Celebrating Music History and Innovation: The iHeart Radio Music Awards honors music legends and the US Constitution's Intellectual Property Clause promotes innovation by securing creators' exclusive rights to their inventions and writings.
The iHeart Radio Music Awards is celebrating music history with performances from artists like Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Green Day, TLC, Jelly Roll, Lainey Wilson, and a host by Ludegris. Meanwhile, Danielle Robe and Simone Boyce are launching a new daily podcast, The Bright Side, on iHeartRadio, bringing conversations about culture, trends, inspiration, and more. Additionally, the US Constitution, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, also known as the Intellectual Property Clause, promotes the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. This government-sanctioned monopoly on inventions is a commitment to innovation and technological progress. The first patent was issued in 1449 in England.
Patent History: From Monarch Grants to Modern Intellectual Property Protection: The patent system originated in Europe during the medieval period as a means for monarchs to grant monopolies, evolving into modern intellectual property protection in the US since 1802.
The patent system has a rich history, dating back to the medieval period in Europe. During this time, monarchs granted patents to individuals or industries, essentially granting them a monopoly on production. This system was used to protect the crown's interests and prevent competition from other countries. The first patent in the United States was issued in 1802 to Samuel Hopkins for an improvement in making potash. Notable figures like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln also held patents. The patent office was established to manage the increasing number of applications, and while the process has evolved over time, the fundamental principle of protecting intellectual property remains the same. Mark Twain, a beloved American humorist, also held patents for inventions such as an adjustable and detachable strap for garments (which could be considered a precursor to the modern bra strap) and a game to help players remember historical dates.
Protecting Intellectual Assets: Copyrights, Trademarks, and Trade Secrets: Copyrights automatically protect original works, Trademarks distinguish goods/services, and Trade Secrets maintain confidentiality for a competitive edge.
Intellectual property protection comes in various forms, each with its unique benefits and limitations. Copyrights, for instance, are the easiest and most common form of protection, granting automatic, long-lasting rights to creators of original works. Trademarks, on the other hand, protect distinctive signs, phrases, or logos used by businesses to distinguish their goods or services. Trade secrets, meanwhile, can be kept confidential to maintain a competitive edge, providing protection as long as the information remains undisclosed. Understanding these distinctions can help individuals and businesses effectively safeguard their intellectual assets.
Protecting Inventions vs. Original Expressions: Patents secure inventions and their innovative designs, while copyrights shield original expressions of ideas. Patents require novelty and non-obviousness, and filing early is crucial. Examples include camcorders and their features, but patenting doesn't prevent similar, non-obvious inventions.
Patents and copyrights serve distinct purposes in protecting different types of creative works. While copyrights shield original expressions of ideas, such as literary works or movies, patents safeguard inventions and their innovative designs. The patent process requires an invention to be both novel and non-obvious, meaning it cannot be similar to existing patents or publications and should offer a new approach or improvement. It's essential to file a patent application as soon as possible to secure protection, as public disclosure of the invention before filing may prevent patentability. Patents can be granted for various components of an invention, with examples including the camcorder and its individual features. However, it's important to note that patenting an invention doesn't prevent others from creating similar, non-obvious inventions.
Patentable inventions must be non-obvious, useful, and effective: Ideas themselves aren't patentable, but specific designs or utilities can be. Patents last 20 years in the US for utility inventions and 14 years for design patents. To be patentable, an invention must be non-obvious, useful, and effective, and not immoral.
In order for an invention to be patentable, it must be non-obvious, work effectively, and be useful to society. Non-obvious means it's not an obvious modification or addition to an existing product. Usefulness refers to the invention's ability to perform a function or solve a problem. The patent office also considers immoral inventions as non-useful and therefore not patentable. A patent lasts for 20 years in the US, but only 14 years for design patents. Examples of patentable inventions include a coffee maker that makes eggs and toast, or a unique design for a chair. It's important to note that the idea of an invention itself, such as a chair, is not patentable, but the specific design or utility can be. International patent protection is also essential if an invention may be used in multiple countries.
Patenting Plants: Novelty, Non-Obviousness, and Controversial Practices: Plant patents can be granted for novel and non-obvious plants, but naturally occurring genetic sequences cannot be patented in the US. Patent trolling, where inventors sit on patents and sue companies, remains a concern despite efforts to curb it.
