Results tagged “copyright” from Uncivil Society
Counterfeit Chic on the The Innovative Design Protection & Piracy Prevention Act--IDPPPA--the new fashion copyright bill just introduced in the U.S. Senate. Obtaining intellectual property protection has been a crucial issue for emerging designers in the U.S.--where the lack of copyright for clothing means that fashion has less IP protection than in Europe & Asia.
The reaction to the latest Siegel case news has been interesting, to say the least. Perhaps the most intriguing reaction has been one site's decision to censor its own publisher's response to a news item expressing sympathy with the Siegels' effort to regain the Superman copyright.
The original response appears to be available on Google cache. For the sake of the historical record, here's the offending post, after the jump:
OR NOT!
Earlier today, I re-posted a censored critique of the Siegels' attempt to reclaim the Superman copyright. I've just received a request from the author to withdraw it on the grounds that he holds the copyright in that material. Of course, I am happy to honor that request . . .
but not without a brief reflection.
The censored post was a lengthy screed about an alleged attempt to use power to smash the author's opinion that creative endeavors should be "the property of the commons." As far as I'm concerned the author should be free to voice that opinion--may a thousand flowers bloom and all that. Yet now that very author cites copyright to deny the public access to a writing that he himself has created.
The author no doubt feels there are legitimate, even necessary reasons for doing so, and again, I respect that. But I hope he and others of the same opinion can recognize that those who belong to "the cult of the creator" have equally legitimate reasons for supporting creators & heirs in attempts to secure an interest in work in which they have a legally viable stake.
Don't know where Gawker got this ad image, but it's brilliant.
Marvel made comics history today by announcing that it had secured the rights to Mick Anglo's Marvelman, the character that formed the basis of the landmark MiracleMan series that has long been caught in a legal thicket.
I don't have time to write more on this right now, but here are my thoughts in a nutshell:
Fawcett stopped publishing Captain Marvel because the character allegedly infringed on the Superman copyright.
The Marvelman created and owned by Mick Anglo was arguably just a transparent knockoff of Captain Marvel, with a few surface details changed but still a visibly derivative work.
Theoretically, DC could claim that Marvel's Marvelman infringes both the Superman & Captain Marvel copyrights.
For that matter, so could the heirs of Superman's co-creator Jerry Siegel, who now own 50% of the copyright in the Superman material in Action Comics #1.
Just sayin'.
UPDATE: I've been thinking about this from two perspectives--a viable claim vs. one that would be a lock to win. As we've seen plenty of times, you don't need the latter to take something off the market.
This has been a rather interesting hypothetical to kick around, especially given the extra complication that the vast majority of Fawcett Captain Marvel comics don't appear to have had their copyright renewed--at least they don't seem to show up in a quick search of Stanford's online renewal database.
What could that mean? Well, were a court to conclude that the comics are in the public domain and that Captain Marvel doesn't infringe on Superman, a lawsuit by DC or the Siegels would fail--at least in regard to Superman.
Things would also get interesting in regard to DC's Captain Marvel properties, whose copyright protection would arguably extend only to new material added to what was in the public domain. Besides limiting any potential claims re Marvelman, there's also an argument here that DC's reported purchase of the Captain Marvel character from Fawcett is worth as much as, say, licensing Hamlet from the Globe Theater--i.e., nothin'.
If--and again, I haven't gone to the Copyright Office personally to confirm, so it's a big if--Captain Marvel & the Marvel Family are indeed in the public domain, it's arguably legal for anyone to create derivative works so long as they don't infringe on registered trademarks & viable copyrights owned by DC & Marvel.
On the other hand, judging on the case record, there is an argument to be made that Captain Marvel infringes on the DC/Siegel Superman copyright, so all the public domain issue may be moot.
Here's where the estoppel principles applied in the recent Siegel cases could get rather interesting, despite their arcane technicality. Y'see, back in the original Superman/Captain Marvel lawsuit, the federal appeals court agreed with the district court that Captain Marvel copied Superman material--the question left unresolved was the precise scope of the infringing material. Were DC to sue over Marvelman--and again, there's no indication they will; this is just a hypothetical--DC could argue that the core court findings re copying & infringement remain valid.
