0
   

Copyright amuck?

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 08:15 am
Mame wrote:
I heard Paris Hilton was trying to patent her latest stupid saying: "That's Hot!"

How do you patent words, for crying out loud?

You can't. It's impossible.

Here's a very basic primer:

Copyright: for original creative works fixed in a tangible medium. Lasts for a set period of time (under the Berne Convention, it's the life of the author plus 50 years for works by a single author). Based on statute and international agreement. Registration no longer required. Does not protect ideas or facts.

Trademark: for distinctive symbols or words used in commerce. Lasts indefinitely, as long as it is used. Based on statute. Usually must be registered. Does not protect the symbol or word outside of the commercial context.

Patent: for scientific or technological innovations. Lasts for a limited period of years (in the US, I believe the term is 20 years). Based on statute. Must be registered. Does not protect artistic or creative expressions.

Right of Publicity: for images or likenesses of persons. Based on constitutional and common law rights to privacy. Previously limited to the life of the person, but now extends beyond death in certain cases (may be linked at that point to trademark). Protects only the right of a person to exploit his/her own likeness for commercial purposes.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 09:37 am
joefromchicago wrote:
ossobuco wrote:
Thanks, JoefChi.


I do have a Chicago problem...

the fellow who did the Bean, guessing, Amirai Shapoor or similar name?

There's some onus, as I may remember, on photoing that....

Are you aware of that or any controversy about it?


I have a freaking problem with people in a public space not being able to photo a f.k public sculpture, but --- I can understand intellectual property as a concept.

I recall a minor dust-up when the city announced that no one could sell or otherwise commercially exploit images of the sculpture. People mistakenly assumed that the city was banning all photographs of the sculpture. That's not the case. It's the same mistake the author of the Guardian piece made when he thought that the IOC's trademark on the term "Olympics" meant that no one could actually write or say that word.



Well, that makes sense, and is what I acted on. I seem to remember more of a no-photos-at-all rule, but I may have read that as written by someone who misunderstood.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Copyright amuck?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 05:02:12