Plant patents can be granted for novel and non-obvious plants or flowers, but naturally occurring genetic sequences cannot be patented in the US, unlike in Australia. This was a major concern as it could potentially allow companies to own people's genes. Plant patents last for 20 years, while design patents only last for 14 years. Lemelson, a prolific inventor, is known for his controversial patent practices, including sitting on patents and suing companies when their products became successful, a practice known as patent trolling. The Lemelson Foundation has amassed a significant fortune from licensing fees and court awards. The TRIPS agreement, passed in 1995, was intended to curb submarine patents, but they still occasionally surface. For instance, Tevo claimed to have invented the Comcast DVR technology. The legality and outcome of this claim are unclear. Overall, the discussion highlights the importance of understanding patent laws and their potential impact on various industries and individuals.
Patent system encourages inventiveness: The patent system incentivizes inventors to invest in research and development, protecting their discoveries with exclusive rights and allowing for the creation of innovative products and content.
The patent system encourages inventiveness by offering inventors exclusive rights to their discoveries through patents. This incentive allows inventors to invest time and resources into research and development, knowing they will benefit financially from their innovations. However, it's the patent holder's responsibility to protect their patents, as there's no government agency specifically tasked with patent infringement enforcement. The iHeartRadio Music Awards, with artists like Beyoncé and Justin Timberlake, and new podcasts like The Bright Side, are just a few examples of the countless inventions and creations that have emerged from this system, bringing joy and inspiration to millions.
The Rise of Patent Trolls and Their Impact on Innovation: Patent trolls, entities that make money from overly broad or bought patents, stifle innovation by costing companies billions in litigation fees and keeping unused patents from being licensed.
The patent system in the US has seen significant changes over the years, with courts increasingly favoring patent holders, leading to the rise of patent trolls. These entities make money by either obtaining overly broad and vague patents or buying existing ones to sue companies for infringement. The fear of litigation has resulted in a cottage industry, stifling innovation and keeping unused patents from being licensed. The tech industry and pharmaceutical companies are at odds in this debate, with the former advocating for patent reform to encourage innovation and the latter protecting their investments. The Supreme Court and federal government seem to be leaning towards the tech industry's stance. A study found that approximately 95% of the 5.7 million patents granted in the US go unused, potentially costing the economy over a trillion dollars in revenue. Some propose creating a national exchange for easily licensing unused patents to address this issue.
The patent system is inefficient and costly: The patent system is currently inefficient, leading to a backlog and potentially shoddy patents. It's costly with ongoing maintenance fees and various expenses. Consult a patent attorney for potentially patentable ideas, but self-searching can provide initial insights.
The patent system is currently broken and inefficient, leading to a large backlog of applications and potentially shoddy patents. This issue arises due to the patent office's incentive to let people file and pay fees repeatedly, as they generate revenue from each application. The process can be costly, with ongoing maintenance fees and various other expenses. While it's important to consult a patent attorney or agent if you believe you have a potentially patentable idea, self-searching through patent databases like Google or the US Patent Office can provide initial insights. It's rare to have a truly unique idea, but for those who do, the potential financial rewards may justify the significant upfront costs.
Assessing the novelty and patentability of an invention with a patent lawyer's help: Hire a patent lawyer to ensure your innovative idea is unique and patentable, providing legal guidance through the application process, and protecting your invention with the term 'patent pending' while it's being reviewed.
Discovering a potentially innovative idea requires thorough research and seeking professional advice. A garage nuclear fusion reactor inventor, for instance, should hire a patent lawyer to review the idea's uniqueness and potential patentability. The lawyer, like Robert Evans, will assess the invention's novelty and help the inventor navigate the patent application process. The application itself must be detailed, including potential roadblocks and prior art, a summary of the invention, and a well-written claim. The claim is crucial as it legally describes the invention and sets the groundwork for potential legal disputes. The cost of hiring a patent lawyer varies, ranging from $5,000 to $20,000 or more. The patent protection begins upon filing the application, allowing the inventor to use the term "patent pending" and sell the invention while the application is being reviewed.
Cost of patents for small businesses: The cost of obtaining and maintaining patents for small businesses is high, but resources like Invent Help and the Lemelson Foundation offer assistance. The process involves submitting an idea, potentially facing rejection, and making adjustments to continue.
The cost of obtaining and maintaining patents for small businesses can be substantial, around $310,000 for 10 industrialized countries according to a 2005 study. However, for inventors with limited means, resources like invent help and the Lemelson Foundation offer assistance. The patent process involves submitting an idea to the patent office, which may result in rejection, requiring inventors to make adjustments and resubmit. Reasons for rejection can vary widely, and the decision to continue the process ultimately depends on the inventor's confidence in their idea.