Submitted for the record, here the key passages from the court opinions:
National v. Fawcett, 198 F.2d 927 (2nd Cir., 1952):
We did mean to say that "Fawcett" infringed some of the strips which the plaintiff put in suit, assuming that these had been lawfully copyrighted and the copyright had not been forfeited. This we held because "Fawcett" had argued that none of its strips infringed any of the plaintiff's; and it was a necessary finding, if we were to proceed to the other questions, which without any such finding would have become moot.
On the other hand, we did [**2] not find which of the strips, which the plaintiff put in suit "Fawcett" had infringed: i.e., copied so closely as to be actionable under Detective Comics v. Bruns Publications, 2 Cir., 111 F.2d 432. That will demand a comparison of each strip put in suit by the plaintiff with "Fawcett's" strip, which the plaintiff asserts does so closely copy that particular strip. Each such comparison really involves the decision of a separate claim; there is no escape from it. The plaintiff may put in suit as many strips as it pleases, but it must prove infringement of each, or it will lose as to that strip. In saying that "Fawcett" was an "unabashed" infringer we meant no more than that there were some such instances. Whether the strips so copied were protected by a valid copyright we did not say.
The plaintiff has the burden of proving as to any strip it puts in suit that it was validly copyrighted; but we leave it open whether "Fawcett" has the burden of proving whether any copyright, once proved to have been validly obtained, was later forfeited.
Further than the foregoing we refuse to go.
National v. Fawcett, 93 F.Supp. 349 (SDNY 1950)
It would serve no useful purpose to recite in detail the conflicting testimony, for I am satisfied from all the evidence that there was actual copying.
Both 'Captain Marvel' and 'Superman' have the same athletic physique. Both have substantially the same clean-cut faces. Both wear the conventional regalia of the gymnast or circus acrobat- skin-tight uniforms, boots and a cape which is used in flying. The only real difference is in the color of their costumes, 'Superman's' being blue and 'captain Marvel's' red. The incredible feats, performed by both, such as leaping great distances, flying through the air, exhibitions of marvelous strength and speed, and imperviousness to bullets, shells, explosions, knives and poisons, are identical, and the settings in which the feats are performed are often closely similar. Substantially all of the feats performed by 'Superman' are later duplicated by 'Captain Marvel.' [**15] Identical phrases, expressions and dialogues are frequently found in the panels.
'Superman' is represented as a normal human being, a meek newspaper reporter wearing eye glasses (Clark Kent), who, by throwing off his regular clothes, appears in his athletic costume and becomes a superhuman being and performs superhuman feats in the interests of justice and to overthrow evil. 'Captain Marvel' is likewise represented as a normal human being, a radio reporter (Billy Batson), who, by uttering the magic word 'Shazam', is transformed [*356] into a superhuman being, and, in that capacity, also performs superhuman feats in the interests of justice and to overthrow evil. There are villains in both stories, mad scientists who resemble each other in appearance, and who, by similar devices and methods, attempt to dispose of the hero ('Superman' or 'Captain Marvel'), so that they can execute their plans of destruction without molestation.
The stories depicted in the respective panels are much the same, as, for example, the experiences of both Clark Kent and Billy Batson in applying for jobs as reporters, being turned down, and finally being accepted as the result of having performed the [**16] same superhuman feat. In other instances they are different. For example, there is no romantic element in the 'Captain Marvel' stories, such as Lois Lane, the girl reporter, who is a permanent member of the 'Superman' cast; nor do the 'Superman' stories have an ever-present evil enemy of the hero, like Sivana.
UPDATE: Is Michael Jackson's charity a fake?
Originally posted on JustMeans:
I had at least three posts I was considering to put up today, but when I ducked into the nearest library while on a research quest the guards were heatedly discussing Michael Jackson. Their somber intonations that this is a historic day got me curious, so instead of jumping right to JustMeans--a great site, but like your typical social business hub admittedly not the best place to catch the latest celebrity gossip--I hit the usual suspects to discover that Michael Jackson had just died.
Since we live a culture pretty much defined by the cult of personality (Josef Stalin, social innovator!), I've decided to set aside my thoughts on The Philanthropist, American Apparel and social censorship for a day when most of us aren't fervently Twittering "Michael Jackson is dead" just in case someone hasn't noticed the other 50,000 tweets about the news.
