Artists House Music @artistshousemusic - Tumblr Blog

Avalanche of photos uploaded in a 24-hour period

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/

Seeing the printouts of photos uploaded to Flicker over a 24-hour period is a sobering visual of the amount of content uploaded and shared in one day (on just one of many online photo-sharing websites). Mountains of photographs… from floor to ceiling… as part of an installation by Erik Kessels titled, “24hours in Photos.”

http://www.kesselskramer.com/exhibitions/24-hrs-of-photos and http://www.images.ch/2014/en/festival-en/program/artists/erik-kessels-3. The photographs included in this second link are particularly amazing, because, the instillation appears to be in a church and echoes a “devotion” to online photo-sharing which may be an almost, automatic reflex for many folks. Personally, I find the sheer volume of content that folks share online staggering (often without even considering the rights that may be given away by merely using and posting the photos to an online photo-sharing website or social media site).

Before sharing photos online, it’s always a good idea to read the Terms of Use of the website so that you are aware of how your photos may be used by other folks after you post them.

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

See also: Other blog posts on Terms of Use for websites and social media at https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/website-terms-of-use/.

New Rules for Creative Revenue

Creative revenue streams – Here are a few of my favorites: • Inexpensive monthly subscription fees for access to video tutorials (for example teaching folks to use photography equipment or to play an instrument) • Parlaying social media followers into an eager audience for a book launch. • Composing music scores for videos and films. (It’s often much more economical for film and video makers to commission original compositions than to try and get rights to popular songs. When I saw a preview of the documentary “Doing It In The Park: Pick-Up Basketball New York City” one of the filmmakers shared that he wished he’d commissioned an all original score from the outset). • Demonstration YouTube videos that include a retailer affiliate link. (Retailer affiliate links make money when folks click the link and make a purchase). I believe that smart, creative, entrepreneurial folks can rise to the top, get noticed and make money (if they want to).

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

See also: “How to write a © Copyright Notice and Why to Use it” at http://wp.me/p10nNq-18; Posts on trademark topics for new businesses: https://goo.gl/xqJrOA; #creativerevenue, #valueyourart, #valueyou; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

I like Taylor Swift’s Voice (and she sings great too).

This week the musician Taylor Swift spoke out against Apple’s proposed plan NOT to pay music royalties during the 90-day free trial they are offering to customers who sign up for the new Apple Music streaming service. In a savvy and effective move, Taylor Swift asked Apple (in a letter posted online) to change their policy and refrain from asking musicians to provide their music without compensation during the 90-day period. The letter begins with a threat to not release her new album on Apple Music streaming service due to the 90-day-no-compensation period.

The goods news: Apple responded the same day with notice that they changed their tune and WILL pay artists for streaming during the 90-day free trial period.

Tis A “Swift” Change to benefit musicians! Bravo!

Here is the full text of Taylor Swift’s letter (also available at: http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor): I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music. I feel this deserves an explanation because Apple has been and will continue to be one of my best partners in selling music and creating ways for me to connect with my fans. I respect the company and the truly ingenious minds that have created a legacy based on innovation and pushing the right boundaries. I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company. This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs. These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call. I realize that Apple is working towards a goal of paid streaming. I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out. Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right. But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation. Taylor Thanks for your letter Taylor Swift. (You have a powerful voice!)

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected] See also: Other blog posts on Music Copyright and royalties at https://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/c-o-p-y-r-i-g-h-t/copyright-music-copyright/; “Apple Changes Course After Taylor Swift Open Letter: Will Pay Labels During Free Trial” by S.Halperin at http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6605568/apple-changes-course-after-taylor-swift-open-letter-will-pay-labels-during; “Apple Responds to Taylor Swift’s Open Letter, Says It Will Pay Artists During Apple Music Free Trial Period: ‘We Hear You’” by J.Andriakos at http://www.people.com/article/taylor-swift-apple-music-open-letter-response; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Selling Someone Else’s Instagram Photo for $90,000

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M

Discussing the broad usage rights given away by posting original content to social media is discussed frequent on my IPLegalfreebies blog and elsewhere.

Reading that the controversial artist Richard Prince recently sold enlarged screenshots of other people’s Instagram photos without warning or permission for $90,000 a piece at the Frieze Art Fair in New York is a case in point.

Be mindful of the Terms of Use on Instagram and other social media sites that you use and where you post your original photos, artwork and other content.