Navigating patent complexities for inventors: Despite the challenges, inventors can persevere through rejections and patent office complexities to protect their intellectual property. However, they may face hurdles like similar patents, unclear claim wording, and company ownership. Historical examples illustrate the importance of proper compensation for inventors.
The patent process can be complex and challenging. Rejections can occur for various reasons, including the patent office believing the invention is too similar to an existing patent, unclear claim wording, or missing labels in drawings. These issues can be addressed by making changes and reapplying. However, the patent process can be particularly complicated for inventors who work for companies, as the company may own the rights to the invention. Additionally, creators may sign away their rights to their work through contracts. These issues have led to criticisms of the patent system, as it can be difficult for inventors to profit from their creations. Historical examples include inventors who never received proper compensation for their inventions, such as the inventors of Superman and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.
Patents can hinder progress and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: Patents can prevent progress and innovation by allowing companies to monopolize research, causing delays and high costs. It's crucial to file patents early and consult with patent attorneys to navigate the process.
The patent system, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, can hinder progress and innovation by allowing companies to sit on patents and prevent others from developing similar products, even if they could benefit humanity. This was illustrated in the case of Amgen and the anemia drug, where the company refused to share research to make the drug longer-lasting. Patents can take years to be approved, and if two parties file at around the same time, they may have to go through a costly and time-consuming interference trial to determine who got there first. The US patent law changed in 2013 to favor the first inventor to file, making it even more important to file patents as soon as possible. Contrary to popular belief, the "poor man's patent" or mailing a work to oneself to establish a priority date is not a valid method for securing a patent. Instead, it's crucial to consult with a patent attorney to navigate the complex patent application process.
Proof of invention is crucial for patents: Sending unprotected inventions through the mail is risky and may not hold up in court. Seek mental health services for college students, it's a sign of strength.
Proof of invention is crucial when it comes to patents. Sending an unprotected invention through the mail is risky and may not hold up in court. Mental health services are an essential resource for college students, and seeking help is a sign of strength, not weakness. Rosalie Malthvie, a researcher at the University of Oklahoma, echoes this sentiment. If you have an unpatented great idea, feel free to share it with the SySK Podcast team. For more information, visit stuffyoushouldknow.com or howstuffworks.com. Don't forget to check out the iHeart Radio Music Awards on Fox on April 1, 2024, to witness music history and new summer hits.
Discover a daily dose of optimism and inspiration: Listen to The Bright Side podcast for conversations about culture, trends, and personal advice that bring joy and motivation to your daily routine
The Bright Side, a new daily podcast from Hello Sunshine, offers listeners a dose of optimism and inspiration through conversations about culture, trends, and personal advice. Hosted by Danielle Robe and Simone Boyce, this podcast is available for free on iHeart, America's number one podcast network. Listeners have the opportunity to share their own bright sides and spread positivity. The Bright Side aims to bring joy and motivation to your daily routine. Tune in every weekday to discover new trends, gain inspiration, and engage in meaningful conversations. Open your free iHeart app and search for The Bright Side to start your journey towards a brighter perspective.
How Patents Work
Recent Episodes from Stuff You Should Know
Tom Slick: Not the Cartoon
There's a good chance that if you don't live in San Antonio, Texas, you may not know who scientist/adventurer Tom Slick is. Today we tackle the story of the most interesting man you've never heard of.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Short Stuff: The Killing Stone
The Killing Stone looms large in Japanese folklore, so when it split in half in March 2022, people were worried it would bring devastating effects in its wake. Except... they really didn't.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Would A Love Drug Be Ethical?