Instead, I want to offer a few brief memorial reflections about Michael Jackson and social enterprise.
Jackson, as this book documents, was quite active in charity, at one point breaking the Guinness record for most charities supported by a pop star. And whatever one thinks of his various activities at Neverland Ranch, it's pretty clear that he saw his life there as a way of giving back to the community. Jackson also was involved in high profile benefit singles--and therein lies another less well known controversy.
As Jackson testified in a business-related trial, the donation of proceeds from the sale of a charity song did not mean, for Jackson, donating all of the profits. The money from the sale of CDs went to charity, but Jackson retained the song's copyright & personally kept the royalties. This caused a bit of dustup when the news media learned that a any time "We Are the World" or the 9/11 charity song "What More Can I Give?" get played on the radio, the proceeds go to not to charity but to the copyright holders, including Jackson himself.
The dustup over Jackson's alleged charitable profiteering provides an instructive example about social business for those of us in the social enterprise community. In our world, as in the music industry more generally, the idea of getting some personal returns from a charitable enterprise is not inherently problematic----musicians need to earn a living just like anyone else, even professional nonprofiteers. Besides Michael Jackson, John Lennon had some rather pointed things to say about this, astutely observing how various promoters & benefit workers profit from charitable work but expect musicians to give all their labor for free. Nonetheless, there's a popular impression that a charitable benefit should be wholly outside the realm of exchange, to the point that no one in the endeavor--not even the grunts--should get paid.
The fact that this expectation exists does not, of course, mean that we have abide by it, but for those of us who don't have the luxury of being international superstars this perspective can pose some difficult problems, from loss of needed donor support to the occasional legislative crackdown.
But more about that another day. For now, a moment of silence for a man who, like so many of us, gave as much as he felt that he could.
Do do-gooders have a responsibility not to grab free content from commercial providers? Just a question that popped up after I read this comment on a post about circumventing the WSJ's firewall:
My father was laid off from the WSJ 4 months ago, we've moved from our modest 3 bedroom home to small 2 room place, and my parents are always fighting now.
Let businesses try to figure their model out without helping the general public steal from them. In the end, it hurts real people no matter how harmless you think your post may be.
A reminder of what started it all:
Via LP Cover Lover, a website on songs inspired by Batman. The pictures must be seen to be believed.
Bonus cover: Johnny "Hammond" Smith's The Stinger, with Green Lantern recolored to avoid copyright infringement. Because that always works.
I really needed a break today, so for the subway ride home I picked up the copies of the Licensable Bear comics that I was delighted to find colonizing my postal lifeworld (thanks Nat!).
Brilliant! Piracy. Free culture. Anime. Social enterprise. And that's just the first issue--everything is fair game for this commercial satire. There's a lot here for folks in the charity biz, such as the library pitch above and the Licensable Bear PSAs. A collected edition is reportedly on the way; for now, be sure to check out all the fun--and licensable!--stuff on the LB site.
I don't really have time today to write a full post on the current Mickey Mouse copyright buzz (I made a brief comment here). Folks interested in such things are no doubt familiar with Air Pirates and the Uncensored Mouse, but as a pop art aficionado I'd be remiss if I didn't call attention to another classic in the appropriated Disney genre: Eduardo Paolozzi's Real Gold collage from 1948, published in Bunk in 1972:
I have a new post up on Blog@ re the newly rediscovered Superman stories, and the post includes another set of documents with truly historic stuff. Also up today is a wonderful set of unique Superman pages from a now lost project that Tony Isabella assembled for a museum exhibit in the 1980s.
Another thing that impressed me: Entre Comics has translated the entire Detective Comics/Siegel correspondence into Spanish & provided commentary. Another reminder that yes, you can write straightforward explanatory articles about corporate ethics, but stories and documents can be more powerful, not to mention more likely to be read.
The new group that's formed to deal with sexually inappropriate behavior at comic conventions: kudos! Other nonprofits can learn from this.
Finally, there's some good historical material about intersecting scifi & comics networks--plus a picture of the Siegel house--in this Collectors Society thread.
