To keep valid with the theme of the day...

So being that today is Super Bowl I thought I share something that is valid with class discussion involving trademark and that Super Bowl.

Check the following link out:

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/intellectual-property/dont-use-super-bowl-in-an-ad-without-permission-but-how-about-in-other-programming/

It goes on to talk about how clients should never use the term "Super Bowl" in their Super Bowl ads because is is a trademark of the NFL and can't be used with out proper sanctions. This reminded me of the the conversation in class regarding the use of Mickey Mouse as to what references would be lawful to use without permission from Disney.

Statute of Limitations - Extensions or Excuses

We found out the statute of limitations for slander is two years from when the plaintiff first learns of the defamatory statement, however this is different from state-to-state. Some states only allow a year, or a year and six months and a few states allow up to three years. In some civil cases the statute of limitations can be delayed due to certain circumstances...one of them made me raise my eyebrow, but here goes: (1) if you were hospitalized in a coma for a year; (2) if you were a minor at the time; (3) if you were in combat zone; 0r (4) you were not able to afford a lawyer...Of course the 4th "excuse" has not been used yet.

Kurt Warner photo

St. Louis Post-Dispatch photographer Robert Cohen had to turn down two readers recently who wanted to buy copies of a great photograph he took of Rams quarterback Kurt Warner. The photo ran in 1999 and again when Warner retired recently. The photo can be used in the Post-Dispatch, which has the copyright on it, but the NFL doesn’t let the media sell the photo to readers or commercially without its permission. And guess what? The NFL has its own photo division, so it doesn’t let this sale of individual photos happen very often. It’s a shame that the NFL or the No Fun League has such a stranglehold on everything football-related. It almost seems it’s a battle of one copyright vs. another. And the NFL wins.

Case Report

Case Report: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Limit your answer to no more than two pages total.

Case Citation
What court of law decided this case?
Who are the parties and what is their relationship to each other?
When was the case decided?
What were the issues debated here?
Briefly, what was the majority opinion?
Briefly, what was the minority opinion?
What is your opinion?

NFL and Copyright

After reading Madeline’s post about the NFL trying to claim they own the copyright to “Who Dat,” I happened to come across another ridiculous story about the NFL and copyright law.

http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/sports/2010/02/03/could-hosting-a-super-bowl-party-break-the-law/?ana=e_pft

This article states that if you own a TV that is larger then 55 in you could technically be violating an NFL copyright law. The law in fact does state that:

"no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than six loudspeakers."

The writer of the article looked into this and found that it was put in place to prevent people from hosting large functions and making a profit off the NFL game. If you are watching privately at home you are in the clear. Two years ago a church got in trouble by hosting a super bowl watch party where they charged people to watch the game on a big projector screen. The NFL went after them, and angered many people and church groups across the country. Yet this law is still in place, so if you were thinking about doing something similar, I would think again.

The NFL has also trademarked the words “Super Bowl” which lead advertisers to use the words “The Big Game” instead – the NFL then tried to trademark those words they had already been claimed by two ivy league universities.

Creative Reviews and Ownership

Last week, we discussed Intellectual Property and Copyright. A recent article on adage.com focuses on Advertising Agencies and Intellectual Property: Agencies Defend Intellectual Property Rights in Reviews.

This article specifically deals with the creative process, where ideas, thoughts, and inventions are expressed and solidified during the review stage. The review is a collaborative effort in which the advertising agency and client exchange ideas and create a plan. An interesting aspect of the article concerns client rights and the rights of the advertising agency. It mentions that more and more advertisers and marketers want additional rights regarding what is produced during these reviews. Many of the contracts secretly decree that the client expects to own everything that results from the review process.

The reason for this is economical; they do not want to be sued if they choose another agency but end up with a finished product that is similar to another agency's ideas. For example, one agency may be less expensive to produce a similar idea with the same variety (or more) of avenues to distribute the product. This directly deals with property rights and who reaps the ultimate rewards and bragging-rights for the material. The issue raises the question of what would happen to creativity and productivity if Ad Agencies were bought out by clients for their work. This, in many ways, compromises the purpose of the Ad Agency, which is to produce material on behalf of another company, but still own the image or idea and use them as a way of promoting their services and talents.

It seems as if the Executive Vice President of the American Association of Advertising Agencies is taking a stand by encouraging all creative agencies to clarify what belongs to whom during the creative process. A letter was sent by the AAAA to its members with tips on how to protect their work. Hopefully an agreement is made that shields the agencies from unfairness and upholds the purpose of their services. Overall, if clients want to own the product that they hire an outside agency to produce, they are creating a selfish relationship in which they receive the longstanding rewards and benefits.

Amazon vs. Macmillan: the e-book revolution

I heard on NPR this morning that because of the release of the iPad (a stupid name in my humble opinion that brings images of electronic maxipad to mind), Amazon is now fighting with Macmillan, a big publisher, about e-book prices. Up until the iPad, the Amazon Kindle had a pretty good monopoly over the e-book business, and Amazon chose to set the prices of all e-books at $9.99, which is way less than some books run, especially hardcovers. Publishers like Macmillan haven't been able to do much about it so far, but Apple's policy is to let the publishers set their own prices, so now Macmillan is also demanding that Amazon let them pick their own prices as well. After initially refusing to agree to those terms, Amazon removed all Macmillan-published books from their site, but that only caused buyers to go through third parties, so eventually they caved into Macmillan's demands and will allow the publishers to set the prices.

This presents an interesting example of the way that the internet and electronic media can complicate IPR-related situations, such as who has the right to set the prices when the publisher sells an electronic version of a book to be distributed to a distributer like Amazon or Apple? It seems that once the publisher's sold the rights to distribute, that the distributer then has the right to choose how much to sell the product for. On the other hand, the reason why Macmillan was so upset is because selling all books at $9.99 obviously discourages some people from going out and buying a hardback copy for three times that price. Is it right to undersell the publisher? On the third hand, if I had one, having an electronic version of a book isn't necessarily as valuable as buying the actual book, especially since the distributer has the right to remove the purchased book from your Kindle/iPad at any time, so in a sense you're only renting an e-book. Some food for thought.