What if science could create a drug that made you connect with people more deeply, let your emotions flow more openly, and sparked love and attachment in you for other people? Would you take it? Better hurry and decide because they might be on their way.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Selects: The Manson Family Murders Part 2
Listen in to this classic episode for the conclusion of the story of the Manson Family Murders.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Celebration Florida: The Story of a Utopia that Never Was
The town of Celebration, Florida was supposed to be a utopia. What it ended up as is a mediocre neighborhood on the outskirts of Disney World.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Short Stuff: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
Who is Uncle Sam anyway? Was it a real person or just a marketing exercise? And why does he refuse to go away? Listen in to find out.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Henry Ford: The Good, Bad and Ugly
Henry Ford was an odd guy, but one who had a vision for America that centered around a populist, affordable and reliable automobile. He was also a noted antisemite and not a great father. Today, we dive into the life of FMC's founder.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Selects: How Futurology Works
Science fiction writers have made some amazingly accurate predictions over the years, but in 1945 the pace of technological change created a field that spun off of sci-fi forecasting, futurology. Learn all about it with Josh and Chuck in this classic episode.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ludwig II: The Only Real King of the 19th Century
Outside of Germany, King Ludwig II is relatively unknown. And, yet, he is one of history’s most tragic and romantic kings. He was a gay icon and a ruler who eschewed public appearances for turn inward into a fantasy realm of his own making.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Short Stuff: Rescuing Mistreated Pets
You – yes, you! – can be a hero to neglected and abused animals. But there’s a right way to do it, and that does not involve sneaking onto a neighbor’s property and stealing their dog or cat. Learn how to do it real legal-like in this episode.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Related Episodes
How Intellectual Property Works
Intellectual property sounds as dry as can be, but it’s actually very interesting. It’s at the heart of the global economy and the center of a dispute over what should belong to the people who create things, from poetry to pharmaceuticals.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Can You Copyright or Trademark a Logo Designed by AI?
The legal world is buzzing about AI and its use for all kinds of things, including generating logos, text, and other things people would normally want to register for copyright or trademark protection. I'm particularly nerding out over these issues, because my master's degree project involved training of artificial intelligence systems. Rights to AI-generated content, and to content made on creative platforms, aren't always easy to understand, and they have a big impact on how you can use it and if and how you can protect it.
There's no doubt AI is incredibly useful for generating content, though there is still no substitute for a real human author or artist. But what rights do you have to what it creates for you? Can you use it in the ways you want to?
Keep in mind the generators are trained on existing material, including things that are protected by copyright and trademark law and registration and patents. There have been some court decisions on this precise topic, but the law is not completely settled. However, there are some certainties and principles of law that can guide you.
AI-assisted programs, like online logo generators, aren't straight AI tools like ChatGPT. Instead, they provide templates tweakable using AI. If you're using an online logo generator, such as the one in Canva, a very popular online program for creating all kinds of visual projects, or Logo.com, you need to look at the license terms of the software. Canva and other logo generators are licensing the use of their product and the generated logos in it to you. You'll almost certainly see language that says you cannot apply for copyright or trademark registration for those logos, and that Canva and whoever they licensed the clip art, photos, etc. used in those generated logos retain the ownership to that original art and do not give you a license to use it exclusively. Even when you make a "new" creation with those elements, they still belong to Canva and/or whoever licensed them to Canva.
I made a logo for Bob's Burgers for selling burgers on Tailor Brands' logo maker website. Their terms say I own full commercial (note they don't say "exclusive") rights to it and can apply for trademark registration for it (through the, naturally, even though they aren't lawyers and will just copy whatever you provide them into the application and submit it whether it's appropriate or not). Well, they're right, I can apply, but registration surely won't be granted. For starters, Bob's Burgers is already a trademark belonging to someone else. Second, they had me pick one of 20 graphics for use as part of the logo. That means in no way is that graphic element going to be unique to my logo. The lack of exclusive rights here is fatal. These generators also don't address other issues that can lead to refusal to register a trademark. usually you won't be given the rights needed to have ownership or apply for registration, but even if you are, your logo could still be refused copyright and trademark registration for other reasons.
If you use another kind of AI tool to create a logo, like Canva's AI tools or DALL-E, the platform doesn't claim any ownership rights, including copyright ownership, to the output. That doesn't mean you're in the clear for ownership and registration, however. Some of the elements in the output may be identical to or similar enough to work made by others that it would be infringement to use it without proper credit to and licensing from them.
Copyright
I asked DALL-E to make some logos for me for use in this post. I've seen enough stock graphic elements when doing trademark and copyright searches to know that the crown elements and scales of justice elements are likely to be highly similar to or identical to crown and scales designs owned by Getty Images or some other entity or artist. That means not only is it possible I do not own exclusive rights to those elements, it is also possible I would be infringing if I use them commercially (I'm using them educationally here, so that's ok).
The US Copyright Office has issued some very helpful guidance about copyright ownership of AI-generated works in the US. The general gist is this: copyright only protects works made by humans. AI isn't human. The Copyright Office views the human prompts that generate AI output as akin to instructions to a commissioned artist where the AI determines how the instructions are carried out. In such cases, the output is ineligible for copyright ownership or registration.
