownership  (that may require them to file documents) and you may also seek other proof of the transfer -- a copy of the will, an opinion letter from the attorney, or documentation from the probate court. 
Wild card department. Though it's probably not an issue, it may matter whether the work falls under the 1909 Act or the 1976 Act (effective January 1, 1978). This could affect the rights of the heirs to terminate previously existing transfers of ownership. It's confusing stuff and a lawyer's assistance may be required.
February 19, 2010

Is Excel Add-On An Infringement?

ms-excel-logo.pngDear Rich: I developed an app/program that can be opened within MS Excel to help business's organize and compile data. Even though it is an add-on to Excel, do I have any copyright or patent issues to worry about if I plan to sell this app? It's unlikely you would get a letter from Microsoft (or any other software developer) unless you either lifted proprietary code without permission, or you stepped on someone's software patent --  always a tough call in the crazy and perhaps soon-to-be-extinct world of software patents. You could run into problems if you are using a developer's kit or other licensed software and your add-on violates your license (also unlikely). Finally, you could run into a few hurdles if you advertised your add-on as being endorsed by or associated with Microsoft (or other software providers). Based on the high volume of Excel add-ons (or add-ins as they are more commonly known) the Dear Rich Staff feels that none of these issues will arise for you and you're probably going to have a problem-free release.
February 18, 2010

Mailing Copyrighted Stuff to Yourself

Thumbnail image for email.jpgDear Rich: I'm planning to set up a blog where I'll post multiple sketches, poems and short stories, but I don't want to go broke paying for copyright registrations. What is your view on just sending myself an email with each work in it as timestamped evidence that I created it, and then registering the works in big groups once or twice a year? The Dear Rich Staff is always curious about people who send things to themselves as a form of legal maneuvering. On the one hand, we don't think it's a worthwhile form of protection. On the other hand, we can understand the desire to get mail. In fact we can really understand the desire ever since the USPS completely screwed up our three change of address forms (and we're including the one we did online and paid a dollar for). When the USPS called us to explain the problems -- which they apparently can't fix -- they gave us such a weird explanation that we're wondering if maybe they outsourced customer service to District 9. As a result, we instituted our own mail-forwarding system in which we periodically return to our previous address and plead for our copies of Patternworks and California Prison Focus.
Right, you had a question ... Date-stamped emails and letters won't offer much in the way of copyright protection because at best -- and this would still require expert validation -- they prove only that you sent something to yourself on or around a certain date.(They don't prove that you actually created the work). Copyright disputes are rarely about who created something first (you may be confusing them with patent disputes although the poor-man's patent also won't protect you). Copyright disputes are about whether someone had access to your work and copied it. Since you're posting this material in a blog, you should be able to demonstrate that the work is yours and there should be ample ways to prove when you first published it using cached or archived Internet pages. Finally, in case you missed our posts on the subject, you get copyright automatically once you create the work. You really only need to register copyright as a proactive step if you believe your work will be infringed. We discussed strategies for copyright protection of blogs in an earlier entry.
February 15, 2010

Can Monopoly Come After Me?

