Rosita Missoni: Queen of Zig Zag (PS fabric designs are Copyrightable) Reply

IMG-it

photo credit: Yavidan at VIOLETA PURPLE

“There are few people in fashion that are an institution like Rosita Missoni, she is not only the head of one of the most successful Italian houses but the Queen of a very beautiful family. With her late husband Ottavio they founded what today is one the most successful Italian houses thanks to their unique knits and colors.”

Reading this (which was posted on www.violetapurple.com by Yavidan) brought the COPYRIGHTABILITY of unique and original fabric designs and weaving designs to mind.

It’s true, unique and original fabric designs and weaving designs are eligible for U.S. copyright registration.  In the U.S., they are registered as a “work of visual art.”  To apply for copyright registration of an original fabric or weaving design, either a color photo of the complete design or a fabric swatch showing the complete design may be submitted along with the application for registration and payment of the filing fee. (The general filing fee is $35 or $55).

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: www.violetapurple.com for Yavidan’s post on “Rosetta Missoni: Queen of the Clan”; other blog posts on copyright at https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/c-o-p-y-r-i-g-h-t/U.S. Copyright Office Circular 40 on Copyright Registration for Pictorial, Graphic, and Sculptural Works including fabric designs at http://copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf ; U.S. Copyright Office Circular 40A on Deposit Requirements for Registration of Claims to Copyright in Visual Arts Materials at http://copyright.gov/circs/circ40a.pdf; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

SELMA: Bravo for the Movie & Creative Script (mixing original text & public domain works) 1

Selma Hostoric Route sign

photo from wikipedia.org

Two enthusiastic thumbs up for the movie SELMA and the creative script that uses accent, aura, scripture, lyrics of gospel songs and original text instead of historic speeches.  Before seeing the movie, SELMA, I read that the speeches given by Dr. King in the film were written by [the talented writer, producer, director and distributor] Ms. DuVernay and were not the historical speeches given by Dr. King.

Dr. King’s heirs did not grant permission for his speeches to be quoted in “Selma,” and while this may be a blow to the film’s authenticity, Ms. DuVernay turns it into an advantage, a chance to see and hear him afresh. Mr. Oyelowo, a British actor of Nigerian background, has mastered the Southern inflections and preacherly cadences that have become part of the permanent soundtrack of our educational system, and the script offers credible paraphrases of his character’s unmatched eloquence.

[–BRAVO, Ms. DuVernay, for turning this into an advantage].

It is not uncommon for permission to use famous copyrighted works, like Dr. King’s famous speeches, to be unattainable or denied.  (Obtaining permission to use a famous copyrighted work is often cost prohibitive).  Whatever the reason that permission to use a famous work is unattainable or denied, creating an original work is a brilliant solution.  After seeing the movie SELMA this past weekend, I was impressed with the use of bible verses and gospel lyrics in Ms. DuVernay’s script.  Bible verses and gospel lyrics are often in the public domain and free to use.  Intermixing public domain material and original text in a movie script works.  For example, Ms. DuVernay’s script uses the lyrics of the “Battle Hymn of The Republic” in a final scene with Dr. King.  The lyrics of this old hymn (written in the 1860’s and now in the public domain) were a powerful, spoken finale.

“Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord…”

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: An earlier blog post on Copyright Law & Dr. King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech at http://wp.me/p10nNq-3R; Free tickets for 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students at http://selmastudenttickets.com; the SELMA website at www.selmamovie.com; www.paramount.com/movies/selma; www.avaduvernay.com/about; movie review by Kenny Miles at http://themovieblog.com/2015/ava-duvernays-masterful-selma-is-the-timely-movie-america-needs/; quote above is from the NY Times article titled, “A 50-Mile March, Nearly 50 Years Later. In ‘Selma,’ King Is Just One of Many Heros” by A.O. Scott on Dec. 24, 2014 available at www.nytimes.com; NY Times article titled, “The Man Who Would Be King.  David Oyelowo’s Pivotal Role in ‘Selma’ by Felicia R. Leedec on Dec. 18, 2014 available at www.nytimes.com; information on the Battle Hymn of the Republic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_Hymn_of_the_Republic; NY Times article titled, “An Unsettled Chapter in Martin Luther King’s Legacy” by Richard Fausset on Jan. 12, 2015 at http://mobile.nytimes.com; Wikipedia photo credit at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Copyright ≠ Confidential: Key to Tire Litigation & Wrongful Death Claims Reply

