Results tagged “intellectual property” from Uncivil Society
A powerful use of cartoon imagery in an ad for Brazil's Children's Cancer Support Center.
Still, as this incident from Oregon reminds us, a charity is not immune from intellectual property claims pertaining to the use of copyrighted or trademarked cartoons. Even children's cancer charities have been known to receive cease & desist letters.
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.
I regularly advise students and social entrepreneurs to think about trademark in relation to their ventures, and here's a good example why: Microsoft has just announced the formation of the Social Enterprise Alliance.
No, not that Social Enterprise Alliance, the organization that brings together social entrepreneurs. Microsoft's new Social Enterprise Alliance is a social networking "partnership centered on the customization and integration of Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS) 2007."
A search of the U.S. trademark database indicates that "social enterprise alliance" isn't registered yet to anyone, though SEA could try to assert common law trademark rights if it wanted to try to get Microsoft not to use the name.
Of course, SEA may be OK with another SEA roaming around, but if Microsoft successfully registers the mark things could eventually interesting. My personal favorite example in this regard is the original Burger King, which got a state trademark for its restaurant but failed to consider federal trademark until after the national Burger King chain had registered it. A judge carved out a 20-mile bubble for the original to operate free from competition from the federally trademarked Burger King, but the original cannot go to scale under its own name.
Microsoft's social enterprise announcements got me thinking about social enterprise & trademark more generally, and a federal trademark search reveals another interesting development: Live Elements, a Virginia technology firm, has recently filed to register "social enterprise" as a proprietary mark for its own online networking platform.
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.
An ad school project presents itself as a History Channel ad. This, kids, is why companies aggressively police their trademarks.
Since folks are coming here from Amazon Daily's nifty Toy Whimsy blog looking for more about the Snoopy bento box, here it is, with along with the earlier post:
From the syndicate's Peanuts FAQ. Y'know, as in frequently asked questions:
Q. As a Peanuts fan, I often come across content on the internet that uses the Peanuts copyrights and trademarks in an unfavorable fashion, and I don't think it is authorized by United Media. What actions does United Media take to protect the work of Charles Schulz and the Peanuts property?
Might have been slightly more believable if they'd shown a picture of the question on a postcard in crayon from Heather, age 6.
Below: a Snoopy mock-sushi bento box
Gave my presentation today on Superman and CSR--basically a narrative of the case for folks who might not be familiar with it, with broad-brush thoughts that, if you know what's in my head, illustrate my larger theoretical points. More to come on that--much more--soon enough.
The news that the Watchmen settlement talks have heated up is interesting, though not wholly surprising. Nikke Finke notes inside talk that Warner Bros. finally takes the legal threat seriously enough to negotiate--as I was explaining to a law prof today, before hearing about this latest development, the judge's summary judgment order is likely not the only thing on WB lawyers' minds. The permanent injunction in the Bratz case is a powerful reminder that a judge can view (alleged) infringement of IP rights as harm substantive enough to warrant shutting down distribution.
It's a question every litigant has to consider: how much risk are you willing to bear. Even if lawyers were convinced they can prevail--and here, the WB's definition of prevail was basically lose-millions-of-dollars-to-the-point-the-movie-is-unprofitable, at some point they were going to have to say to company executives that yes, the possibly exists that the movie could be entirely shut down. Fox had nothing to lose going forward; WB could lose everything. You don't have to be a game theorist to see where the incentives lie.
Another interesting thing that jumped out at me when reading a letter by one of the film's producers--the description of the movie as a charitable social venture. Really:
Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.
It's easy to be cynical about this sort of thing, but this account really does touch upon an important feature of comics and comics-related enterprises. In my talk today I spoke of the connection between comic art and charity, and IDW CEO Ted Adams--a fellow panelist--described how for most comics creators the work truly is a personal passion as much as, if not more than just, a job. This personal dimension is as essential to corporate production as the business elements, and we lose a lot when we ignore it.
That said, I bet Warner Bros.' lawyers are not exactly thrilled with the producer saying the project survived through "whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen." Stuff like that is why lawyers tell clients not to say anything their case in public!
Fans anxious to know whether Watchmen will be released in March as scheduled will have to wait a few weeks. The New York Times is reporting that the judge in the Watchmen case has decided to refrain from ruling on the injunction sought by Fox until after a hearing set for January 20, 2009.
For anyone who wants more details on the judge's 12/24 ruling, I've uploaded a set of documents that includes not just the Christmas Eve order, but both parties' motions for summary judgment as well as fascinating material filed by Fox just yesterday.
These three filings in particular provide detailed allegations as to how Warner Brothers got into this mess. In a nutshell, Fox claims that it has evidence that Warner Brothers initially relied on an inaccurate chain of title provided by Paramount. Once Warner Brothers was aware of Fox's documented claims, it nonetheless decided to proceed in a deliberate "business calculation" that it would be more profitable to deal with a court case than clear the rights before making Watchmen.
Fox's claim that Warner Bros. has an established "studio practice" of bad faith in clearing title is central to its argument that the court should enjoin Warner Bros. from releasing the film.
Besides these documents, I also recommend checking out Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily and Rodney Perkins' Film Esq., which provide detailed analysis of the latest developments.