MonopolySpongeBobSquarePantsEdition_billboard_1.jpgDear Rich: A few years ago, I came up with my own version of Monopoly to use in high schools as a fun way to teach a topic. The game became so fun and popular that a local science center wanted to play it and open it up as a free competition between schools. I didn't have a problem with that, but was starting to get a little worried about legal issues. I tried several times to contact Hasbro to ask permission, but they never responded. I told the schools that unless they intended on backing me up if any legal issues arrose, that I would not allow the game to be played. No one wanted to back me up, so I decided that I would change the game sufficiently as to make it very different from a Monopoly-like game. I did that and the game looks great and still fun (I'm pretty sure that I changed it enough.). Now, I'm uncertain. Did I change it enough? Really, the only thing that remains similar is that you can purchase property (but they're not houses or hotels) and pay rent? Because I am not selling it, am I safe? If I do decide to turn it into a classroom-type game, how difficult would that be and is the fact that the game was originally based on MONOPOLY going to cause problems? Should I go see a lawyer? Is it worth going through all of the trouble of patenting my idea and/or selling it? How many board game ideas out there really make it (I'm assuming that it is very little)? Can I protect my idea and distribute the game for free (just get organizations to give me cash to produce and distribute for free in schools)?  I'm hoping that you can help. The Dear Rich Staff would like to help but we're pretty exhausted from reading all your questions. Wait a second while we hook up a caffeinated IV drip. 
1. We don't know if you changed the game enough but if people play it and say things like, 'this seems a lot like Monopoly,' the answer is probably, 'No.' 
2. If the only thing the games have in common is the idea of purchasing property, then you're not likely to be infringing.
3. If the game infringes, you will be liable for selling, distributing or licensing. You don't have to make a profit to be an infringer.
4.  If it's not similar to Monopoly it won't infringe even if you were originally inspired by Monopoly.
5. We don't know if you should go see a lawyer. We happen to like lawyers and think they're an interesting group of people. But that's just us. Also, when we speak to lawyers, the meter is usually not running. We would suggest holding off on the legal visits and learning as much as you can by yourself.
6. You may be able to patent your game--possibly with either a utility or design patent--but we wouldn't recommend it as a strategy for board games (which kind of fits in with the whole twisted legal history of Monopoly). In any case, copyright and trademark law should do just fine for you.
7. The Dear Rich Staff used to do a lot of toy licensing and our experience from that was that board game licenses were exceptionally rare. You will have a hard time getting in to see the two or three companies that still make board games, and without major distribution, it will likely become a money-losing venture. Even if you do license it, the chances of breaking through the existing pack of popular and classic board games is slim. (Sorry to be so negative but we're glass-half-empty folks).
8. If your game isn't substantially similar to an existing game and doesn't use a similar trademark, you're legally entitled to do what you want. 


February 12, 2010

Pillow Talk

BjonPhone.jpgDear Rich: I want to market a craft that I make. Online I have found numerous other people making the same pillows, in various shapes and forms. I have found one that has a copyright for a shape that goes around the neck. Others may possibly exist but I cannot find the images to determine if the shape and size of mine are the same or different. Mine are a simple square and rectangle, of which there are many versions on-line. What distinguishes mine is my marketing idea -- I want to give it sex appeal, quite different from others. For that reason I am applying for a trademark for my logo and name. But regarding the copyright, would I infringe on anyone's copyright if mine is square or rectangle? No, a useful article cannot receive copyright protection. However, the expressive elements that can be "separated" from the pillow can get protection such as the fabric design or images, or in some cases, the text. Traditional (square, round, etc.) and functional shapes (for example, around-the-neck) shapes of a pillow are not protected by copyright.
Getting a trademark. Seeking trademark protection for your logo and name is probably a good idea if you want to stop someone from using similar content. Of course, the Dear Rich Staff reminds you that to obtain that protection you must have used the marks prior to competitors
The young woman in the photo -- my sister, BJ -- grew up to run a thriving crafts business -- Barbini. She's since switched to cell phones. 

February 10, 2010

Linking and Photos: Permission Needed?

00000210.jpgDear Rich: On my not-for-profit pages and hopeful e-book, if I provide a link to another website's page and show a photo from their page, do I need also to gain permission? The Dear Rich Staff reports that (1) no, permission is not needed for the link to the page and (2) yes, permission is needed for reproducing the photo (unless perhaps you are reproducing thumbnails, in which case it may be excused). We assume you don't need the legal backstory for all this but if you do, you can read about it here.

To learn more about web licensing, check out Stephen Fishman's A Legal Guide to Web & Software Development.
February 9, 2010

My Wife as a Caricature

JoeParatrooperSmall.jpgDear Rich: Recently my wife had a caricature done of her at a local university by an company who specialises in creating caricatures. She was so impressed by the picture of her she wants to use the likeness on future promotional materials (i.e. flyers, business cards etc) for her future business venture. Would we have to get permission to be able to use the likeness from said company and if so how pricey can buying the rights to this property get? The Dear Rich Staff loves caricature art -- representations of people in an exaggerated fashion, usually for comic relief. In fact, we just found this one while looking through the attic.
Permission? The caricature copyright is initially owned by the artist (or by the company that employed the artist) and you would need to ask permission. It's possible that the contract with the company granted rights to the university (or the subjects) so before asking for rights, talk to whoever hired the company. Practically you may be able to get away without asking for permission for various reasons -- the artist never learns of your use, the company doesn't want to hassle clients, the artist can't afford to sue. In any case, there is always a risk involved with using the work without permission.
How much would it cost? We can't say but we imagine it would range from $0 (they may want nothing, or just want a small credit) to one or two hundred dollars.
Did we pay for the caricature we're using? No, this caricature of Paratrooper Joe Stim was created 65 years ago and we're going to presume the copyright was never registered or renewed.
January 26, 2010