Copyrighted works that have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office are not vested with the same confidential treatment as trade secrets because they are available to the tirepublic.  Each time a person or entity registers an original work with the U.S. Copyright Office, a copy of the work that the applicant wishes to register is submitted along with their application.  This submitted copy of a published, literary work (which is called a deposit copy) is often made available to the public via the Library of Congress and a national network of libraries.

The fact that copyrighted materials are public records and not confidential is a basic principle of U.S. Copyright Law.  This basic principle of copyright law may create big changes to tire litigation and the evaluation of wrongful death claims related to faulty tires.  To date courts have routinely held copyrighted reports containing data on tire safety is inadmissible in tire litigation because, the reports contain trade secrets and are thereby confidential.  However, it seems that the copyright notice on the reports and their availability (upon request) to the public in the stacks at the Library of Congress and other libraries has been routinely overlooked.

Proper application of copyright law in tire litigation could alter the evaluation, treatment and admissibility of copyrighted reports containing data on tire safety.  As a result, copyright law has the potential to impact public safety.

For more information on this topic, See the article titled “The Tire Industry’s Abuse of Copyright Claims and the Corresponding Defenses of Copyright Misuse and Fair Use of Smithers Documents” co-authored by me and my uncle, Bruce Kaster Esq.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: a full bio of Mr. Bruce Kaster who has extensive litigation experience against major tire manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers, including Bridgestone, Firestone, Goodyear, Continental General, Cooper Tire, Ford Motor Company and others at www.tirefailures.com and a copy of our article and other resources at www.tirefailures.com/helpful-resourses.html; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

 

 

Female Watson: Great for many reasons including Copyright Reply

WatsonFabulous, smart, strong, witty, problem solving female characters are always great.  Recently, Hollywood has been recasting some traditionally male characters like Watson (from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous Sherlock Holmes stories) as women.  Additionally, Hollywood has been developing new central characters from the Doyle’s classics.  For example, Watson’s wife (barely mentioned or developed in Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories) is becoming a featured charter in the new BBC series based on the literary classic.  Also Lucy Liu is featured as Dr. Joan Watson in Elementary, a new series set in NYC.  This is a great trend for developing new, dynamite leading ladies.

Interestingly, this tend also has potential copyright advantages for the creative folks writing these new leading ladies based on traditionally male roles.  The “copyright advantage” is that creating new original characters by definition creates new character traits, storylines and crime solving adventures which the owners of the new TV series can potentially own, control and monetize to a greater degree than if the stories, characters and adventures are taken from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s books.  This is because some of the original story elements and characters from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s books and stories, like Holmes and Dr. John Watson, have entered into the public domain and others are still under copyright protection and must be licensed from Doyle’s Estate.  (See this earlier post,  http://wp.me/p10nNq-z8 , for more information on this topic).

I love Lucy Liu as Dr. Joan Watson!  How about a lady Holmes, next?  Holmes

Happy Halloween!

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: earlier blog posts on the topic of “public domain,” https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/public-domain/; other copyright and public domain resources, http://www.copyright.gov, http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Can I copyright my website’s content? 3

Yes – copyright is a form of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship copyrightincluding content on a website. For example, original text, videos, graphics, animation, photographs, music, sound recordings, illustrations, translations and other original content featured on a website can be copyrighted.

Two ways to use copyright to protect original content on a website are: 1) to use a copyright notice on the website, and 2) copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office.