If, however, a human takes AI output and selects, arranges, or modifies it in a creative way the work may qualify as a work of human authorship that can have copyright protection. There's a catch, though. Any parts that came from the AI are excluded from that ownership and protection. Only the human-authored parts can be protected.
Trademarks
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), is also working on handling the influence of AI on trademarks and patents. There's no question AI has helped make trademark and patent searches much more efficient, but what happens when AI is involved in the creation of the trademark for which someone is requesting protection?
As with copyright, AI-generated logos are subject to the terms and conditions of the generator regarding whether the user can use them commercially or apply for trademark registration. This is why I ask trademark clients who generated the logo and whether they have all necessary rights to apply for registration. Human or AI-created, if you don't have the proper rights to ownership or use, you don't have the proper rights to apply for trademark registration. Of course some people apply anyway, whether they know this or not, and some applications get approved. That doesn't mean all is ok, however. If the AI service retained the rights and sees you using the mark commercially, they will likely take action to have your registration cancelled and against you for infringement and violation of terms of use. Just because you know someone who has gotten away with it so far doesn't mean it's legal or ok. Like speeding.
AI generators don't care if they produce infringing material. They don't have the sophistication yet to generate a logo that for sure wouldn't definitely infringe on someone else's if you used it. That means you have to take whatever it gives you and do your own research on it. Run the logo it creates, and distinct parts of it, through a reverse image search on Google and see what comes up. It's really no different than doing the same searches you'd need images you or an artist you hire create. Those logos I had it create for me could absolutely be infringing on something another law firm is using. The standards for non-infringing and registrable use of an AI-generated trademark are the same as for a human-generated trademark.
Be Careful What You Ask For
One more thing to consider is that your prompts to the AI generators could be used against you in infringement cases. If you asked for something that looks like the Starbucks logo, rather than just asking it to design a logo for a coffee shop, that would weigh on the side of what it created being infringement.
AI isn't perfect. You can't trust it, at least not yet, to give you results that won't cause trouble for you. This isn't limited to logo design. It applies to anything it generates for you. You may also be surprised at what limits there are to the non-AI content you create on sites like Canva and Promo Republic.
Beyond Logos
Copyright
Any creative work you have AI assist you in creating is subject to the same copyright issues as a logo AI helped create. You need to see what the terms and conditions of the generator permit. You also need to determine the extent to which AI was the creator and to which you were the creator. You may remember the case a few years ago about whether a monkey who took a selfie held the copyright to the photo. Because the monkey isn't human, the court held it couldn't own the copyright, so the poor little monkey couldn't make any money to buy treats by licensing the photo to calendars.
If AI creates your image, music, or text, you don't have the copyright to that work. You'd have to do something to transform it, and you'd still only own the copyright to the parts to which you contributed any creativity.
As with logos, any creative work you use the work of others to create, even on a site like Canva that you might think gives you a license to use whatever you create however you like, is subject to specific licensing terms. Those terms depend on how you're going to use the content and will vary significantly from a flyer you create for a block party or garage sale, to a classroom worksheet, to an advertisement for your business. It's annoying to comb through the terms and conditions on those sites, but if you are going to use any of what you create for a business or other commercial purpose, you are running huge risks not doing so. If you aren't sure, find out by contacting them or by consulting an intellectual property attorney.
Trademarks
If you have AI generate a business name, product name, slogan, etc., as with logos your rights and ownership, and therefore ability to use them commercially and receive trademark registration for them, depend on the terms and conditions of the generator. You will need to have proper searching due diligence done to make sure you won't be infringing on someone else's trademark rights. Search the names and slogans it gives you to see if something identical or similar is already in use for similar goods or services.
Remember, the AI generator doesn't care if the slogan it generates will get a refusal from a trademark examiner for "failure to function" as a trademark because it's too common of a phrase, or that 20 other companies are already using the slogan it generated for your hand cream to market their eye creams and lip balms. The AI is a tool, not a solution, and it certainly isn't a lawyer well-versed in the nuances trademark law. Not yet, anyway.
Patents
In 2020, over 80,000 utility patent applications involved AI, and nearly 20% of all utility patent applications these days involve AI in some way. One of the biggest issues with AI and patents is whether AI can count as an inventor, and if so, to what extent, and how does that affect patentability of the invention? A case in 2022 held that an inventor must be human, but this isn't 100% settled law.
If the AI did help with the invention, can the parts of the invention it didn't help with still be patented, or does the AI involvement render the entire invention unpatentable? What if the part it helped with isn't essential to the invention? What if it is?