And yes, I know that the image in this post is a serious spoiler for the rediscovered museum pages. The reason I chose the image: the theme of obligation, particularly the language of "trust." Some folks in the charitable community have expressed bewilderment at my comics material on this site. Besides the organic connection between design and identity--much more about which this upcoming year--comics have done more to propagate the meme of social responsibility than most do-gooder groups. To understand why, read Marshall McLuhan's "neglected masterpiece" From Cliche to Archetype, which examines how so-called junk media change the world.
Still, I did think about changing the picture, but then I remembered that this site is called Uncivil, so . . .
The depiction of women in comics has received its fair share of criticism in recent years, most notably in Gail Simone's Women in Refrigerators and Valerie D'Orazio's Occasional Superheroine. Comics have likewise sparked some controversy in regard to images of heroic homosexuality. But as the latest documents released in the Jerry Siegel case illustrate, these issues have a long history.
The documents in question: correspondence between Detective Comics and Jerry Siegel from 1939 through 1947, entered into evidence as part of DC's attempt to establish that all the work done by Siegel & Shuster during that time was work for hire. The case still has a while to percolate--the judge has postponed the hearing on unresolved trademark/copyright issues until September 15--but the material itself is a gold mine for folks interested in the comics history.
Even apart from the gender issues there's a lot of amazing stuff here--the recurring savage criticism of Joe Shuster's art; an early critique of Wayne Boring as an artist unsuitable for Superman; the hiring of Winsor McCay, Jr. as Superman ghost-artist-in-training; the insinuation that Superman was not significantly more popular than Zatara, Pep Morgan and Tex Thomson; and the prohibition on depictions of a flying Clark Kent are just a few of the historical moments in the mix.
Yet it is the sex stuff that really stands out, providing a rare insiders' perspective on the comics writing culture of the past. One of the true highlights of the newly released correspondence is the black-and-white sketch of Lois Lane included in this post. The artist was Siegel's and Shuster's editor, Whitney Ellsworth, who was attempting to get the duo to make Lois Lane less curvaceous.
A little backstory is in order. Although we tend to associate comics censorship with the 1950s, in actuality the complaints arose almost as soon as superheroes made comics a ubiquitous pop phenomenon. In a letter dated February 19, 1941, Ellsworth makes clear that this was foremost on his mind when he says to Siegel, "You know as well as I do what sort of censure we are always up against, and how careful we must be."
Which made a curvy Lois a bit of a problem. When drawn in an especially tantalizing way she posed a risk of drawing the attention of the moral watchdogs, a risk that Ellsworth tried to forestall in 1940 by ordering the duo to "de-sex" her.
After Shuster showed no sign of taking this admonition to heart, Ellsworth made an argument that seems shocking even almost seventy years later. Shuster's Lois was so "unpleasantly sexy" that her pulchritude made her seem a bit too heavy--a problem for which Ellsworth and Murray Boltinoff had an easy solution:
[W]hy it is necessary to shade Lois' breasts and the underside of her tummy with vertical pen-lines we can't understand. She looks pregnant. Murray suggests that you arrange for her to have an abortion or the baby and get it over with so that her figure can return to something a little more like the tasty dish she is supposed to be.
And the criticism didn't stop there; editorial also had problems with her hair style and her clothing,
which looked like you have apparently dressed her out of a Montgomery Ward catalogue. [Jack Liebowitz] suggests Vogue, Vanity Fair and Harper's Bazaar as likelier spots for dress-research.
A look at Superman's DC Archives shows that these admonitions had their intended effect. The previous two images are from Superman #7, complete with breast shading and vertical lines in her, um, lower tummy. In contrast, here she is a few months later, with a much slimmer waist and bust-reducing lapels:
The criticism did not stop with Lois, however. Another alleged problem with Shuster's artwork is that it made Superman look gay--or in the period slang of Ellsworth's January 22, 1940 letter, "lah-de-dah" with a "nice fat bottom"--
What's worse, the pose in the second panel also reminded Ellsworth of "certain FLIT ads done by a cartoonist who signs himself 'Dr. Seuss.'"
For a cultural historian, documents like these are a treasure trove, providing insight into attitudes toward women, standards of beauty, images of masculinity, censorship and the interplay between comics and other illustrated media.