A few points to keep in mind regarding copyrighting website content:

  • Using a date range in the copyright notice may be beneficial if new content is posted periodically.  For example, © 2011-2014 Ima Starr.  All rights reserved.
  • An application for copyright registration only covers the original content that is submitted with the application and will not include future updates.
  • If content on the website is updated frequently, it may be a good idea to file new applications for copyright registration periodically, as needed.
  • The author, creator, and owner of the content may or may not be the same person. This is an important component to consider and sort out before applying for copyright registration.
  • If the website features original creative content such as books, music, jewelry designs, photographs, architectural designs, fabric designs, photographs or other original works of authorship it may be a good idea to also register these works with the U.S. Copyright Office before making them available on the website.
  • Note, that copyright does not protect names, logos, titles or slogans. In some cases, these may be protectable as trademarks.

Here are links for more information on how to write a copyright notice, adding a copyright notice to a website and applying for copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: U.S. Copyright Office Circular 66 titled, Copyright Registration for Online Works at http://copyright.gov/circs/circ66.pdf and U.S. Copyright Office on “What does copyright protect” at http://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#idea; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Copyright Infringement: may not feel illegal but it is Reply

Three truths about copyright infringement:copyright

  • Making bootlegged copies of copyrighted movies available online for other folks to download and stream is a crime: copyright infringement
  • The Motion Picture Association of America and other associations, artists and content owners spend time and money tracking down folks who are infringing their copyright
  • Comments posted to an online forum acknowledging copyright infringement can be incriminating (despite a gleeful or playful tone).

According to a recent article in the NY Times, one of the founders of NinjaVideo served 16 months in prison for conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement. For more details on the NinjaVideo story, see the NY Times Article titled, “The Unrepentant Bootlegger” by Jenna Wortham on 9/28/14.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

@iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Inheriting Copyright – Who is Vivian Maier’s closest living relative? Reply

Copyright can be inherited and passed onto heirs just like other assets and property.  For example, the copyright in books, plays, music, photographs, speeches and other original, copyrighted and copyrightable materials may be bequeathed by will or pass at the death of the copyright owner as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.   (Copyright does extend beyond the death of the author, photographer, playwright or creator of the work for a limited term – often life of the author plus 70 years).

Vivian Maier, self portrait

Vivian Maier, self portrait

As per a recent article in The New York Times, a court battle over the copyright to the recently discovered photographs taken by the deceased photographer Vivian Maier has begun.  Evidently, the young entrepreneur who has begun promoting, printing, displaying and using Vivian Maier’s photographs (after purchasing boxes of Vivian Maier’s negatives at auction) may not have tracked down, gotten permission from and paid the appropriate heir/s of Vivian Maier.  Who is Vivian Maier’s closest living relative?  This question will be key to the litigation.

This scenario of determining who the closest living relative is to a deceased creator (whose creative work was secret or unknown during their lifetime) may become more common now that the internet can be used as a fast and easy way to disseminate creative content and generate an online following and market for previously unknown works.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: The New York Times article titled, The Heir’s Not Apparent, by Randy Kennedy on 9/6/2014; U.S. Copyright Office Circular 12 titled, Recordation of Transfers and other Documents at http://copyright.gov/circs/circ12.pdf; U.S. Copyright Office Circular 15a titled, Duration of Copyright at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Using my photo? Did I inadvertently give rights away by posting it online? Reply

It’s so easy and fun to share photographs online that folks often give away rights to their photographs without even realizing it.  HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?  The terms, conditions and licenses that the photographer agrees to when posting a photograph to various social media and photo-sharing websites often grant other folks broad rights to use posted photographs.  Keep in mind that every social media and photo-sharing website has different terms, conditions and licenses that are agreed to automatically simply by USING the website and POSTING photographs and other content.  These terms, conditions and licenses are modified and updated frequently.

teen's flicker photo

Photo: Justin Ho-Wee Wong

Here is an interesting and fairly haunting example:  A photograph of a teenager was taken by her youth counselor and posted to his to Flickr account under a broad Creative Commons license that allowed others to use his work in any way, including for commercial purposes, if they credited the photographer. (See the inserted photo).  A slightly edited version of the photograph ended up in an advertising campaign for Virgin Mobil Australia. A lawsuit followed.

THE TAKE AWAY: Read the terms, conditions and licenses that you are agreeing to when using and posting photographs and other content to social media and photo-sharing websites.  Most popular social media and photo-sharing websites, including FACEBOOKPINTEREST and TWITTER have fairly broad terms, conditions and licenses that change frequently.  Websites post their terms, usually at the bottom of the webpage. These same terms that often give other folks broad rights to use posted content,  also contain the steps to follow if your photographs or other content are being used without your permission on the site and you want to request that it be taken down.

This post was inspired by my friend Mel and a host of social media comments about a photograph that ended up on a series of KEEP CALM shirts.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: Articles about the Virgin Mobil example above from the Sydney Morning Herald and The New York Times; photo of a Virgin Mobil Ad; Flickr’s Creative Commons licenses at https://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/; other blog posts on photo copyright at https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/copyright-photos; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Trademark: to keep bands called THE SUPREMES from popping up in every State Reply

“Yeah, I know and can appreciate what you do (as a trademark attorney working with musicians). Back in the day, different bands called THE SUPREMES were popping up in every State. You can’t have that.” A jazz musician friend said this to me the other day and it was music to my ears.

from the USPTO online database

from the USPTO online database

This is right on point. For a band like THE SUPREMES, who became the most popular female group of the Sixties, owning the trademark of their name grants the trademark owner (Motown Records and now Motown Records’ successor) the exclusive right to use the name “THE SUPREMES” for various music performance and recording services. [USPTO Reg. No. 1003076]. Owning the trademark rights in the name of your band grants the trademark owner the exclusive right to use the trademarked band name for specific uses – like music performance and recording services. This can be a tool to keep other bands or music groups from performing under the same name or a confusingly similar name without permission of the trademark owner.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

See also: the USPTO TESS data base at http://www.uspto.gov/; a copy of the USPTO Certificate of Trademark Registration for THE SUPREMES, USPTO Reg. No. 1003076; The Supremes bio at http://rockhall.com/inductees/the-supremes/ ; Baby Love on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UkIkwy5ZM; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Imitating Others On Social Media Reply

photo(2)Social media sites generally frown upon users who imitate others and list impersonation as a no-no within their Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.  By using, joining or registering with a social media site, folks “agree to” and “accept” the terms and policies of the social media site.  Note, that the terms and policies of a social media site (that you should, although, may have never read) apply merely by the simple act of using the site, joining or registering.

Imbedded within these terms and policies are several common elements that relate to impersonation and the treatment of imitators.  Often, these are listed as things that a user is permitted to do and not do.  “Shall not” language is commonly used in these lists (perhaps modeled off the Ten Commandments).  Here are a few examples:

THOU SHALT NOT (as per terms and policies of various social media sites):

  • provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission [excerpt from Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities]
  • create any account for anyone other than yourself without such person’s permission [excerpt from Foursquare’s Terms Of Use]
  • use a User Name that is the name of another person with the intent to impersonate that person [excerpt from Foursquare’s Terms Of Use]
  • post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law [excerpt from Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities]
  • upload, download, post, submit or otherwise distribute or facilitate distribution of any Content on or through the Service, including without limitation any User Submission, that:
    • infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, right of publicity or other right of any other person or entity or violates any law or contractual duty;
    • you know is false, misleading, untruthful or inaccurate;
    • impersonates any person or entity, including any employee or representative of Foursquare  [excerpt from Foursquare’s Terms Of Use]

These are short, illustrative excerpts from the Terms and Policies currently posted on the Facebook and Foursquare sites.  The Terms and Policies also include information on how to report imitators.  Generally, a valid imitation claim will result in the imitator being removed from the site and possibly forfeiting other privileges and use of the site as well.  While Terms and Policies are subject to change, discouraging imitation will likely remain standard protocol.  Social media sites have a vested interest in discouraging imitators on their sites, because, this keeps their sites user friendly for original celebrity users.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com

The Terms of Use and Privacy Policy for various social media sites can generally be found with a Google Search or are available on the social media site, often at the bottom on the login page. 

See also: a related post on What to do if someone is using your stuff on social media sites; The Terms of Use and How to Report Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement posted on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms and https://www.facebook.com/help/www/39922488347420; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.