[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Globe on John Garabedian
----- Original Message -----
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <DonKelley@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Globe on John Garabedian
> I believe the copyright fell under the category of artistic work (the
on-air product or portions thereof), and other stations would be in
violation if they were use "On Radio", "On 1060", "On Music", and "On Line"
(the listener comment line) in any broadcasts.
> At any rate, it went unprotected and the copyright (or whatever it should
have been called) expired by the time that Al Gore invented the internet.
It sounds to me that the promos were simply puffing to make the station
We're not talking about dictionary definitions, we're talking about federal
law. Copyright protects a work of authorship, like a song, a an article, a
work of art. Currently, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus
70 years. As Attorney Ross pointed out, a two-word phrase is not likely to
qualify for copyright. I agree -- I can't see it passing the tests for a
work of authorship The entire broadcast or a portion of it would be
protected by copyright, but a two-word phrase would not likely qualify.
It's a factual determination, but it seems to me that trademark law would be
the only way to protect such phrases. To gain trademark protection
nationally, the phrases would have to be registered with the Patent and
Trademark Office. There a re various tests for registering a trademark --
for example, a generic term can't be used as a trademark. A trademark is
lost if it is abandoned and no longer used in commerce.
I don't claim to be an expert on this stuff. I took an intro class in
Intellectual Property law last fall, but I only got a B-.
-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine