Intellectual Property Legal Questions

You would need to get permission from the rights holder and that permission may include a requirement to pay royalties. Lines from the comics would raise copyright concerns, but the first hurdle is overcoming the trademarks issues.  I think Time Warner owns DC comics and has licensed its rights to live entertainment, at least in part, to the Six Flags owners. You'd be better off having a stunt show featuring a dark, brooding anti-hero character battling a crazy psychopath. If you can keep to the comic book stereotypes and not do anything to identify with those specific characters, you could avoid licensing while using a generic storyline with which your market is comfortable. Good luck, Todd... Read More

Nothing you've described is patentable and knowledge cannot be copyright protected. Copyright is for artistic creation, for which there is a very low threshold. You can copyright a translation of a book so that others cannot copy your translation, but they are free to create their own translations. Similarly, you can copyright your drawings, but others are free to develop their own drawings based on the original work.... Read More

Part of the issue becomes, are the notes recognizable. If no one is going to be able to tell that the sounds came from Nintendo games, you are unlikely to have an issue. If people can tell, now it looks like you are related (trademark issues) and you are exploiting their musical work (copyright issues). If the work you are taking is that limited, why not just generate your own low quality single notes instead of relying on Nintendo games?... Read More

Sometimes the issue is control - controlling your brand, controlling your image, etc. When you start posting his work, you take away some of his control. He can stop you from distributing his work online. He is reasserting his control. You can try to work out an arrangement that addresses his concerns, but otherwise you need to be a fan without distributing his work.... Read More

You are right to be concerned. Their Agreement should be limited to inventions related to their business (check, as the language may already be in place). If this company is in the same line of business as your athletic company, you have a conflict and need to choose one business going forward. Otherwise, they should be able to accept that IP related to your athletic company will not be assigned over as a result of your employment. You don't need specialized legal language to achieve this goal, but it should be made plain and clear as a written modification (again, if the language is not already in place) in the agreement before you sign it. Now is the time to avoid a foreseeable problem. Good luck, Todd... Read More

It depends. Harry Potter (if my son's halloween costume was accurate) a gold and maroon scarf). If you made a gold and maroon scarf and sold it, you would likely not be guilty of copyright infringement. If you stitch a Hogwarts or Griffendor insignia or a lightning bolt into the scarf or sell it as a wizard's scarf or anything else that cause people to buy the article because of an implied association with the books/movies, you could receive another complaint.... Read More

Whether or not you need approval is not defined by whether the NFL has a licensing agreement for this category of goods. If you are using NFL trademarks or copyrights, you want clear, written permission to sell your goods before you proceed.  Anything less, and you will likely be shutdown by the NFL as soon as they get wind of your business and you will suffer a net loss in the process.... Read More

I would need to know a lot more before I could answer your questions.  However, if you have not had substantial contacts with or activities in the other state (the Complaint will indicate what the basis is for personal jurisdiction over you). it should be possible to have the summons quashed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Are you sure that the summons is not seeking testimony from you relative to whom you got the counterfeit goods from?  There are so much unknown information that it would be best if you find an attorney in the state in which the case is pending to help you and not knowing the state, I do not know whether I can help you identify a suitable attorney.... Read More

You have two potential problems. First the owner of the earlier website could seek to take the domain away from you if you are, e.g. competiting with the earlier owner. Second, if you are using a registered trademark in your domain name, not only can the trademark owner seek to take the domain away from you, but they could take action against you as an infringer if your websit uses the trademark in a manner that could be considered to likely be confusing with regard to their use on for the covered product. It would be best if you chose a different trademark, and without knowing substantiall more about the other parties and their uses as well as you contemplated website, I cannot give you any diffinitive advice.... Read More

I am not sure what you mean by "events that happened in a documentary". You could mean: 1) historical events that were revealed in a documentary (eg, in Lincoln, the 15 Amendment was passed in Congress); 2) story telling in the documentary (eg, most of Daniel Day Lewis's lines were not actual quotes, but the creative work of the screenwriters); or 3) making of the documentary information (eg, how Daniel Day Lewis prepared to play President Lincoln). I'll do my best to hit all 3. 1. Facts are facts and cannot be copyright protected or otherwise possessed as someone's IP in the US (famous speeches can be copyright protected). If a documentary revealed a fact, you can use that fact in your own work, but you should endeavor to avoid using any creative elements sewn about the fact by the documentary producers. 2. Even documentaries have creative, artistic elements. These elements are protected just as strongly as they would be in a fictional work. It may not be legal to copy a creative event within a documentary (I say 'may' because a definitive answer would require clearer facts). The best way to confirm something is a fact is show that you came by the information from two independent sources. 3. Now we're getting back into facts and you can use facts without permission. Depending on the facts you use, you do want to make sure your source is solid and your recounting is accurate to avoid libel. Good luck, Todd... Read More

Yes. Copyright ownership is not about owning the original prints (digital or chemical). Copyright ownership is about authorship. Copyright in photographs is owned by the photographer (photograph author), at least initially. The ownership of the copyright in the photographs can only be transferred with a signed written instrument conveying ownership of the copyright. Copyright ownership is not conveyed by selling a computer containing the original prints or even buying the prints. An Andy Warhol work may be sold to the Museum of Metropolitan Art, but that would not give MoMA the right to make prints of the Andy Warhol work. Andy Worhol (or whomever owns the copyright now) would need to sign over the copyright in the work. Or, when your wedding photographer sells you photos of your wedding, that does not give you the right to make copies of the photos unless they also assign the copyright. You may be able to sell the original picture files to People or the National Enquirer or whomever without infringing any copyrights, but if you cannot prove you came by the photographs lawfully, you may not want to do that either. Good Luck, Todd... Read More

Copyrights are for artistic works (e.g., sculptures, books, music, etc.). The name of a product cannot be protected by a copyright. Trademarks protect the name of a product. When you begin selling a product using a trademark, you gain common law trademark rights. Those rights are closely limited to the chosen trademark for the goods sold in the geography in which the product is sold. If a second company begins selling the same goods in the same geography using the same name, they can be sued for infringing the common law trademark rights. Original content in copyrights are normally used to differentiate derivative works. Stephen King wrote Carrie. Then, a movie was made based on the story. The movie has some content that was entirely from the book and some that was original content. A copyright on the movie normally only protects the original content.... Read More

In most cases, the person who took the pictures is the owner of the copyright. For example, a wedding photographer owns the copyrights to the pictures they take even though the bride and groom are in most of the pictures and paid the photographer to take the pictures. The church doesn't own the pictures taken there. The reception hall does not own the pictures taken there. Transfer of the ownership of the copyrights require a signed writing. If the ex employee did not take the pictures, you can get ownership of the pictures from the person who did and file suit. If copyright infringement is not an option, you can also try unfair competition. Most states have broadly written unfair competition laws to protect businesses from competitors misleading customers for the purposes of gaining an unfair business advantage. Keep in mind, even if you successfully get the ex employee to stop the using those pictures to advertise, you may find the court awards you less in damages than your legal counsel will cost. Good luck, Todd... Read More

Trademark rights have to do with creating an expectation in the mind of the consumer that a good is from (or licensed by) a specific source. If the product is being designed to make the consumer think of the Chicago Bears, there is a decent chance that the consumer will believe the product comes from or is licensed by the Bears. If you are hoping people will buy the clothing because it brings the Bears' apparel to mind, you are probably infringing their trademark/trade dress rights. Creating that consumer confusion/association with the Bears is trademark infringement. Beyond not wanting to commit trademark infringement, you probably do not want to come close to trademark infringement. If you are close enough that the Bears or the NFL could file suit and force you to spend six figures to determine if you were in the right, you are probably out of business. Good luck, Todd... Read More

Why did he do it? If it was done maliciously, this could fall under Florida Identity Theft laws. California recently used similar laws to take down a revenge porn site. See: http://archive.flsenate.gov/Statutes/Index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899%2f0817%2fSections%2f0817.568.html Otherwise, she may want to rely on "right of publicity laws", such as: http://rightofpublicity.com/statutes/florida I am not admitted in Florida and I cannot analyze her situation relative to Florida state law.The next step is to contact an attorney in Florida who would be willing to represent her on either or both of these issues. Good luck, Todd... Read More

How did they get the video? Do they make clear that it was your video? Defamation is difficult for a few reasons and if you want to reach someone more familiar with it, try asking in business litigation. It might be more effective to go after them for copyright infringement. If the video is your work, you have a right to register it, and you have a right to control its dissemination. Copyrights are nice in that, if you file an application to register within 3 months of creating the video, you can collect statutory damages that range from $750 to $250,000 per offense. That is the sort of hammer that encourages folks to act quickly.... Read More

There have been all sorts of law suits on this topic, particularly in the '90s. The issue is fact intensive and relates to how much did you sample from the original work, would your purchasers recognize the source of the material that you took, is your work likely to diminish the economic value of the original work. In 1994, the Supreme Court cited from the Folsom v. Marsh case:"look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work." Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342, 348 (No. 4,901) (CCD Mass. 1841)"See also: http://www.ehow.com/list_6590661_copyright-laws-sampling.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music_sampling http://www.bmi.com/news/entry/C_in_a_Circle_-_Playing_Fair The end result is that sometimes it is legal to sell without consent, but it is hard to identify when, so you are better off to seek consent first or not bother sampling from the music of others. Good luck, Todd  ... Read More