Mining social media content might be the new wild frontier.

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected] See also: More information on the Instagram photos that Richard Prince sold and Instagram’s Terms of Use at http://wp.me/p10nNq-En; Washington Post article: “A reminder that your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90,000″ at http://wpo.st/XXOJ0; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/

It is a MYTH that Copyright Registration is Expensive

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/

News of Target copying a t-shirt design from SandiLake Clothing (a small business started by a creative and entrepreneurial young woman) …broke my heart because the designer, Ms. Lay, evidently stated that she did not have her design copyrighted due to the “high cost” of copyright.

IT’S A MYTH that copyright registration is expensive! Applying for Copyright Registration is not expensive folks. Applying for for Copyright Registration costs $35-$55.

My heartbreak is somewhat abated by the fact that Target has pulled the copy-cat shirts off their shelves. Evidently, Ms. Lay launched a clever social media flurry by posting a photograph of herself in a Target Store wearing her original shirt and holding a copy-cat shirt being sold at Target and appealing for support of mom-run businesses.

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

See also: other blog posts on related topics – “Copyright Protection Only Costs $35″ or As of 5/1/14 “Some Basic Copyright Claims now cost $55“; “How to Write a Copyright Notice And Why To Use It“; “How to use the ®, TM, SM, © symbols for trademark and copyright“; “Copyright Is Valuable, ‘The Birthday Song’ Earns $2 Million a Year In Royalties“; #smallbiz #valueyou #valueyourart; @ iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Flaunt Your Originality (originality is key to copyright)

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/ While speaking to a group of visual arts students recently, a recurring theme was to FLAUNT YOUR ORIGINALITY and savor using your original work. We had a heart to heart moment that went something like this: You all are an incredibly talented group of people. You wouldn’t be sitting here in this room, in a prestigious art school, if you hadn’t already proven how talented and artistically creative you are. When you create a montage or a creative work, make every bit of it original. You want your work to show every person who sees it how talented YOU are. Use your gifts. Pitch your genius. Tap into your creative talents and let your originality shine. This heart to heart moment arose spontaneously in response to a question about originality being a fundamental element of copyright and the fair use exceptions to copyright. (In my opinion, original work created by talented folks is always best. Don’t even think about how or when a fair use exception may apply. Just flaunt your original work). Originality is key to securing copyright protection under U.S. Copyright Law. Section 102 of the U.S. Copyright Law includes “original works” within the general definition of copyrightable materials. Here is the text of Section 102(a):

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. [Full text of U.S. Copyright Law is available at www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf].

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected] See also: “How to write a © Copyright Notice and Why to Use it” at http://wp.me/p10nNq-18; An outline of the topics covered in my discussion with art students on copyright is available at http://www.kasterlegal.com/iplegalfreebies/2015/4/6/copyright-contracts-outline.html ; U.S. Copyright Office Circular 1 on Copyright Basics at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Quote Brahms: Any ass can see the similarities with Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/ The program notes for a recent concert of Brahms Symphonies No. 1 & 3 contained an admission by Brahms that the “big string section” in the finale of his first symphony was similar to Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy.” Evidently, when Brahms was confronted about the resemblance, he replied, “Any ass can see that.” I’m not sure how this quote has managed to survive almost 200 years, but it’s a fascinating example of an admission to copying another artist’s work. [Today this would be an example of admitting to copyright infringement by copying another artist’s work and/or creating a derivative work based on another artist’s work]. While the Brahms’ quote may seem comical, it is not so uncommon today for similar admissions to be made to the media or on social media regarding plagiarism or copyright infringement. Often this type of admission is made off-the-cuff by an artist who has copied another artist’s work without any thought being given to a possible copyright infringement claim. Yet, when the copyright infringement claim surfaces it may be difficult to overcome because of the prior admission. Admissions made off-the-cuff, even in a slightly comical tone or on social media can have detrimental repercussions.

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

See also: U.S. Copyright Office Circular 1 on Copyright Basics at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf; NY Times, What’s Wrong With the ‘Blurred Lines’ Copyright Ruling at www.nytimes.com; Carnegie Hall calendar and announcement of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra playing Brahms Symphony No. 1 at www.carnegiehall.org/Calendar/2015/2/27/0800/PM/Vienna-Philharmonic-Orchestra; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

If you would like to watch full performance: Master Class with the Late Clark Terry - The Performance

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/

SELMA: Filmmaker turned inability to use MLK speeches into creative "advantage"

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.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

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; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/

Emailing folks about your services & products? Is your email compliant with the CAN-SPAM Act?

