"Content Creators and Users" -- What's in a Word?
Since leaving BigLaw to start the BrickHouse Law Group, we have spent a lot of time trying to describe our ideal clients. Who are they? What do they have in common with each other?
We have years of experience representing large companies in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, but we also have worked with entrepreneurs and smaller businesses in all aspects of IP counseling. As a small firm building its brand identity, we cannot be--and do not want to be--all things to all people.
Ultimately, we believe our clients are best described as "Content Creators and Users" -- meaning anyone who creates, distibutes, or otherwise uses "content" in their business. This certainly includes media, entertainment, advertising, marketing and interactive companies who create and/or use "content" protected by copyright or trademark--these clients bring their own special brand of creativity to the work they do, and they often employ or contract with creative people in the process. Of course this can also include any business that operates a website (Hello? Everyone?), because the "content" on those websites comes from people or businesses utilizing their creative skills.
But what is "Content"? I thought I knew what I meant by that term until I read a very thought-provoking post this morning, entitled "I Hate the Word 'Content'", by Jonathan Salem Baskin on his Dim Bulb blog. Speaking primarily to marketers and branding agencies (but also touching a much wider group of net denizens), Baskin makes a strong argument that in calling everything that goes inside the frame "content," we are collectively genericizing--and thereby reducing or even eliminating--the unique, qualitative nature and value of what is created and who is creating it. Read the entire post, because I don't want to over-simplify it, but I think his opening paragraph states the problem well:
Calling the output of writers, musicians, moviemakers and even the artisans of branding's dark arts "content" is like referencing the substance of every meal "food," or labeling the specific events of human experience "life."
Baskin's lament about how this genericization of "content" is adversely affecting the marketing and branding industry is equally applicable in the intellectual property context.
While it's true that short descriptive terms often aid us in understanding broader concepts--for example, it can be helpful to differentiate "content" (the product of creativity in some form) from "data" (a collection of factual information)--simply referring to all things creative as "content" can be very dangerous from an intellectual property rights perspective.
No matter how you look at it, not all "content" is the same. It is critically important to understand the qualitative differences in what content is being created, how it can be used, and how it can be protected. "Content" on a website, for example, may be made up of code, text and images protected by Copyright, logos or brand identities protected by Trademark, personal identities protected by Rights of Publicity or Rights of Privacy, or any combination of these. Various and interconnected components of the same "content," therefore, might have different owners, different usage rights and different legal risks. The same is true for almost any type of "content" in almost any medium. Geoff's Right of Publicity post on the Olivia Munn comic book fracas points out some of these nuances that are easily missed. One simply cannot make good business decisions about the creation and use of "content" without appreciating the different creators and rights involved.
I still think it is appropriate to describe our ideal clients as "Content Creators and Users." In the limited context in which we use the word, I think it fits. However, Baskin's post serves as a good reminder that "Content" is just a surface word -- the value is in what lies underneath.
.jpg)
Not exactly "on the courthouse steps", but close enough -- on the Friday before a scheduled Monday Preliminary Injunction hearing, the North Face and the South Butt settled their .png)
So what to make of this settlement? The case has always been hard to pin down, because it has been played in the media as a parody case, but the issue has never really been whether someone can tell the difference between a face and a butt. .png)
.jpg)
Let me start by making it clear that I like my auto mechanic. I've taken my cars to the same neighborhood shop for a number of years and have always been pleased and satisfied with the quality of the work and the level of customer service. And even though my car has been in the shop for more than a week now, I'm still satisfied that I've taken it to the right place.
A day late and probably many dollars short, I'm late with the Character of the Week because I've been trying to instill a love of the modern Olympics in my nine-year-old son. Does anybody else notice a difference in interest based on age? That is why my Character of the week is (are) the Olympic Mascots.
A 
.jpg)
That's right. Some fictional characters start to take on a life of their own and there are a number of legal rights that protect intellectual property interests in characters. It is something I have spent a lot of time doing and I enjoy it enough that it makes sense to write about at least once a week. So here goes. My first character of the week: 
As with many of the iconic characters in popular culture, Kermit evolved over time. 
Online comic book store 
In their cease and desist (
Pete Salsich III is an occasionally accomplished illustrator and relatively weak guitar player whose secret identity is that of an
Geoff Gerber keeps waiting for his superpowers to materialize. In the meantime, he uses his lawyer-powers to litigate intellectual property
