Copyright Law Blog

Stevie Riks- Shining Star In The Comedy World

August 10th, 2009 at 06:36pm Under copyright act

Stevie Riks is a brilliant Brithise comedian that imitates clebrities . he does it in a most special way with charm that glows on every character that he imitates. At 8/3/08 he  was interviewed  on inside out BBC1 North West (U.K- T.V) he does clebrity humor to a variety of characters and mostly singers from all around the world,  like  freddie mercury , david bowie, the beatles, mick jagger and many more…he has a lot of fans from all around the world . he reminds me the  lgendary  Andy Kaufman.Stevie play on a variety of instruments he sings very well he acts wonderfully and he copyrights his own act.Its  amazing , so many characters in one man show you can see Stevie at youtube website.

http://www.youtube.com/user/caroline372

 http://www.stevieriks.com/

Stevie Riks is a brilliant Brithise comedian that imitates clebrities . he does it in a most special way with charm that glows on every character that he imitates. At 8/3/08 he  was interviewed  on inside out BBC1 North West (U.K- T.V) he does clebrity humor to a variety of characters and mostly singers from all around the world,  like  freddie mercury , david bowie, the beatles, mick jagger and many more…he has a lot of fans from all around the world . he reminds me the  lgendary  Andy Kaufman.Stevie play on a variety of instruments he sings very well he acts wonderfully and he copyrights his own act.you can see Stevie at youtube website.

http://www.youtube.com/user/caroline372

 http://www.stevieriks.com/

Stevie Riks is a brilliant Brithise comedian that imitates clebrities . he does it in a most special way with charm that glows on every character that he imitates. At 8/3/08 he  was interviewed  on inside out BBC1 North West (U.K- T.V) he does clebrity humor to a variety of characters and mostly singers from all around the world,  like  freddie mercury , david bowie, the beatles, mick jagger and many more…he has a lot of fans from all around the world . he reminds me the  lgendary  Andy Kaufman.Stevie play on a variety of instruments he sings very well he acts wonderfully and he copyrights his own act.you can see Stevie at youtube website.

Websites and Intellectual Property, Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights

August 7th, 2009 at 06:41pm Under copyright protection

To clear up confusion as to how to protect the Intellectual Property of websites, this article will give a brief explanation on how websites might be protected under Patent Law, Trademark Law, and Copyright Law.

The first concept to understand regarding Intellectual Property is the fact that patent law, trademark law, and copyright law overlap.  It is possible to get a patent, a trademark, and a copyright on a bicycle.  A patent can be applied for a unique braking system on the bike.  A trademark can be created for a unique and non-functional look of the bike (and word marks).  And a copyright can be extended to various graphics on the bicycle as well.  The three pillars of intellectual property: patents, copyrights, and trademarks are no mutually exclusive.

As such, a website which incorporates a novel and non-obvious method or process can be afforded patent protection.  One bad example is the Amazon 1-click patent.  This is a bad example in the sense that the patent was probably improperly issued due to serious questions related to USC 103 which requires non-obvioiusness.

A website may also be able to qualify for trademark protection through various logos, words, colors, sounds, or other source identifiers which are placed throughout the website.  A consistent look throughout the website pages can be given trademark rights.  A closely related issue may be cyber-squatting which is actually covered under another narrow law.

And a website may also have copyright rights as well.  Most websites have an assortment of images, articles, artwork, and other text which certainly comes under copyright law.  Moreover, any software running on those websites may also qualify for copyright law through their source code and object code which may be registered with the Library of Congress.

Los Angeles Patent Attorney los angeles patent trademark attorney

Protects Against the Baseless Claims Made by Sco!