Are you gearing up to email your customers, clients and/or colleagues about your products and services? Keep in mind that commercial email messages are regulated by The CAN-SPAM Act. The good news is that compliance with the legal requirements outlined in the Act isn't difficult. Here is a short excerpt from the CAN-SPAM Compliance Guide for Business issued by the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection on compliance:

Despite its name, the CAN-SPAM Act doesn’t apply just to bulk email. It covers all commercial messages, which the law defines as “any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service,” including email that promotes content on commercial websites. The law makes no exception for business-to- business email. That means all email – for example, a message to former customers announcing a new product line – must comply with the law.

Each separate email in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act is subject to penalties of up to $16,000, so non-compliance can be costly. But following the law isn’t complicated.

Here is a brief rundown of the Act’s main requirements:

Don’t use false or misleading header information – accurately identify the sender of the email

Don’t use deceptive subject lines

Identify the email message as an advertisement

Include your physical postal address in the email so recipients know where you’re located

Tell recipients how to opt-out of receiving future email from you

Honor opt-out requests promptly

If you hire folks to handle your email-marketing, monitor what they are doing on your behalf to ensure compliance with the CAN-SPAM Act.

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

See also: The CAN-SPAM Act at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ187/pdf/PLAW-108publ187.pdf (section 5 lists the requirements for transmission of commercial email messages); the CAN-SPAM Compliance Guide for Business issued by the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection at http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business; http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/can-spam; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

GhostTunes: Garth Brooks launches iTunes competitor and releases his new album

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/

As a Grammy winning artist and a #1-selling solo artist in the U.S., Garth Brooks has interesting leverage and oomph when it comes to launching a new digital music platform called GhostTunes. After resisting to sell his music through iTunes or any download store, Garth Brooks has begun selling his music digitally through the newly launched GhostTunes website. Just this week, Garth Brooks released his new album “Man Against The Machine” on the service for $12.99 or in a “bundle”/package deal with 8 of his other studio albums for $29.99.

Here are a few interesting tidbits about GhostTunes:

Users can access the music they buy on GhostTunes on any of their devices instantly (smart phone, tablet, laptop).

Taylor Swift is selling her new album “1989” on GhostTunes after publicly pulling her catalog from Spotify.

GhostTunes may be selling some music for less than iTunes (According to a WSJ article this week).

GhostTunes is allegedly making about 10% less than iTunes and other popular download services by allocating 80% of each song’s sale price to artists, labels, songwriters and music publishers. (According to a WSJ article this week).

Artists can create “bundle” deals (like the group sale of several of Garth Brooks albums) for one price.

Bundle deals can include more than just music. For example, concert tickets and merchandise.

www.ghosttunes.com

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

See also: GhostTunes at www.ghosttunes.com and www.ghosttunes.com/garth-brooks; Article in the WSJ by Hannah Karp on 11/10/2014 titled, “Garth Brooks Launches Download Store: GhostTunes, to Debut Tuesday, Will Offer Digital Songs by Thousands of Artists” at http://online.wsj.com/articles/garth-brooks-to-launch-music-download-store-1415594399; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/

Can I copyright my website’s content?

Yes – copyright is a form of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship including 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:

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.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

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 , www.plegalfreebies.wordpress.com and www.kasterlegal.com.

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/

Three truths about copyright infringement:

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.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

Mentions iplegalfreebies « IP Legal Freebies Blog and www.kasterlegal.com.

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

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/ ; @iplegalfreebies

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

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.

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 FACEBOOK, PINTEREST 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 a slew of social media comments about a friend of a friend's photograph that ended up on t-shirts.

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

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 http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/category/copyright-photos; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com.

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

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/ ; @iplegalfreebies Trademark: to keep bands called THE SUPREMES from popping up in every State

“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.

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.

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

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.

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/

A new class of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) is rolling out, including ".nyc"! This is a new domain for New Yorkers. Here is a bit of information about the new .nyc domain from the official website: http://www.nic.nyc/about/

Who Will Own .nyc?

Any New Yorker whose work, ideas and creativity are based in the City.