For Siegel and Shuster, such critiques were serious business. If you want to understand why they took the risk of suing DC in 1947 to regain the rights to Superman, read these letters--time and again the company warns them that their work borders on the "unacceptable"--"the situation is serious enough to warrant your doing some real worrying," as DC might "make other arrangements to have [the work] done." Since DC seemed to be building a case to get rid of them, a lawsuit--no matter how risky--seemed to have better odds than the prospect of winning over the publisher.
If you're familiar with the Protestant/Catholic tensions in Northern Ireland, you've probably heard of the Orange Order, the region's oldest Protestant fraternal organization. Recently it has been working hard to move past its fractious sectarian image by promoting charity and community--in part with the aim of promoting local tourism & marketable merch. One emblem of this effort: the creation of a new Orange Order superhero, Diamond Dan.
Unfortunately for the Lodge Diamond Dan has continued to be a "talking point", just not in the way they expected. As the Belfast Telegraph, Diamond Dan has a not-so-secret origin: as a graphic available for license on iStockphoto.
According to the Telegraph, now that the the Order knows its hero was a rip, it intends to obtain the requisite rights.
So work commitments have you stuck at home while every one else who reads comics--and given the size of today's comics buying market, I mean that literally--is out gallivanting at the San Diego Comic Con. What's there to do except wallow in self-pity and stay late filing TPS reports?
I'll tell ya what, grasshopper. Y'see, thanks to good folks in the Siegel case, you now have a chance to spend this weekend living out the Con's charitable purpose by getting a comics education right here at your computer screen.
The latest briefs from both sides are available, with the Siegels and DC taking their best shot at legal questions arising from the Siegels' copyright interest in the Superman material in Action Comics 1. If the briefs were just dueling legal analysis, I might have just posted the links with a just a promise to write more about it later once my own deadlines are met, but there's more.
A lot more.
- Historic documents from 1938 and 1939 pertaining to the sale of the rights to Superman.
- The findings in the creators' 1947 case.
- Selections from Jerry Siegel's unpublished biography.
- Lengthy expert testimony, including a statement by DC Comics President & Publisher Paul Levitz.
- Web pages that sell Superman stuff (OK, not so exciting there, but look what's next . . . )
- Free comics entered as exhibits by DC to illustrate its legal points.
There are also complete copies of Superman movies, but alas, these have been sealed so as not to be made available for free online as government exhibits.
OK, so it's not quite the Con, but if you & your SO read this stuff while dressed up as Wolverine & Slave Girl Leia it can be a reasonable substitute.
I'm in the midst of a dreaded deadline doom, so no time for substantial comment except to note that Marc Toberoff, the Siegel family's lawyer, has just won another major copyright termination case. The property: Lassie. The issue: whether a prior re-grant of rights can extinguish termination rights. You can read the opinion here; Nikki Finke offers this summary.
Of additional interest to readers of this site who like comics: in assessing the state of the law, this Ninth Circuit appellate court opinion (p. 8540) cites as an analogous Second Circuit appellate court decision, Marvel Characters v. Simon, arising out of Joe Simon's effort to regain Captain America, which ultimately ended in a settlement. Like the Lassie case, the Simon decision involved a previous contactual agreement that could have voided termination rights--in particular, by reclassifying Simon's Captain America work as work-for-hire.
It's the second prominent bit of news re creators' heirs over the past couple weeks. In the U.K., Damien Hirst led more than 500 artists & artists' families in calling for heirs to get royalties for the resale of works of art. Here's a key passage that resonates with why heirs have termination rights in the U.S.:
Our loved ones often sacrifice a lot to support the artist in the family. When it comes to the inheritance of a legacy, ensuring the preservation of works, operating charitable trusts and investing in British artists of the future are just some of the activities undertaken by heirs, often at considerable expense. The royalties arising from the resale right will help fund these projects.
We should be entitled to bequeath our intellectual property – the value of our life's work – to our families.
UPDATE:
This morning I received an excellent question from Michael Grabois re the effect of the Lassie case on the Siegel lawsuits. Here's my answer, brewed along with my morning tea:
Above: Be careful what you wish for . . .
Remember a week or so ago when I posted that charity is not a viable defense to IP infringement? Some well-meaning folk in the charity biz said I was being "contentious," but the fact is, this is the law. You can defy it or pretend it doesn't exist, but if you do there can be serious consequences.
