Since you refer to this as a "high profile interview," it is not unlikely that the interview is going to be re-aired or rebroadcast by others. If in fact you own the copyright, therefore, it would be in your interests to register it with the United States Copyright Office whether or not you proceed against the channel or channels that already aired the interview without your permission. I make this suggestion because, presuming you are entitled to register, it would enable you to seek "...
Selected as best answer
It is not at all uncommon for an attorney who takes a case on a contingency fee basis to require the client to cover expenses. Indeed, that is perfectly appropriate. All of that should be set forth in an engagement letter or retainer agreement, however. The agreement should specify the percentage contingency to which the attorney will be entitled should the case result in a recovery or settlement. It should also specify the types of expenses for which you will be responsible during the...
Selected as best answer
There are a variety of other causes of action that might apply to the situation in the State of New York, including both common-law and statutory causes of actioin. I agree with Ms. Koslyn, however, that you should not be airing this dispute publicly on Avvo. You should gather your partnership agreement, the agreement you have referred to as your "operating agreement," "early versions of [your] trademark," materials demonstrating how long you have been in business, what you have...
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
A couple of basics: There is a difference between rights predicated on copyright and rights that arise out of a contract. The former attach automatically, by statute, to original works (e.g., literary works, artistic works, etc., but not useful objects). Contractual rights do not arise automatically. They require consent. In other words, they depend on the agreement of two or more parties to specified terms. Can you ask someone to agree to utilize the pattern you are licensing them for...
2 people marked this answer as helpful
You seem to be saying two contradictory things. If you simply provided "inspiration" for "the graphic" or the basic idea, the copyright in the artwork probably belongs to the mall artist. On the other hand, if you actually "provided the graphic" and the mall artist simply transferred your graphic from a paper medium onto a t-shirt-- i.e., by painting it onto the t-shirt-- then you may well own the copyright in the basic artwork. You really should consult with a copyright attorney to go...
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
For me, the question is not so much whether the purchase and downloading of music contrary to the "terms of use" or "terms of service" of a vendor is improper. It is, in my opinion. Rather, the question is what country's laws apply and what the remedy should be. The first is called a "conflict of laws" question. The second is a substantive question that can only be determined once you have determined which law applies. The first place you should look for an answer to the conflict of laws...
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
If you used the mark in commerce prior to the point at which the other party applied for federal registration, you may be able to continue using your mark within the same geographic region you have always used it, notwithstanding the federal registration. In other words, you may well have developed common law rights in the mark and, to that extent, have "priority" under federal law. That would not mean that you could expand use of your mark into other geographic regions. (The...
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
The one suggestion that I might make is this: You should take evidence of the infringement to the law firm that originally helped you obtain the patent on your product and find out the terms on which they are willing to handle a claim for patent infringement. Assuming they handle litigation as well as patent prosecution, they are in the best position to know the strengths and weaknesses of the patent and the ability to succeed on infringement claims. They would be in the best position to...
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
It certainly sounds like she has a clear case against the artist. Whether she has a case against the cafe owner and the poster company will depend on the facts. If the poster company improperly licensed the images, it will be liable for direct infringement. (It is not clear from your description whether the posters were ever in fact published. If they were and the artist copied the images from a poster without the involvement or knowledge of the poster company, it would not be liable in...
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
You should retain a copyright attorney to review all of the facts before you sell, display, distribute or post any pictures. There is much, much more that needs to be known before an attorney could render an opinion on the matter. There are at least three different issues involved: Issue #1 Copyright: If the artwork that you are referring to was created by others and NOT you, then either they or the Company or production by whom they were employed or commissioned to create the work owns...
Selected as best answer