Emily Bass’s Answers

I focused on the same question as Attorney Ballard. Fascinating issue. I can see arguments both ways. From the standpoint of equity, an infringed shouldn't be able to claim infringement of his or her work. On the other hand, copyright would only theoretically attach to the original elements and those elements by themselves are not infringing. Fascinating issue. Neither position would impact a work that can in any event be said to have fallen into the public domain.

It sounds to me as thought you might, possibly, have some defenses to the claims but, as others have noted, you have given far too few facts to be able to tell. It is not clear whether the plaintiff owns a "domain name" or a valid "trademark." You seem to use the two words interchangeably. It is also not clear whether it has simply "filed" papers claiming ownership of a mark or actually "registered" one. Even assuming that it has been registered, there are several questions: Where was...

As everyone else has noted, each "what-if" needs to be evaluated on its own terms. Assuming that the image or expression is in fact protected by copyright or trademark laws, then both the vendor and customer or consumer could in fact be liable for the infringement. Why not the person actually imprinting the image or expression alone? Because the law also considers those who enable the infringement or have knowledge of it and profit from it to be infringers as well. They are liable for "...

I have a different reaction than my colleagues. I don't know whether it is the case in this instance, but I do think some websites deliberately post inaccurate information in the hope that folks will pay in order to have it corrected. (In other words, they expect the person referred to either to pay a subscription fee or become a paying member of the site in order to correct the information.) If a site doesn't afford someone a way to correct inaccurate information without first becoming a...

The ultimate answer to your question requires that a series of underlying questions be analyzed and answered: (1) Did Tsarist Russia ever obtain a copyright in the documents to which you refer? This question, in turn, has two parts: (a) Did content of the documents in question constitute copyrightable subject matter in Tsarist Russia? (b) Could the government itself- i.e., Tsarist Russia- own the copyright? (2) If it did obtain a copyright in the documents, what was the duration...

If your notes consist of your own observations, expressed in your own words, then you hold the copyright in them and can reproduce and disseminate them. No, you cannot scan the teacher's handouts without the teacher's permission. (You should get that permission in writing). The teacher holds the copyright in materials he or she has drafted. Scanning those materials, without their express permission, would be a violation of their copyright. Disclaimer: This answer does not establish an...

You need to understand that copyright law protects expression, rather than ideas or know-how. So, if your proposals are more than simply lists of specs, parameters and prices, they very likely contain descriptions or expression that is sufficiently "original" to be protected by copyright law. What is more, that expression or those descriptions are protected automatically. In other words, you don't need to place a copyright symbol on the proposals (or the word copyright) or register the...

My colleagues' responses are excellent. I write to note a couple of additional things. Copyright covers the expression of ideas as fixed in a particular medium of expression, not the underlying ideas themselves. So, you could prepare a new talk based upon the underlying ideas and record that talk yourself. You would then own the copyright in this new presentation and could post that as you please. It is also POSSIBLE that, if you prepared a written script for your original talk prior...

You need to be cautious, because jewelry is not like clothing. Clothes are considered "useful articles" that are not (currently) protected by copyright. (Legislation is being considered that, if passed, would change that to an extent.) The general rule applicable to useful articles does NOT apply to jewelry. That rule in the case of useful articles is that "a drawing or photograph of an automobile or a dress design can be copyrighted, but that does not give the artist or photographer...

In those cases in which courts have found that one song is a parody of another, the following has generally been true: 1) The parodist has borrowed very little of the original musical composition- the opening, perhaps, or a few bars or one melodic line, but not an entire musical composiition; 2) The court has found that the second song critiques or comments on the original song or songwriter; and 3) The court is persuaded that the second song will not significantly impair the market...