August 7th, 2009 at 06:39pm Under copyright infringement

Now that the tide has turned, and SCO is facing the dissolution of its legal position, claiming to “enforce its intellectual property rights” while actually massively infringing the rights of others, the company and its lawyers have jettisoned even the appearance of legal responsibility. Last week’s Wall Street Journal carried statements by Mark Heike, outside counsel for SCO, challenging the “legality” of the Free Software Foundation’s GNU General Public License (GPL). The GPL both protects against the baseless claims made by SCO for license fees to be paid by users of free software, and also prohibits SCO from its ongoing distribution of the Linux kernel, for more detail visit www.seo-prediction.com  a distribution which infringes the copyrights of thousands of contributors to the kernel throughout the world. As IBM’s recently-filed counterclaim for copyright infringement and violation of the GPL shows, the GPL is the bulwark of the community’s legal defense against SCO’s misbehavior. So naturally, one would expect SCO to bring forward the best possible arguments against the GPL and its application to the current situation. But there aren’t any best arguments; there aren’t even any good arguments, and what SCO’s lawyer actually said was arrant, unprofessional nonsense.This argument is frivolous, by which I mean that it would be a violation of professional obligation for Mr. Heike or any other lawyer to submit it to a court. If it were true, no copyright license could permit the licensee to make multiple copies of the licensed program. That would make not just the GPL “illegal.” Mr. Heike’s supposed theory would also invalidate the BSD, Apache, AFL, OSL, MIT/X11, and all other free software licenses. It would invalidate the Microsoft Shared Source license. It would also eliminate Microsoft’s method for the distribution of the Windows operating system, for more detail   www.huge-niche-keywords.com which is pre-loaded by hard drive manufacturers onto disk drives they deliver by the hundreds of thousands to PC manufacturers. The licenses under which the disk drive and PC manufacturers make multiple copies of Microsoft’s OS would also, according to Mr. Heike, violate the law. Redmond will be surprised.(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) That such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be right full. As the language makes absolutely clear, section 117 says that although the Act generally prohibits making any copy of a copyrighted work without license, in the case of computer programs one can both make and even alter the work for certain purposes without any license at all. The claim that this provision sets a limit on what copyright owners may permit through licensing their exclusive right is utterly bogus. It has no support in statutory language, legislative history, case law, or the constitutional policy that lies behind the copyright system. Were this argument actually presented to a court it would certainly fail.

www.sitemap-makers.comwww.keyword-swipe.com

Protecting your Website’s Images From Stealing: is it Really Possible?

August 6th, 2009 at 12:40pm Under copyright protection

It is simply not possible to prevent someone from copying your website images. If someone is skilled and determined there’s no way to stop them from abusing your website and your content. But there’s still light in the end of the tunnel. You can use some semi-sophisticated techniques to limit the amount of people that can copy your website’s images. Keep reading.

The first method I recommend is called digital image watermarking. A watermark can be visible or can be invisibly embedded into the pixels of an image. There are companies like Digimarc offering digital watermarking services and providing a digital identity for any media object, thus protecting it from stealing. But these systems are not fool proof, they have serious weaknesses and they are costly.

Another method would be to hide your original image behind a transparent GIF using CSS style sheets. If someone right clicks the image and selects to save it, it will only save the transparent GIF, not the original image. Similarly, you can insert the image as a table background. But in both cases a visitor can always make use of the -PrtScrn- button to copy anything from your website.

Embedding the images in Flash files is another popular method. Now, this is a neat method to use, it will make it difficult for a thief to steal your work. You cannot right click and copy the image if it’s embedded in a flash file. But the flash file is already on your hard drive (cache). You can use any flash de-compiler software to easily grab any contents from a flash executable file. And of course you can simply use the -PrtScn- button to take snapshots.You see, the truth is that there’s nothing you can do to prevent a thief from stealing your content.

