To be more specific, Us Customs seized a shipment of counterfeit merchandise that I didn't order but is under name and address, can they file a lawsuit against me? The shipment is not in my possession.
Yes. If counterfeit goods were sent to your name and address, you could be held responsible even if you didn't order. Of course, you might have defenses to these claims, such as that the order was made by a third party using your name without your knowledge. But in these circumstances, you are at serious risk of suit.
Thus, you should immediately retain IP litigation counsel to defend you. You should not speak to anyone other than your lawyer, as this situation could involve potential criminal charges against you. Also, it is a bad idea to use a web-site such as this to raise questions about a matter in which you could be charged with criminal misconduct--trafficking in counterfeit merchandise. Take this seriously and retain legal counsel immediately.See question
I'm working on a music video, which is a satire on an airline. Can I use some photos or videos from the airline's website? My clip is based on a song with my own lyrics that uses the tune published in 1910, and the airline's website footage would ...
No. This probably would not be fair use. The mere fact that you are making a satire does not entitle you to use photos or videos form the airline's web-site. Fair use does not usually apply to satires of this type in the manner that you seem to assume. This is because you can make your point without using copyrighted materials.
Also, a tune published in 1910 may still be covered by copyright. You cannot use your own lyrics on a copyrighted song without permission from the copyright holder. Interestingly, had the song been published before 1909 you might be ok. You need to work with counsel to ascertain whether the tune has fallen into the public domain because of failure to renew copyright registration. If it is not in the public domain, than you cannot add your own words to the tune without permission of the author.
Fair use is a profoundly misunderstood doctrine. It does not create a broad right to use other people's intellectual property for purposes of public commentary or artistic expression. It creates a very limited right to use other people's property in a very limited manner. In evaluating fair use, courts consider the following factors. (1) The nature and purpose of the use (is it for journalism, education, public commentary, scholarship, artistic expression, or authorship, and is it commercial or non commercial), (2) the nature and extent of the use (are you using an entire artistic work, or just a small portion of it; use of a 10 second clip form a song or video might be reasonable, but use of the entire song is never reasonable. Use of an entire photograph is almost never considered reasonable; (3) how the copyrighted work compares your work as a whole (i.e., is your use of the copyrighted material transformative such that the meaning and purpose of the copyrighted work in its original firm is no longer distinct from the very different nature of your work (parody is usually deemed transformative but satire is not), and (4) the impact of your use on the market value for the copyrighted work---this is the most critical factor. If your use could undermine with the market value of the copyrighted work, or cause the artist or songwriter to lose sales or otherwise suffer harm, then it is unlikely to be fair use. Note that there is a big difference between parody (making fun of an original work or its artist), and satire (using copyrighted work to create an expression or make a point that is not a direct critique of the underlying work itself. Fair use extends to parody but not usually to satire.
Your basic problem is that your music video is considered a commercial use. It is not a non-profit educational video, or an example of serious scholarship or journalism. Nor does your use inherently benefit the public in a manner similar to news reporting or educational scholarship. Further, you don't really need to someone else's tune or photos to make your satire. You can easily make the same point by writing an original tune and using either original photos or easily licensed photos. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the fair use doctrine would protect you in this situation,See question
I saw an instructional video on a pattern that I wanted to create...the video states they have copyrights on the pattern they have however they don't give dimensions for the pattern it basically says that it's an instructional video for people to ...
The mere fact that an instructional video teaches you how to make the pattern, does not imply that you have the right to make the pattern for anything other than personal use. If you make the pattern for your own use, it probably will not be a problem. But if you make the pattern for a commercial purpose (to sell to someone), you almost certainly will violate copyrights unless you obtain permission. If you want to pursue this further, you should retain intellectual property counsel to advise you,See question
The Spinalcsfleak Foundation would like to use the tag line from the song to raise money and awareness to our little known condition. The most common symptom of a spinal fluid leak is when you lie down the headache goes away and when upright it co...
Song titles are not subject to copyright protection, but that is not your only problem. It is possible that there are trademarks that protect "Lay Down Sally" as a brand name for products or services. I did a quick USPTO trademark search and did not find a registered trademark under that exact name, but it is quite possible that this would violate registered or common law trademarks.
More importantly, as your question suggests, this phrase is associated with a famous celebrity. Thus, you may be inadvertently violating the celebrity's right of publicity if you use this phrase. In so doing, you are implicitly suggesting that the celebrity supports your cause. That could lead to trouble without consent of the celebrity. (I am not sure if it is Eric Clapton, alone, or his band).
As for contact information, I can't help you. I note that when I represent celebrities in music or entertainment (which is often), I am almost never free to provide their direct contact information to third parties without their advance consent.See question
I was served with a Cease & Desist claiming intellectual property infringement based only on the claimant's provisional patent "application." Several AVVO attorneys have already advised unanimously that "A provisional application confers NO RIGHT...
Actually, many rights are conferred by provisional applications. It is true that until a provisional application is transformed into an issued utility patent, the patent owner has no patent claims. However, if a provisional application is followed by a utility application, damages begin to accrue within 18 months after publication of the utility application. Further, a cease and desist based on a provisional application places you on notice of potential future claims for patent infringement, including claims for damages. If you continue to infringe after receiving the notice, an argument can be made that your infringement is willful. A provisional application also prevents you from filing a patent application on the same or substantially similar invention after the date that the provisional application was filed.