Case in point: the cancellation of the Say It Backwards Superman auctions for Candlelighters. Whether or not you think the move is good PR, Time Warner--if it did indeed file the objection--has solid legal grounds for asking eBay to pull the items containing its trademarks or copyrighted characters.
Why would a company risk a backlash by taking action against charity? And what about the common practice of artists selling commissioned works featuring DC or Marvel heroes? I'm in the middle of grading exams so our overview will have to be brief, but here are a few important things to note:
Superman: Note that the first two auctions targeted for withdrawal featured Superman. As we've discussed at length elsewhere, DC is in a particularly sensitive situation regarding profits derived from this character. If there were any property that Time Warner lawyers would want to control to the fullest extent possible, Superman would be it.
Charity: Even if you are donating the proceeds to charity, selling others' intellectual property or using it to solicit donations typically constitutes infringement if you do it without permission. Nonprofits have skirted by on this for years, but the market is growing too large to ignore.
Maintaining the mark: Even if it is infringement, why would a company want to take money away from a charity? The following observation from Counterfeit Chic applies to DC as well--
The simplest answer is that their job is to protect [the company's] trademarks. And, legally speaking, they're supposed to object to unauthorized commercial distribution of those marks. A trademark holder that doesn't enforce its rights can ultimately lose them, as the marks may be considered abandoned or even generic. Every time you ask for a Kleenex instead of a tissue or make a Xerox instead of a photocopy, a trademark lawyer somewhere gets another grey hair.
The first sale doctrine: A commenter on Boing Boing brought up the first sale doctrine, but that doesn't apply here. In a nutshell, the first sale doctrine is what allows you to sell or otherwise dispose of an authorized copy of material that you've purchased. For example, if you bought a Superman comic you can sell or lend that copy to someone else without DC's permission. The same is true, say, for legally distributed original art from a published comic book.
However, that's not what appears to have been pulled from the auction. It seems that these drawings were unauthorized--DC never gave the artists permission to use its protected material. Even if someone else had previously purchased the items and donated them to the auction, DC had the right to try to take these drawings off the market. From a legal perspective, the items were no different from a bootleg t-shirt.
Artist commissions: Yes, it's true that a number of comic artists sell commissioned artwork depicting DC and Marvel characters, but that doesn't mean it's all legal. Some of it may indeed be authorized, expressly allowed under a provision in the artist's contract with the company. Yet absent an agreement allowing an artist to sell such work, a commission is arguably infringing a company's intellectual property to the extent that it includes trademarked or copyrighted material.
There are several reasons why DC and Marvel have turned a blind eye to such unauthorized artwork, such as the desire to maintain positive relations with certain artists or the relatively small and inconspicuous scale of the trade. However, as the market for commissioned work grows and efforts to protect company marks generally become more rigorous, the likelihood of legal action stands to increase.
In this regard, pay particular attention to the artists in SIB auction. These weren't just pros with an established relationship with DC--there were also amateurs offering their own interpretations of company characters. For instance, one of the artists listed is Paul Salvi, who, if it's the same guy, is currently one of the people trying to win a DC deal through the Zuda Comics competition.
Which brings us to . . .
Derivative works: If you read my series on Blog@, you might recall a creator who adds distinct new elements to a company's copyrighted material may hold the copyright to that original work. It's why a court held that Neil Gaiman owns Medieval Spawn, and the same legal doctrine was recently cited--unsuccessfully--by one fan artist in a lawsuit to claim the copyright in Batman Beyond.
A lawyer looking at a burgeoning trade in unauthorized art will at least think about the possibility that someone may turn around and sue DC for copyright infringement. One way to reduce the likelihood of such a suit succeeding is for the company to state that it has a policy of not reviewing unsolicited work; another strategy is to discourage artists from producing such material without a contract defining the rights.
Parting thoughts: As some have said, Time Warner could have held back or sought a negotiated solution, and it's possible that the company might relent. Nonetheless, it is also important for charities and fundraisers to understand that at a time when unauthorized copying is rampant, companies are becoming more aggressive in policing their rights. To avoid an unpleasant situation, the best time to address intellectual property issues is before the C&D.