Newbies For SEO Content Distribution Linking

July 31st, 2009 at 06:35pm Under copyright act

The new buzz on the internet is all about getting one-way links by distributing content to other sites in exchange for backlines. As with every other SEO or website promotion technique ever devised, there are plenty of newbie myths about it that can ruin your chance for success before you even start. Newbie Myth 1: The “Duplicate content penalty.” Some webmasters worry that if the content on their sites is suddenly on hundreds of other sites, search engines will inflict a “duplicate content penalty.” Why is this concern unjustified? * If this were true, every major newspaper and news portal website would now be de-indexed from the search engines, since they all carry “duplicate content” from the news wires such as Reuters and the Associated Press. * Thousands of self-promoting internet gurus has proven that distributing content is an effective method of improving search engine rank. * Even more thousands of content websites have proven that republishing this content does not carry any search engine penalty. True, the first website to publish an article often seems to be favored by search engines, ranking higher for the same content in searches than higher-Page Rank pages with the same content. But the “duplicate” pages do show up in the search engine results, even if lower than the original site. Meanwhile, the reprint content has no effect on the ranking of a site’s other pages. The only duplicate content penalty is for duplication of content across pages of a single website. Meanwhile, there is a sort of “copyright theft” penalty, whereby someone who copies content without permission can be manually removed from search engine indexes out of respect for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But that penalty is only for flagrant theft, not minor mistakes in attributing reprint content. Newbie Myth 2: The goal is to get in article clearinghouse websites. There are over 100 popular, high-traffic websites that act as clearinghouses for content made available for redistribution. These websites include isnare.com, amazines.com, and goarticles.com. Many novice content-distributors are upset when the article clearinghouse websites, with tens of thousands of articles each with a backline, pass negligible Page Rank. But the point of distributing content to those websites is for other website owners to find your content and put it on their websites–not to get a backline directly from the clearinghouse website (though this is sometimes an unexpected bonus). Plus, to maximize Page Rank-passing links, you also have to submit articles to website owners individually. It’s not a small amount of work. But there’s no substitute for a polite, individually crafted email recommending a website owner complement his or her existing articles with one you’ve written. Myth 3: Any content will do. Reality: It should be obvious that many website owners, jealous of their link popularity, will only republish exceptionally high – quality content. For articles, this means a unique point of view and solid information that cannot be found just anywhere, ideally presented in compelling language in a web-optimized format by a professional published writer. You can conduct a content distribution campaign with bad content, but you’ll be handicapping yourself from the start. Myth 4: Distributing content is easy. Just hit “send.” Reality: Content distribution campaign requires skillful planning to target publisher websites effectively. This is essentially a four-step process. 1. You must identify the categories of websites most likely to republish your articles. These categories range from the very broad, such as internet, business, and family, and can go as narrow as family-friendly internet businesses. It’s a careful balance: you need to make your target category narrowly relevant to maximize the value of the link and your chances of getting your article accepted for publication. But if you target too narrow a category, you’ll lower the maximum number of links you can hope to get. For instance, a website on web content writing has to target its content distribution to more than just sites focusing on web content. There are only so many websites devoted to web content as a topic of interest, and besides, many such websites would be competitors. Distribution should target broadly relevant categories, such as web design, webmaster issues, writing, marketing, business, website promotion, and SEO. Yet some broadly related categories, such as internet or publishing, are not relevant enough to yield good results. 2. To maximize success, you must have articles custom-created for each major category you want to submit to. “Incorporating Content in Web Design” and “Marketing with Content” would be possible titles for a web content-writing website owner targeting web design and marketing websites, respectively. An article about web design won’t appeal as strongly to marketers, or vice versa, so simply submitting to websites having to do with “the web” would not be as effective. 3. For maximum success, articles custom-written for a category then often have to be refined for sub-categories. For instance, “Incorporating Content in Web Design” becomes “Incorporating Content into Flash Web Design,” or “Incorporating Content into Accessible Web Design.” Sometimes the refinement is just a “find and replace” of one keyword for another, sometimes just in the title. Sometimes, entire paragraphs have to reworded or removed. 4. Once you’ve identified sub-categories of websites, you still have to be able to meet the requirements of individual websites. Some sites only publish articles up to 500 words, some only do how-to articles. Owners of high-ranking websites can afford to be choosey. To really maximize results within a sub-category, you need at least three different articles of varying lengths and focus specifically geared toward that sub-category. In the end, distributing content for website promotion and inbound links is a marvelously effective way of promoting a website. But it’s not magic beans. Like anything else having to do with achieving success on the web, it takes hard work and knowledge to be successful

The Uspto Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is on Board With On-line Commerce

July 22nd, 2009 at 12:45pm Under trademark law

1. Holding

The USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter “TTAB” or “Board”) has relaxed its requirements for allowing website pages to be used as trademark specimens.

In In re Valenite, Inc., Serial No. 76482852, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 71; 84 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1346, July 31, 2007, the TTAB decided that the specialized nature of applicant’s goods made it infeasible to sell the goods in a traditional online manner. The traditional online manner uses an online shopping cart. The Board concluded that the applicant’s web page information, which included a customer service phone number that provided technical information about the goods, and the ability of the applicant to accept purchase of goods ordered via telephone calls to that customer service number, constituted information necessary to complete a sale.