Need Rights to Music for Video

sinatra_wee_small_hours.jpgDear Rich: I am in need of a document but dont know exactly which agreement/form will serve my need. I have a video that needs music put to it and I have found a freelancer to do it. So I need a transfer of rights doc to get him to sign before he works on it so that we can copyright it under our name without ever running into a legal issue. Does a patent, copyright, trademark need to be registered by the original artist before an assignment can be signed? Sorry, we can't answer your question until we finish downloading this album. Amazon is/was offering it for $5.99!!! No video needed for this masterpiece.
Your Question. Right. If someone is commissioned to create a contribution for an audiovisual work (a movie, video, etc.) then that would qualify as a work made for hire under copyright law. And if you want to list your company as the "author," you'll have that option under the work made for hire arrangement. Our employer (insert FTC disclaimer here) sells books that include work made for hire agreements. You can probably fashion one yourself as long as you include the following provision:
Contractor agrees that, for consideration that is acknowledged, any works of authorship commissioned pursuant to this Agreement (the "Works") shall be considered works made for hire as that term is defined under U.S. copyright law. To the extent that any such Work created for Company by Contractor is not a work made for hire belonging to Company, Contractor hereby assigns and transfers to Company all rights Contractor has or may acquire to all such Works. Contractor agrees to sign and deliver to Company, either during or subsequent to the term of this Agreement, such other documents as Company considers desirable to evidence the assignment of copyright.
You'll also need to add some other stuff like an assurance that the material isn't taken from somewhere else, information about payment and other typical contract stuff. The agreement should be signed before the work is completed.
Do you need to register a patent, copyright or trademark before assigning it? Just to be clear, we're only talking about copyrights. No registration is required for the work made for hire agreement or for an assignment of copyright. A registration isn't necessary for assigning a trademark, either. You would need to have acquired a patent before assigning it since patents (unlike copyrights and trademarks) don't exist until the government says, 'Okay!' You can, however, assign a patent application or the underlying technology rights. That's enough blah blah blah for today, the Dear Rich Staff has got to go get melancholy with Frank.

January 25, 2010

How Do I Copyright My Mobile App?

translink.jpgDear Rich: How do we copyright an app and do we need a marketing firm to help us once it is developed? Are we locked into Apple once it is published or can we sell it elsewhere as well? Will you send me an answer here or do I have to look on your webpage for your response? We assume you're asking how to file a copyright application since as you should know from following the Dear Rich blog, you get a copyright automatically once you finish your app--even an alpha version. 
Form CO. To file an application, you first need to determine which elements of the app are your original authorship. For example, if you only contributed some text and software code, and you licensed the rest, then you would only claim copyright (and seek registration) for what you created. You indicate that information in Form CO -- the all purpose copyright application -- in the section under 'authorship.' Later, in Section 4A of the form you must list the items for which you are not claiming copyright. 
Pick Your Category. As with any copyright application you must establish what "category" of work you are registering. Most software programs are registered as 'literary works' - an anachronism dating back to the fact that source code is written in letters and numerals. However, if your app is primarily pictures, choose 'visual arts' work, and if it is a graphics-heavy product like a game, choose 'performing arts' work. Don't worry if your app seems to straddle two categories -- just pick the one that seems best.
Do You Need a Marketing Firm? The Dear Rich Staff doesn't know whether you should use a marketing firm. That's not our bailiwick. In any case it sounds expensive
Can You Sell it Elsewhere? We don't see anything in the iPhone Developer Agreement that prohibits your porting from one mobile OS to another. 
Will We Send You the Answer? No, we won't send you the answer so if you were hoping for an email response, it's going to get very Godot-ish waiting by your inbox. Sometimes, if we're not  overwhelmed with managing our Netflix queue, scrutinizing our credit card statements (What did we order from Czechoslovakia?), and monitoring our TransLink card, we do write back to people.