UPDATE: SIP has a few additional comments on the situation. Because a couple of them seem to refer to this post, I'll address them:
(1) My reference to the C&D is in the last paragraph, where I was advising charities generally re what to do. I did not state that SIP itself received a C&D. I debated using something incident-specific like "takedown notice" but went with the broader term. Re the present situation, as I indicated in the second paragraph above, I'm not even stating as fact that the WB itself filed the original complaint to eBay, since I haven't seen the original notice; rather, my post simply addresses the applicable legal principles that could prompt such an action.
(2) Even if SIP meant it wryly after the fact, putting up the S-shield with the comment quoted above was not the wisest course of action if the aim is to work out an agreement to resume the charitable auction, nor does it do any favors for the aspiring professionals contributing to the auction. Lawyers are all too familiar with artists trying to make their name off of others' IP; the post in question links the blog to an agenda that they might not exactly help the contributors' own bid for advancement. This sort of thing is precisely why companies are becoming so rigorous in policing their marks.
We should add to the above another concern with which most folks supporting charity may not be familiar: namely, the heightened scrutiny of charitable fundraising and sales. Indiscriminate association of a company's marks with a charity could have serious negative repercussions for the brand. Is the money indeed going to charity? Who monitors this? Is the charity legitimate and is it using the funds effectively? If a well-meant charitable effort turns out to be problematic, it could severely tarnish the mark, which is why companies may prefer to vet a charity itself before allowing its marks to be used to raise funds.
Again, I'm speaking generally regarding the considerations that guide corporate action; I'm not making any allegations about the charity in question here or about SIP. My primary aim is to help charities understand the current environment and how they can avoid unwanted situations.
"After eating Matzah accidentally baked with radioactive water in a microwave oven, this future heroine discovered that the molecules in her body had been charged with hyper energy."
For the entire roster of the Corps, check out their page on International Hero. My favorite is probably Shabbas Queen, whose electromagnetic "wand needs to recharge one day out of every seven."
I wonder if this was authorized by Zorro Productions. In any case, his opponent might find these patented pants useful.
An archived Children's Museum exhibit, which included an opportunity to make & purchase your own Warhol-style prints.
Note the museum's equally pop view of copyright, which mistakenly assumes that you are free to sell works based on a personal photograph of copyrighted material:
In creating the Myths Series in 1981, Warhol revived the type of subject matter he used during the 1960s -- appropriated images from mass media as manifestations of American cultural values. Interestingly, for many of the images, including Uncle Sam and Santa Claus, the artist photographed models dressed-up as the Myths Series personalities. By using his personal photographs, Warhol was ablt not only to arrange the figures as he wished, but also to avoid some major copyright problems.
Over the past few days, news sites & blogs have apparently been dodging C&Ds from Lionsgate legal aimed at getting them to remove leaked "sexy nurse" photos of Scarlett Johannson from the upcoming Spirit movie. My reaction below, taken from a comment I left on another site:
The C&D on Hollywood Newsroom is not from Lionsgate legal. It’s from Special Ops Media, a local (235 Park Avenue South) PR firm that lists as one of its specialties online behavioral marketing.
One of the intuitive principles confirmed by cog-psych research is the appeal of taboo, scarcity and perceived persecution. I can’t think of a better way to co-opt social media than to get folks to think that they’re defying Big Brother. A faux C&D is a way of making people feel that they’re important, that they need to post the pics lest the pics disappear and that promoting the pics–and thereby the film–strikes a blow for human freedom.
Another theme from cognitive research is the way in which the drive to learn and transmit gossip is hard-wired in our brains. Note that the “leaked†pictures were apparently from costume studies, with the actress not smiling and the clothes not quite perfect. It’s imperfect information to which we shouldn’t have access–which makes us want to see it and pass it on.
We’ve already seen this strategy in the Marvel b0y viral, in which the company would seem to have used a fake C&D to create a sense that the site was leaking taboo gossip that could disappear at any moment. For Marvel Boy, the breakdown came, it seems, with the apparent lack of contingency plans for when uncontrolled gossip appeared in the comments thread. My guess is the Spirit marketing strategy might have been a bit more airtight if Special Ops hadn’t IDed itself overtly or included the odd pseudo-legal capitalized phrase “Copyright Infringement Violation,†which is what led me to look ‘em up in the first place.
