My husband believes that it is easier to get forgiveness than permission, and I've learned to deal with him that way. But I keep telling him that this is not the way things work in copyright or trademark law.
Witness the flack that's flying because Apple announced the "iPhone" before finalizing any negotiations it may have been in with, I think, Cisco before Steve Jobs made the announcement earlier this week.
I am far from an expert in trademark law. My friend Karen is and we frequently disagree about which is the more difficult IP law to understand. She says trademark is a piece of cake, I say copyright couldn't be simpler but trademark is convoluted. My proof is that anyone can file a copyright registration and get it right but even professionals are guaranteed to get at least one "Office Action" for any trademark filing.
In any case, I had noticed that Apple was being very coy about calling their possible announcement an "iPhone" before the announcement, even though it would appear that the company does have a strong mark in the "i-Whatever" area. I was certainly not aware that any other company had such a mark, but the Internet does make searching the USPTO's files very easy. I heard my acquaintance Paul Supnick on the radio yesterday saying he thinks that what will happen is that Apple will buy or license the "iPhone" mark at a higher price than they originally expected to pay. Probably true and probably worth it for all parties to the deal.
So many news reports mix up copyright, patent, and trademark rights. Simply put, copyright is about authorship, patent is about invention, and trademark is about the source of goods or services. Sometimes things are protected by two of these concepts, and it is possible that some things might have protection under all three. Patent protects for the shortest period and trademark can theoretically protect for the longest since it's good as long as something is used in commerce and the periodic fees are made to the USPTO. Copyrights and patents are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, trademarks are not.
You can't copyright a title, but you can get a trademark on a series of titles (Star Wars is a series) while the books or films are individually protected by copyright. Short phrases can't be registered for copyright, but a single photograph or drawing can be. I think an individual haiku can be registered for copyright, even if it has fewer than the 15 words that Ralph Oman, former Register of Copyrights, said was the rule of thumb minimum for registering writings.
If you need information or forms for registering a copyright, go to www.copyright.gov. Even a copy of the law is there.
Isn't that easy?
Showing posts with label Copyrights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyrights. Show all posts
Friday, January 12, 2007
Friday, January 5, 2007
A Bright New Year--Maybe
I, for one, am enjoying the fantasy of some transparency in government now that Congress has changed hands.
What will be interesting to see is how things move along with the "orphaned works" provision bill. Congressman Howard Berman will chair the responsible committee in the House. In the past, no changes happened in copyright law without all the interested parties agreeing. More recently, this has not been the case and careful balances have been upended.
I first met Congressman Berman around 20 years ago, when I lived and worked in D.C. I met with him and and some of his aids when I was on the ASMP Board and helped to set up the Copyright Justice Coalition. I've had the opportunity to meet with him a number of times over the years and I've always found him responsive to the needs of the creative community. He was a guest speaker for me when I was the chair of the entertainment section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association and I called on his office for advice when I handled Harlan Ellison's lawsuit against AOL. I hope that he will see the folly in the proposed legislation (assuming it is to be reintroduced this session of Congress when there are so many other pressing matters.)
As I understand it, the falacy on which this legislation rests is that it is impossible to find the authors or copyright holders of many works. Even if this is true in a few cases, the Internet has really made it far easier to locate artists and writers. I cannot tell you the number of times I've been able to find contact
But greed makes corporations and other individuals want to be able to use the work of creators without the bother and expense of licensing, hence the smoke screen that there are huge numbers of ophaned works--as opposed to works legitimately in the public domain--in existence. Corporations sure don't want any of their properties to fall into the public domain--Disney spent a fortune making sure that Micky Mouse is still all theirs by pushing a law that prevented the mouse from hitting the PD four years ago. Such corporations have spent years (probably more than the almost 30 years I've been watching) telling Congress the balance of copyright is between the rights of creators and the rights of publishers (using that term in a very broad sense), but the plain language of the text of the U.S. Constitution says Congress has the power "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and inventions." Neither publishers nor corporations are mentioned. Authors and inventors are supposed to benefit the greater human condition by being compensated for what they do.
I think Congress should give some thought to reining in the concept of "corporation" as "person." So often under the law, coporations get the rights, but not the duties or other obligations of personhood. I'd love to see that equation change.
Copyright booster I may be, but I really see no reason for the last increase in copyright term because it benefited corporations with no apparent benefit to the actual creators of works or their heirs. The 1976 Act had real benefits for the creators and heirs.
What will be interesting to see is how things move along with the "orphaned works" provision bill. Congressman Howard Berman will chair the responsible committee in the House. In the past, no changes happened in copyright law without all the interested parties agreeing. More recently, this has not been the case and careful balances have been upended.
I first met Congressman Berman around 20 years ago, when I lived and worked in D.C. I met with him and and some of his aids when I was on the ASMP Board and helped to set up the Copyright Justice Coalition. I've had the opportunity to meet with him a number of times over the years and I've always found him responsive to the needs of the creative community. He was a guest speaker for me when I was the chair of the entertainment section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association and I called on his office for advice when I handled Harlan Ellison's lawsuit against AOL. I hope that he will see the folly in the proposed legislation (assuming it is to be reintroduced this session of Congress when there are so many other pressing matters.)
As I understand it, the falacy on which this legislation rests is that it is impossible to find the authors or copyright holders of many works. Even if this is true in a few cases, the Internet has really made it far easier to locate artists and writers. I cannot tell you the number of times I've been able to find contact
But greed makes corporations and other individuals want to be able to use the work of creators without the bother and expense of licensing, hence the smoke screen that there are huge numbers of ophaned works--as opposed to works legitimately in the public domain--in existence. Corporations sure don't want any of their properties to fall into the public domain--Disney spent a fortune making sure that Micky Mouse is still all theirs by pushing a law that prevented the mouse from hitting the PD four years ago. Such corporations have spent years (probably more than the almost 30 years I've been watching) telling Congress the balance of copyright is between the rights of creators and the rights of publishers (using that term in a very broad sense), but the plain language of the text of the U.S. Constitution says Congress has the power "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and inventions." Neither publishers nor corporations are mentioned. Authors and inventors are supposed to benefit the greater human condition by being compensated for what they do.
I think Congress should give some thought to reining in the concept of "corporation" as "person." So often under the law, coporations get the rights, but not the duties or other obligations of personhood. I'd love to see that equation change.
Copyright booster I may be, but I really see no reason for the last increase in copyright term because it benefited corporations with no apparent benefit to the actual creators of works or their heirs. The 1976 Act had real benefits for the creators and heirs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