Other questions about software development? See Stephen Fishman's A Legal Guide to Web & Software Development.
January 15, 2010

Producers Say No! Can We Use Old Footage?

iStock_000008603363XSmall.jpgDear Rich: We were told by the producers of a local television station that a now defunct television program that hasn't aired for over ten years is no longer available for licensing to filmmakers because there isn't enough money in it and they do not have the staff to locate, edit and make available the footage. We actually have the footage taken from a SVHS master and want to include the show along with their on-screen talent (host and interviewer). We have permission from the host to use his likeness but have been unable to secure a license from the producers. What can we do? That depends. If someone refuses to give you permission to use copyrighted material, you can't -- with a few exceptions -- compel them to license the material. You can of course run the risk of using the material without permission under the theory that copying and performing a short snippet is a fair use because you are using the footage for purposes of commentary or criticism. The Dear Rich Staff found one example where the makers of a movie biography of Muhammad Ali used 41 seconds from a boxing match film in their biography. A court considered it a fair use. This site talks about the case and other video cases, as well.

Want to know more about getting permission? Check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
December 29, 2009

Recording a Lindsey Buckingham Song

lindsey buckinghamDear Rich: I have friends in a band in Norway and they want to release a song written by Lindsay Buckingham. They plan on releasing 1000 CDs and 500 vinyl singles. Does the label ask for permission or should the band? We think your friends should look at their recording contract (if they have one) to determine who has responsibility for paying for the rights. In the U.S., the label typically pays (and then charges it to the band somehow).
Rights Organizations. In the U.S., the band would have a fairly easy time sorting this out. They could either pay the compulsory license fees and follow the instructions issued by the Copyright Office. Or they could take the easier route of charging the fees to their credit card at the HFA site -- you just set up an account and tell them how many copies. HFA instructions note, however, that the license is only for recordings distributed in the U.S. In Norway, rights are commonly sorted by Kopinor, and your friends might want to check their website for assistance. Other European rights organizations are shown here.
Small Correction Dept. You spelled Mr. B's name as Lindsay; the hypervigilant Dear Rich Staff reports that it's actually the more common male variant, Lindsey (placing #834 among male names -- compared to #1211 for Lindsay). 

To find out more about music copyright law, see my book Music Law: How to Run Your Band's Business.
December 7, 2009

This Is a Test: The Right to Publish Old Photos

iStock_000008730721XSmall.jpg12/09/09 - Note this answer has been corrected following initial publication.
 
Dear Rich: I recently took a public relations accreditation test that included the question below. The answer was D. If the photos were in company files why can't it be argued they were paid for? If the photos were 20 to 100 years old does the copyright still hold? 

To celebrate its 100th anniversary, your company wants to publish a coffee-table book of photos depicting the company's history. You dig through the files and old annual reports and find many photos, some of which have never been published. Some of the unpublished photos are dated and stamped on the back with the name of a photography studio that has been out of business for 20 years. When you consult with your publisher about the most effective way to reproduce these particular prints, the publisher says they cannot reprint them without the original photographer's permission. You are unable to find the original contract between the company and the photographer. Can you reprint the photos without the original photographer's permission? 
A. Yes, if you pay the publisher a fee to reproduce the photos. 
B. Yes, the company paid for the photography and therefore owns the prints. 
C. Yes, you can reproduce the photos if you give proper credit to the photographer. 
D. No, the photographer or heirs own the copyright and must grant permission to reproduce the unpublished photographs. 

The answer to your question within a question is that D is the best (or "most correct") answer. We understand your desire to argue the point - that's one of the reasons that the Dear Rich Staff quit teaching - but unless there is documentation showing that the photographer transferred rights to the company, the photographer retains copyright. The act of paying for a service such as photography does by itself not grant copyright.
A better and much more long-winded answer would have been:
E. Probably Not. If the photos were subject to a work for hire arrangement executed before January 1, 1978, it's possible that the republication would be permitted since such agreements are interpreted more "loosely" than under the current Copyright Act. However, as a general rule, photos are protected for the life of the author plus seventy years (although if the U.S. ever passes Orphan Works legislation, this whole question will be moot). 
Ennyway we're happy to learn that people in public relations are accredited and hope you passed your test and are earning 20% more than your colleagues. (Also we hope you will indemnify us in case the accreditation tester sues us for copyright infringement.)