The Anchor Plate : Intellectual Property Lawyers & Attorneys : BrickHouse Law Group : Open-Price Lawyering, Hourly Billing : St. Louis, Missouri

 To your left is Exhibit A in Cariou v. Prince, one of the most significant and troubling copyright "fair use" cases in recent years. The plaintiff, Patrick Cariou, is a professional photographer who published a book of his Jamaican works entitled YES, RASTA. The book includes striking portraits of Rastafarians he met during his years in Jamaica. The main defendant is Richard Prince, a well-known "appropriation artist."

Exhibit A is entitled "Inquisition." It is one of 29 works in Prince's Canal Zone series, 28 of which include photographs from Cariou's book that Prince copied, arranged in collages, and added tints or paints. Cariou sued for copyright infringement, and Prince defended on "fair use" grounds. Earlier this year U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts entered judgment in Cariou's favor, rejecting Prince's defense in a carefully reasoned opinion. To put it mildly, the world of art law sat up and took notice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The House of Representatives is scheduled to debate SOPA (the "Stop Online Piracy Act") later this month. There has been a great deal of debate already about the potential impact of SOPA and its counterpart, the PROTECT IP Act ("Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act"), in the Senate. Stephen Colbert moderated a superficial, but entertaining debate on one of his episodes. The Hollywood Reporter is following the debate and analyzed some of the copyright secondary liability cases that might be used to argue for SOPA-like remedies even if SOPA does not pass.

SOPA, its myths and reality, are discussed on Law of the Geek Episode 4: "Shiver Me Timbers! A SOPA Discussion." 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Okay, copyright fans, time to unpack our lamest finger cliches. Earlier this month down in San Antonio federal court, #1 Fan Company and Spirit Industries commenced the ultimate case of finger-pointing in their copyright infringement complaint in #1 Fan Company et al. v Pangea Direct. The creation at the center of the lawsuit is that over-sized foam hand with upraised forefinger familiar to sports fans everywhere.

The issue, at least as framed in the complaint, is whether Pangea's version of the foam hand (shown to the right) infringes the plaintiff's prior version (shown to the left).Ah, but keep your fingers crossed.The more intriguing issue is lurking just behind those fingers, and it will likely turn into a copyright dispute that is, well, finger-lickin' good.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

"In the end, it's the beginning that counts."

Isn't that so true?  It applies in so many settings.  For example, it's a wonderful trademark tag line for the elementary school my kids attend.  It just resonates with parents making that all-important choice of a first school for their children.

It applies in the business world, too.  My friend Julie Taylor had a great blog post the other day about enjoying the "start" of your start-up.  She's a terrific business writer who regularly works with start-up companies, and she's absolutely right. 

And it really, really applies when you're dealing with Intellectual Property.  If you don't concentrate on the beginning, you're not going to like the end.

For example, when two or three people begin talking about their next great idea, if they don't start with a good Nondisclosure Agreement and an agreement assigning ownership of any intellectual property they create, their greatest potential is for very expensive litigation down the road.

It's very important in the entertainment industry, too.  Check out any CD -- you'll notice a copyright claim by the record company.  But before the record company can claim that copyright, it has to get everyone else's rights along the way up.  And if those rights aren't correctly captured when the songs are first recorded, the musician just might have a good lawsuit and the record company may find itself doling out profits it never thought it would have to share.

So if  you're thinking about starting a company, producing a CD, or releasing a movie, make sure you've done your due dilligence at the start--or you may not like the ending.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

"Two guys walk into a law office . . . "

One of the most frequent scenarios these days at BrickHouse Law involves some version of the following: Somebody comes in with a great idea for a new business, filled with excitement about how they are going to replace Facebook, or eliminate the need for shoes, etc.  You get the picture.

Some of the ideas sound great -- others, well, lets just say they need a little more time on the proverbial drawing board. No matter how varied the ideas, though -- one thing is true about all of them: they cannot be protected (not in their "idea only" form).

This is one of the most important lessons all entrepreneurs need to learn (and learning it can sometimes be very expensive).

You cannot copyright an idea -- only the original expression of that idea.

You cannot patent an idea -- only the invention that embodies that idea.

You cannot trademark an idea -- only the names of the businesses and products and services embodying the idea.

So what do you do when you have the NEXT GREAT IDEA but you haven't developed it yet?  You need investors, perhaps manufacturers, distributors, etc., all of whom are going to need to know what your idea is.  That's where confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements ("NDA's") come in. Most entrepreneurs have heard of NDA's -- but many do not use them as early in the process as they should. 

When should you use an NDA?  At the moment you start talking seriously with your future business partners. That's right -- many times the most important contract you will sign is the first one with your business partner.  In addition to confidentiality, that first contract should identify any ideas, concepts, treatments, designs, etc. that have already been created by you and your business partner and include language assigning ownership of this IP to your new company. 