Thus, you are mistaken if you think that there is a single statute or case you can cite to "resolve" the issue. It's not that simple, and you should not be responding to this Cease & Desist on your own. Even if it turns out you do not infringe any issued patents, you may violate other intellectual property rights that may not have been cited in the C&D letter. Don't make the foolish mistake of trying to handle this on your own. Cease and Desist letters are serious matters, and the fact that only a provisional patent application was cited does not mean that the situation is easily resolved in your favor.See question
One day, I was with a youtuber showing around the city. The youtouber all the sudden ask me to film together, so I did. (I was doing review about specific topic). By that time, the youtuber was mentioning that if I want to not show my face, he can...
Unfortunately, I doubt if you can do anything to take down this video.
First, you cannot force You Tube to take down the video. You do not own the copyright in the video and thus, you have no legal standing to send a take down notice. You Tube has no obligation to remove this video and you cannot force it to do so.
Second, you could attempt to assert claims against the You Tuber for breach of contract, violations of privacy, and violation of your right of publicity. But these claims are exceedingly week. After all, you voluntarily participated in the filming of the video. Further, you did not object to the posting of the video after you were sent a pre-publication link. Most courts would conclude that you consented to your appearance in the video.
Your question suggests the existence of an oral agreement by the You Tuber to take down the video upon your request. Oral agreements can be enforceable if they are sufficiently definite and have other indicia of reliability. But this oral agreement will not be enforceable. This is because it contains no limitation as to time, Agreements without time limitation generally are unenforceable because the violate the Rule Against Perpetuities. While sometimes written agreements can overcome this Rule, oral agreements without time limitations are usually deemed too indefinite to be enforced.
Note that this would not be a violation of New York's Wiretapping Act. Indeed, under New York law, only one party need consent to the recording of conversations. In any event, you clearly consented to participating in the video. It is essentially impossible for you to withdraw this consent after the fact merely because you no longer want to be seen or heard in the video.
From a strategic, rather than a legal perspective, you may achieve some success if you retain legal counsel to send a letter to the You Tuber demanding that he take down the video. However, my belief is that if you were to litigate the issue, you would lose. Our privacy laws are not broad enough to protect you in this situation,
This is a highly contentious area of the law. In Europe, many countries have recognized a "right to be forgotten" which would allows someone in your situation to require You Tube to take down the video. However, the "right to be forgotten" has not been recognized in the United States. Legislation is pending in several states, including New York, that would address this issue. But for now, you are basically out of luck.See question
My son was arrested for a felony vehicle assault against the county sheriff. He admits he ran when the police tried to pull him over but he did not hit their vehicle, the police hit his. He started to lose control of vehicle and they hit him. H...
Your son has no right to evidence at this stage of the proceedings. But they cannot force your son to plea bargain. Rather, you son has the right to retain counsel. Your son's counsel can demand production of exculpatory evidence prior to agreeing to any proposed plea bargain.
Thus, it is critically important for your son to retain criminal defense counsel. He cannot be forced into a plea. His lawyer should demand exculpatory evidence and then attempt to negotiate a better deal.See question
I ordered a high end merchandise through a store and they shipped it to me. I told them they sent the wrong item and they told me to ship it back. I sent it back through UPS but after a week, they didn't contact me. I called back and they told me ...
You question is not clear. You say you "told them they sent the wrong item". If that was a true statement, then you have nothing to worry about. But if you received the item you ordered and used this as an excuse to return it, then you made a false statement which is a form of fraud. It is quite possible that charges could be brought against you,
I strongly advice that you retain criminal defense counsel to review the facts and circumstances and take steps to minimize your exposure to criminal prosecution.See question
Son got really sick back in 07 ... after going to a doctors visit ... blew 106 fever , i think damaged his hearing and just recently the nurse noted to him and I that he had sepsis ... they never told me he had sepsis ( i knew he had a infection a...
You have the right to see your son's medical records. It is outrageous that they are withholding them. But realistically, what would you do with them. Unless you are a trained physician, you probably won't understand their meaning. My suggestion is that you immediately make an appointment with one of the many fine personal injury lawyers who contribute to AVVO to review your case. Your lawyer can demand the medical records, and he or she will understand their implications. This is not a situation that you should be handling on your own. Thus, find a lawyer who handles personal injury cases and work with that lawyer to pursue potential claims.See question
I have a social media concern . Recently a guest in my restaurant posted a negative comment about me with my business card on the internet. She reported me to the Aaron mc cready show and it has been shared almost two thousand times unleashing a ...
If a material untrue statement of FACT was made against you, and if you can establish that it was made with the intent to harm you, recklessly, or in some limited circumstances, negligently, and if you can establish actual economic harm, you can sue for defamation. However, if someone expressed a negative Opinion about you or our restaurant, you have no cause of action, The First Amendment allows the expression of opinions and you cannot sue someone even if those opinions harm you.,
There are two main issues here: (A) Whether the negative comment involved false assertions of fact rather than opinion or commentary, and (B) Whether you have suffered any actual economic harm--harm to reputation is not usually sufficient to bring a cause of action.
It is difficult to give you complete and meaningful advice without knowing precisely the statement that was made about you, the context in which it was made, and the basis for the statement. Therefore, you should retain legal counsel in Houston to assist you. Note that this case will almost certainly not involve sufficient money to justify an attorney to pursue it on a contingency fee basis. Thus, you will need to be prepared to pay legal fees to pursue your case. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate a defamation case. Only you can decide if the harm you have suffered is sufficient to justify the investment of time and resources.
But first things first---you need to lay out all the facts and circumstances to a lawyer in Houston who specializes in defamation cases (there are many good ones). You might have a good claim, but it cannot be analyzed until all of the details are reviewed by counsel.See question