Locals who provide services, products or content to fellow New Yorkers.

Companies, organizations and individuals wishing to showcase the value of their location online.

When can I register a .nyc domain name?

It is currently expected that .nyc will launch as early as May 2014 with several registration phases.

PHASE 1 (May 2014): Trademarks Sunrise (45 days - ending June 20, 2014)

An initial registration period open to registered trademark owners.

PHASE 2 (June/July 2014): City Government-Affiliated Reserve List (30 days) / Sunrise Auctions

Registration period open to City government and government-affiliated .nyc entities.

PHASE 3 (August/September 2014): Landrush (60 days)

All businesses, organizations and residents with a physical address in the City will have an equal opportunity to register .nyc domains during the Landrush phase. There will be a slightly higher fee for registrations occurring during the Landrush phase. If there is only one application for a .nyc domain name during this period, the applicant for that name will be granted the registration. If there are multiple applications for a domain name during this period, however, an auction will be held to determine the registrant after completion of the Landrush period.

PHASE 4 (October 2014): General Availability

After the Landrush phase, all businesses, organizations and residents with a physical address in the City of New York shall be entitled to register .nyc domain names in real-time on a first-come, first-served basis. For the first ninety (90) days of General Availability, in the event that a domain name registrant applied for a domain name that is an exact match of a trademark appearing in the Trademark Clearinghouse, the registrant will receive a notice about that trademark during the registration process and asked whether or not it wishes to proceed with the registration. If it does, the name will proceed to registration, but may subsequently be challenged by the Trademark owner through an ICANN dispute resolution procedure if the name is likely to cause confusion with the trademark.

For more information see the Official Website at http://www.nic.nyc/ and http://www.nic.nyc/trademarks/.

For folks outside of NYC, a new generic top-level domain may be launching in your area too.

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

One can love chicken & Bob Marley tunes (ONE LOVE trademark dispute settles)

Blog post submitted by: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

http://iplegalfreebies.wordpress.com/

The ONE LOVE trademark dispute between Bob Marley’s estate and Raising Cane’s chicken finger restaurant raises some interesting trademark and copyright issues. According to Louisiana newspapers, the trademark dispute recently settled on undisclosed terms; however, the issue at the heart of the dispute is interesting.

THE ISSUE: Trademarking someone else's song title for restaurant services.

THE STORY: In 2005, Raising Cane’s chicken finger restaurant obtained a USPTO registered trademark for ONE LOVE to be used to sell “restaurant services” (Reg. No. 3033511). This same phrase ONE LOVE is part of the title and refrain to the famous Bob Marley tune, “One Love/People Get Ready,” recorded with his band The Wailers. In 2007, Marley’s estate (represented by Fifty-Six Hope Road Music) applied for a USPTO trademark registration for ONE LOVE for “hotel, bar, and restaurant services” but was refused trademark registration because of the pre-existing ONE LOVE trademark registered to Raising Cane’s for similar services. (A likelihood-of-confusion refusal). The dispute escalated, the courts became involved and evidently the parties recently settled on undisclosed terms.

THE SCOOP: As demonstrated by this series of events, the title of a song will not necessarily block or cancel a USPTO trademark application or registration. Songs and original music are protected by copyright laws; however, copyright protection does not extend to short phrases and titles. The USPTO trademark registration system is available for protecting short phrases. Timing of a USPTO application is also a determinative factor. For example, if Bob Marley’s estate had applied for a ONE LOVE trademark to be used with restaurant and related services BEFORE Raising Cane’s applied for it, then the outcome would likely be reversed and Marley’s estate would have blocked Raising Cane’s trademark application.

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

For personalized legal services you are welcome to contact me at [email protected]

See also: “One Love” dispute transfer order at http://www.scribd.com/doc/206584538/One-Love-dispute-transfer-order; an earlier blog post: Title Copycats; News articles: Raising Cane’s, Bob Marley estate reach agreement by Joe Gyan Jr, Bob Marley’s estate’s legal saga over Raising Cane’s ‘One Love’ to play out in Louisiana by Emily Lane on 2/11/14, and Raising Cane’s, Bob Marley’s estate settle ‘One Love’ slogan dispute by Diana Samuels on 5/23/14; the USPTO trademark search at http://www.uspto.gov/; @iplegalfreebies and www.kasterlegal.com

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Artists House Music