2. Notation in Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP)

The TMEP has incorporated the holding in Valenite in TMEP 904.03(i), which now states that:

a web page containing a link to an online catalog, along with a toll free number and links to customer service and technical support, to be an acceptable specimen, where the goods were specialized industrial goods, and the record contained declaration evidence that purchase of the goods requires careful calculation and technical knowledge, and that the online phone numbers were in fact used to order the goods.

3. Impact

The holding in Valenite has four primary effects:

1. It allows applicants from anywhere in the world a greater opportunity to show use of a trademark in commerce in the United States through use of a website.

2. An applicant or registrant may be able to claim an earlier priority date for a mark that is involved in an opposition or cancellation proceeding.

3. It allows applicants to save money by showing use of the mark in the United States earlier in the registration process; for example, at the time of application filing. This lessens the need to file an amendment to show use, a statement of use, or an extension of time to file a statement of use.

4. Applications will proceed to registration faster, because of less time waiting to obtain an acceptable specimen in order to show use of the mark in commerce.

4. Prosecution Before the Examiner and the Board

The examiner had refused registration of the mark, stating that it was “not associated with the goods, and the specimens do not contain sufficient ordering information as required under Dell.” The examiner also noted (Examining attorney’s appeal brief (citations omitted)):

However, the home page does not provide adequate ordering information so Internet customers can easily select and order the goods. There are no links to click on to select a good and place an order. Pricing information is not present. There are phone numbers and e-mail addresses listed on the home page. But the mere presence of a phone number or mailing address does not constitute sufficient information to order the goods.

Applying Lands’ End Inc. v. Manbeck, 797 F.Supp. 511, 24 USPQ2d 1314 (E.D. Va. 1992), and In re Dell, Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1725 (TTAB 2004), the Board held that the applicant’s web page contained sufficient information to order applicant’s goods, particularly since the goods were specialized industrial products: tools for power operated metal cutting machines, and the customers would need technical assistance prior to placing an order.

Specifically, the Board stated:

These are not products that can be ordered from a web page by clicking on an image of the product to add it to a shopping cart for checkout…. Further, the term ‘customer service’ itself is broad enough to encompass the service of allowing customers to order applicant’s products by using the toll-free telephone numbers.

The Board concluded:

In the instant case, however, applicant’s website, in addition to showing pictures of the goods, provides an on-line catalog, technical information apparently intended to further the prospective purchaser’s determination of which particular product to consider, an online calculator and both a link to, and phone number for, customer service representatives. Therefore, applicant’s website provides the prospective purchaser with sufficient information that the customer can select a product and call customer service to confirm the correctness of the selection and place an order.

5. Author’s Conclusion

The holding in Valenite is a distinct change in the law in the US trademark office that expands the consideration of web pages as specimens to demonstrate use of a mark in commerce. In particular, the Board gives the applicant more latitude regarding associating a mark with goods and determining what constitutes sufficient ordering information for specialized goods.

What Is The Copyright Date For This Website?

July 19th, 2009 at 04:28pm Under website copyright

The website is: http://www.candlesholocaustmuseum.org/index.php
and to site it i need a copyright but i can’t find it anywhere
do you think i need a copyright date and is it a personal or professional website?

Do Trademark Laws Govern Website Domain Names?

July 19th, 2009 at 04:28pm Under trademark law

Like if I wanted a site called www.Lori’sClorox.com is that a trademark violation? I’ve looked at the trademark site with a fine tooth comb. Can’t find anything pertaining to the web. But….. since the US trademark only governs the US, how can it govern the web that is worldwide?

Is There A Website That Can Give Information About Copyright Owners?

July 19th, 2009 at 10:27am Under website copyright

I am trying to look for the copyright owner/s of some songs. Pop music category. Is there a website where I can get this info for free?

What’s The Best Way To Legally Protect A Website Idea… Copyright, Patent, Trademark, Etc?

July 19th, 2009 at 04:29am Under website copyright

I have a business plan written up, and am ready to present it to potential investors, but I want to make sure that I’m completely protected.