There are other issues as well. For something to be patentable, it can't be something someone with general knowledge in the field of the invention would find obvious. Given the depth of training of AI in so much of the content on the internet, its knowledge can far surpass a human's in scope, so does that make many more things obvious and therefore unpatentable?
In early 2023 the USPTO asked for public comment on AI assistance with inventions to help it advise government rulemakers. If you're using AI to help you with an invention, you need to work with a patent attorney well-versed in current law and thought about AI and inventorship so you can receive good guidance on patentability, filing an application, and handling any issues the USPTO brings up about the use of AI with the invention.
There Is So Much More to AI and IP!
There are a host of other AI-related issues with intellectual property, such as whether you can keep your work from being used as training for AI generators. If you'd like me to do some posts on those or go into more depth on things I've touched on here, please let me know! DM me on social media or email me at info@kingpatentlaw.com.
I'm fascinated by AI, and I have a good understanding of the various ways it can be trained. The speed at which it is improving is fascinating and sometimes a little scary. It's amazing what it can do. It's not perfect, though, and like any tool, it can be used poorly or intentionally misused. I hope this post has given you a better understanding of some of the limits and issues involved with using AI and other programs for generation of logos and other material.
Protect Your Brainchild
The Busy Creator 36, Intellectual Property & Legal Issues for Creative Pros with Attorney & Educator Kelley Keller
Kelley Keller (@KelleyKeller) is an Intellectual Property Attorney & Education, and founder of The Keller Law Firm. She’s also the creator of Innovation to Profits, an online educational resource for anyone with creative, valuable ideas.
This legal-focused conversation discusses the types of IP, how portfolios must be handled, competition in the age of the Internet, Fair Use, and other legal matters important for creative pros in business.
Show Notes & Links
- F.U.D.
- Intellectual Property, a definition
- IP is “controlling the movement of knowledge throughout the marketplace” ← Click to Tweet
- Types of IP: Brand Names/Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, Trade Secrets
- The Coca-Cola formula, the world’s most famous Trade Secret
- The Portfolio, a body of work for a creative pro
- Work-for-hire relationship (common for employees)
- Employer owns the work, employees need permission
- Non-compete and non-solicitation agreements are governed by Employment Law, at the State level
- “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” ← Click to Tweet
- Brand X
- As for your original logo, you have responsibility to protect and to police
- The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and its Takedown Notices
- The US Copyright Act of 1976 says, essentially, the moment you create something, you own the copyright (assuming it’s copyrightable (original, independent, etc.))
- The difference between a “trade name” and a Trademark. The trade name is the legal name of your business at the State level; Trademarks are marketplace identities, and must be cleared on the Federal level.
- 1099 and W-9 forms, Tax forms for outside contractors
- Nissan Motors v. Nissan Computer
- Captain Fantastic Faster Than Superman Spiderman Batman Wolverine The Hulk And The Flash Combined
- Apple Computer v. Apple Corps Records aka “Why aren’t the Beatles on iTunes?”
- US Olympic Committee v. Olympic Gyro
- Colleges Tell High Schools Logos Are Off Limits
- Agents and officers seize more than $4.8 million in fake NFL merchandise and seize 307 websites during ‘Operation Fake Sweep’
- Washington Redskins Mascot Controversy
- Washington Redskins Change Their Name To The D.C. Redskins
- Redskins defend name, ask federal court to overturn trademark decision
- USPTO Design Codes
- Lady Gaga stole the song “Judas”, claims singer/songwriter
Tools
- USPTO.gov, the website for the US Patent & Trademark Office, where you can do a search.
- Behance, which hosts portfolios
- Copyright.gov
Techniques
- Be proactive with new contracts and agreements; get an attorney to review
- Set up Google Alerts for brands/trademarks
- Hire a junior staffer to search for your brand online
Get The Episode
- Download The Busy Creator Podcast, episode 36
(MP3, 58:54, 28.3 MB) - Download The Busy Creator Podcast, episode 36
(OGG, 58:54, 48.1 MB)
Subscribe to The Busy Creator Podcast on iTunes
Trademarks and the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents: Infringing Trademarks in Different Languages
Trademarks and the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents: Infringing Trademarks in Different Languages
Roger Bora: Former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Attorney, International Intellectual Property, Trademark, Copyright, and Brand Attorney
Roger Bora Trademark Titan discusses intellectual property including trademark trademarks copyright copyrights patent patents trade secrets brands branding domain name