This is really only the beginning of the entreprenurial process, of course, and is not meant to cover everything that should be in your first agreement. In fact, my friend Diana Kander has a very helpful post entitled "10 Things You Must Answer Before Signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement." Check it out.  My point is simply this -- the best time for you and your business partner to agree on the important stuff is before anyone has made any money!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When you think porn, I bet the first thing that pops up isn't the Federal Antidilution Act. It does, however, over here at the Anchor Plate. And that intersection of porn, parody, and the First Amendment has inspired a contest to see who can coin the best porn parody title for any movie nominated for an Oscar at this year's Academy Awards.  But first, some background:

We intellectual property lawyers have our own set of favorite quirky cases, the sexy ones you'd hesitate to bring home to Mom, the goofy ones that tap into that special brand of humor most commonly associated with junior high school boys. (Yes, as many women will readily attest, there is a 7th-grade boy lurking within every adult male, including ones who can't resist use of the phrase "pops up" in the first sentence of this post.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Worried about protecting your brands and creations on the Internet? Worried that your own website might draw a blood-curdling demand letter from a pitbull lawyer for a Fortune 500 company? You aren't alone.

A pair of intellectual property decisions by the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit—one recently handed down, the other soon on its way—will reverberate throughout the business community, especially as companies struggle to protect their intellectual property in the ever expanding flea market known as the Internet.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Online comic book store Heavy Ink gave a strong response to Olivia Munn's attorneys: "shove it." Olivia Munn is co-host of G4's Attack of the Show, an actress, and most recently the cover model for January's Maxim. Her attorneys are opposed to Heavy Ink's sale of the Celebrity Showdown Olivia Munn One Shot #1 comic from creator Brian Denham and Antarctic Press. 

In their cease and desist (jpg), Ms. Mann's attorneys demanded that Heavy Ink, the seller, take down a webpage link for the comic book and demanded that they destroy all copies of the comic. Don't know if her attorneys have gone after the publisher. They addressed their demands to Heavy Ink's DMCA Agent, which may have confused the folks at Heavy Ink into thinking that this was a copyright issue. It is not. Ms. Mann asserts her exclusive rights to "use or exploit her image and/or name in any manner whatsoever." This invokes the right of publicity, not copyright.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sometimes you get lucky and get to work on something that you just feel good about. 

That's the case right now.  We're helping some good friends with an amazing project that's all about turning horrible grief into something lasting and uplifting.  Please check out The Angel Band Project -- a very special project and a cool blog, too.

This is a great example of talented, compassionate people coming together to create something bigger than themselves, and bigger than the tragedy that first devastated -- then motivated -- them.  It is a powerfully moving tribute to a brave lost friend, to be sure, but it has also grown into much more than that.  In part that's because of the fantastic mix of music being created, but also because of the charitable cause it will support. 

Geoff and I are proud to be doing a small part, but many others are donating their time and talent as well -- just check out this latest post about last weekend's recording session in Chicago and all of the really cool people involved. 

Want more information?  You can read the Angel Band Project's blog, follow them on Twitter, or become a fan of their Facebook page.  It's their story, not ours.  Suffice to say that if you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual violence, this project will be especially meaningful. 

If you just love good music made well, then I bet you'll dig it, too.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It was just a matter of time. As reported in The New York Times and blogged by the LA Times, Marvel Entertainment has sued Jack Kirby's heirs to invalidate their efforts at copyright reclamation. Jack "King" Kirby's legacy is substantial.

Last fall, Kirby's heirs sent 45 Notices of Termination under the 1976 Copyright Act on Marvel Entertainment, Inc. and others. At the time, Geoff Boucher did a nice article on Kirby's legacy. The most notable and probably prolific period in his long and critically acclaimed career, would be his time as an artist for Marvel often collaborating with Stan Lee.

Marvel's lawsuit seeks to declare the termination notices invalid, arguing in large part that the creations were works-made-for-hire. From a practical perspective, at stake is ownership of a wide-ranging portfolio of some of the most iconic, pop-culture characters of last century and this (e.g., The X-Men, The Fantastic Four, The Avengers). From a legal perspective, this lawsuit could clarify work-made-for-hire law for an entire industry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Anchor Plate: a metal plate fastened to the exterior of a brick building with a washer or tie rod to reinforce structural support, usually decorative.

The Anchor Plate: a virtual gathering place for dialogue about the nature of practicing intellectual property law, to increase knowledge and to amuse.

Well. It's great to be back in the blogosphere again.  When you last heard from us, we were biglaw IP litigation partners and co-authors of Owners, Borrowers & Thieves 2.0, a fine blog (if we do say so ourselves) about IP litigation in the 21st Century.  (Our good friend, the great Dave Rein, now steers that ship more ably than we ever did -- and he was nice enough to leave our old posts up, too!)

Things change, however.  If you've followed the legal industry at all in the last 18 months, you know that some things have changed dramatically.  Last fall, Geoff Gerber and I left our long-time jobs as partners in a large St. Louis law firm to start our own boutique intellectual property, media and entertainment law firm.  We did it for a lot of reasons, most of them good (we think).  Ultimately, we just wanted to practice law differently (much more on that later).  So now you can find us at The BrickHouse Law Group.  And you can find us here, at The Anchor Plate. 

We hope to be valued participants in the dialogue -- good listeners as well as good contributors -- and we expect to have guest authors from time to time as well.  We'll cover some familiar territory (fair use, copyright and parody, IP litigation, comic books, for example), but we'll also reach out into some dynamic new areas, such as open-price lawyering, cloud computing and social media, to name a few. 

As with any new venture, we expect some twists and turns in the road ahead -- that's half the fun of driving.  We hope you'll find it worthwhile to join us on the journey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link