Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

I think it’s pretty clear that the legal world does not always jibe with the real world (and especially not The Real World: Cancun).  Take capitalization for instance.  In the real world, it doesn’t mean much.  In fact, based on what I’ve seen on Twitter and in hip wedding invitations, I believe the “art” of capitalization has been completely lost by our society (and, of course, neither of our presidential candidates is brave enough to tackle the topic).  In the bizarro world of the law, however, capitalization is a detail that can prove to be of paramount importance.

This was a lesson recently learned the hard way by King of All Media Howard Stern – if you consider losing a $300 million bonus the “hard way.”

Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Dan Nabel

Contact Dan

Let’s play a game.  It’s called Guess-Who-the-Trademark-Owner-Is.  (I wanted to call it “Guess Who,” but didn’t want to risk confusing you with products/services of Hasbro or The Guess Who.)  Wait!  Don’t stop reading yet!  This will be fun.¹ Sort of.²

Here is the game.  Imagine you walk into a supermarket to get some food for a party.  Once inside the supermarket, you are uncontrollably lured to the deli counter by the siren call of fried chicken.  You look down at the chicken deciding what type to purchase for the party.  You settle on the “Chipotle Spicy Fried Chicken,” because you want to impress your friends by showing them that you can handle spicy food.  (Sadly, deep down, you know that chipotle isn’t really that spicy and that your friends know this too.  Who are you kidding anyway?)

Now, guess what company cooked up the delicious looking Chipotle Spicy Fried Chicken that you selected (right side of the picture below)?

After you guess, continue reading to find out whether you win a prize or not.

Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Matt Galsor

Contact Matt

Q:  I was wondering if you could help me with a problem I am having with the rights to a short story.  I have been in touch with the relevant owners of the copyright and they have been told by the author’s estate they are not allowed to do anything with the rights to the story.  However, what I am wanting to do with the story is not a direct adaptation — but more of an “inspired by.”  What I am wanting to do is a 60 minute TV one off.  The only thing I am desperate to hang on to is the short story’s “twist” and elements of the central dilemma. Where would I stand with moving ahead with different character names, different structure, but retaining the twist and profession of the central character from the short only – crediting only “inspired by”?

A:  Copyright law doesn’t protect ideas – it protects the expression of ideas.  This is a simple concept in theory, but applying it to a particular situation could be challenging.  For several excellent, definitive, and thought provoking discussions of this topic, please see our blog.  Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Sofia Aguilar

Contact Sofia

If you’re like me, every once in a while, you see an adorable-looking dog and just say to yourself, “Oh dogs, gotta love ‘em.”  And, if you’re like me and live in Los Angeles, you occasionally follow that by saying to yourself, “What the…?!  Can that adorable-looking dog really be standing in the middle of this [department store/market/restaurant]?”  Singer/reality star/(alleged) plastic surgery cautionary tale Aubrey O’Day recently brought that question to the front of many people’s minds, with her decision to allow her dogs to sit on the tables at local brunch spot Toast reportedly triggering a city Health Department investigation.

Don’t get me wrong, I am an avid animal lover.  I even wanted to be a vet in high school, when I was trying to “find” myself.  But anytime I see a starlet with a pink-clad Chihuahua (or three) sticking out of her purse, I can’t help but ask how pets have managed to become people’s latest accessory, going almost everywhere with their owners (if the word “owner” makes you cringe, I apologize in advance, but that’s a legal term and not intended to hurt the feelings of any animals reading this blog).   And aside from people’s disapproving glares, are there any limits to where your favorite celebrities (and you) can bring their pets? Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Rachel Wilkes Barchie

Contact Rachel

This blogger will be the first to admit that I may have a slight television addiction.  I’m routinely behind in my DVR watching (at least we’ve moved beyond the dark ages of the late 1990s when I had to record my then-favorite shows, Dawson’s Creek and Felicity, on VHS) and I sometimes find myself talking about the relationships between Chuck and Blair, Crosby and Jasmine, or Alicia and Will as though they’re my real-life friends.  (Bonus points for those dear readers who can name all three TV shows I just referenced, without clicking the hyperlinks.)

With that history, it should come as no surprise that I, like so many others, am waiting with bated breath for the return of Mad Men on March 25.  (There’s nothing like a year-and-a-half hiatus to make these trailers — which are really just cleverly edited clips from past shows — super exciting.)  On my drive to work every morning, I see the ads that have generated so much controversy.  So when on a recent drive, I heard this NPR story about the Stolen Valor Act and its intersection with the First Amendment, I confess my thoughts turned to our favorite fictitious, purported war hero, Don Draper.

[Warning:  This blog post reveals plot points from Seasons 1–4 of Mad Men.  Usually the statute of limitations on spoiler alerts would have expired long ago — you’ve had since October 2010 to catch up, people! — but just in case, for those of you who hate great television (and probably puppies and rainbows too) and have therefore managed to ignore the show up until this point, consider yourselves warned.] Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Dan Nabel

Contact Dan

A few weeks ago, Eriq Gardner of the Hollywood Reporter wrote an interesting article about Disney’s recent skirmishes with Warner Bros. concerning numerous Wizard of Oz-related trademark applications that both companies have filed.

For Disney, the trademark applications pertain to its merchandising plans for the 2013 release of Oz, the Great and Powerful — “a prequel to the 1900 book by L. Frank Baum, told from the point of view of the Wizard.”  (Fun movie trivia:  Does anyone else remember Disney’s last Oz film?  Headless, princess Mambi, anyone?  Dorothy at the insane asylum?  I suspect Disney is hoping you’d forgotten — but I never will!)

For Warner Bros., its applications (and oppositions to Disney’s applications) are geared towards protecting its rights in the ridiculously valuable Wizard of Oz film and related merchandise.  And it’s no coincidence that, while Disney’s film is to be called Oz, the Great and Powerful, Warner Bros.’ new registration is for “The Great and Powerful Oz.”

For Toto, these applications are all very boring.  He is still caught up in the 2004 book by Roger S. Baum (L. Frank Baum’s great-grandson) and Victoria Seitzinger, entitled “Toto of Oz and the Surprise Party.”  Because Toto eating cake with munchkins is way cuter than some stupid trademark applications.

Toto’s surprise party aside, the battle between Disney and Warner Bros. is a fascinating legal thicket, because it raises questions about the ability to protect derivatives of public domain stories and characters.

Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

•