A couple days ago I saw a van with a Make-a-Wish Foundation superhero ad on the back doors. Didn't snap a photo in time, but here's the original commercial, the story behind it and an update from the real-life kid whose wish inspired the PSA. Folks interested in nonprofits & intellectual property might noticed that the recreation in the ad does not include Spider-Man and the Green Goblin, who were part of the original granted wish.
As we've noted here & on Blog@, charities have learned that superheroes are a good draw for fundraisers and exhibits. One interesting example of the trend just opened up in Idaho: the Sun Valley Center for the Arts' show on Superheroes and Secret Identities.
Below: the featured artists. Above: part of the fascinating portfolio of Dulce Pinzon.
Mark Newport knits superhero costumes to his own size. Hanging empty on the wall, these large disembodied costumes comment on traditional notions of masculine identity and our idealization of unattainable powers. He also photographs himself dressed in costume, prepared for disaster in mundane settings, and creates his own embroidered and illustrated comic book pages.
Dulce Pinzón photographs Mexican immigrants in popular U.S. and Mexican superhero costumes as they work at generally low-wage jobs. She captions each photo with a note about how much each worker sends home to his or her family each week, forcing us to reconsider our ideas of what a superhero really is. While super powers may be beyond our grasp in reality, the Internet has given all of us the chance to adopt alternate identities and extraordinary abilities in cyberspace.
Robbie Cooper has traveled the globe photographing computer gamers who spend hours each day in online worlds like Second Life and World of Warcraft. He pairs his photographs with images of these gamers' online avatars, offering provocative insight into the online world of fantasy role-play.
Another charity-studded week for comics, which, like fashion, has become a significant presence in do-gooder fundraising. Via the Beat, news of two worlds colliding in last night's superhero fashion event at this year's Chocolate Show.
Trade shows fascinate me, because in the nonprofit & tax-exempt world they illustrate how identity design can lead us to see business as something distinct from business. The effect becomes even more interesting when you compare nonprofit trade shows to their for-profit counterparts. The Chocolate Show is run by a for-profit PR firm, but are the exhibitors there any more businesslike than drug vendors at an AMA convention, the publishers & resellers at the San Diego Comic Con or the industry promotion at the Oscars?
And then there's my favorite tax-exempt activity--the freak shows, rigged games and rides at agricultural fairs. You may think they're an ordinary profit-making enterprise, but as we tax-savvy do-gooders know, they're one of us!
If you're in NYC, fly, don't walk, to the Mad cover art exhibit today at the Museum of Comic & Cartoon Art. I went to the opening reception last night (I'm a MoCCA trustee), and I have to say seeing these covers in there full-size original painted form was stunning. The historic Mad #30 Alfred, the J. Fred Muggs original fingerpaint, Nixon & Agnew as The Sting--cool stuff. Also great: the opportunity to chat with Nick Meglin, Dick DeBartolo and others from the past and present usual gang of idiots.
A portion of the proceeds from the sale of these covers will go to the original artists and their families.
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.
Today's a class prep day for me, and the topic: charity & intellectual property. It's an important topic, particularly because charities tend to assume that because they're charities others' IP is fair game to take. I have an overview post on this topic over at Blog@ today, and don't be surprised if I return to the issue both here and there.
The image above, by the way, is from a charitable initiative that is at least trying not to use other companies' characters without a license: Web874 Graphics' Become a Superhero campaign, which collects and distributes holiday gifts for needy kids. The pic is from the new BAS comic book.
In related comics and culture news, the NY Times has a great feature on how "a comic-book figure, the hero of the manga series “The Drops of the Gods,†has quickly become the most influential voice in Asia’s wine markets."
Obviously light posting today, since the week is front-loaded with things that require immediate attention.
But that doesn't mean I'm not writing.
Over on Blog@, I explained the latest news concerning the orphan works legislation and the Siegel case, in which one of my posts has become part of the official record.
Now I'm off to an event and to prep a law firm talk for tomorrow.
If you're wondering how the due diligence for the Watchmen movie could have missed the rights problem now in court, this article has useful background info on the process--in short, the key 1994 document was not included in the document reviews for subsequent stages.
The article also offers a producer's insight into how movies get made, and his point is relevant to lots of other areas of life as well:
Mr. Gordon, meanwhile, appears to have made good on a philosophy he described almost 30 years ago.
“Most pictures are made because somebody else wants to make them,†he was quoted as saying in a 1979 issue of Screen International.
“As a producer, the only club you have is to have something that somebody else wants.â€
There are still some--including major--comic books shops that sell DVDs of otherwise unavailable cartoons, tv shows and movies. This news story of a comic shop owner sentenced in a piracy case illustrates why these products, however much they may arguably be filling a cultural gap, should be pulled.
The key thing to note: the shop was busted by visits from federal undercover agents. This means every shop in the U.S. should take note and act accordingly.
Via Journalista
HSBC makes the union protest rat a part of its marketing campaign. Perhaps some labor-serving lawyer needs to look into the available legal options for stopping--or at least profiting from--this appropriation of its symbol to promote a bank.
By Emil Kozak.
