Last Seen Blogs
swearwolfcola
Mr. Swearwolf
afroking95
Live4Now
askmusclecat
meow
blogherlovesstyle
BlogHer Loves Style!
jennesaisquoii
Jena
Text
When you make a choice, you change the future.
Deepak Chopra
67 notes
·
View notes
Text
Lallybroch: copyright vs. trademark
An excellent question was asked by our friend @rosfrank in the comments thread to 'The door faces North' post and given the cosmic amount of uninformed bullshit being ventilated for almost ten years in this fandom, I think it's time to answer it once and for all:
Whenever we are informally talking about 'owning the rights to something', I think it's very important to bear in mind a fundamental distinction between two different categories of ownership rights: copyright and trademark.
The copyright is the most familiar one to many of you. It is what you usually find on those annoying and apparently useless first or last pages of all the printed or digital editions on this planet. Something like this:
In the US, copyright issues are regulated by the Copyright Act of 1976, as included in Title 17 of the US Code. The US public authority competent for registering and managing copyright is, as predictable, the US Copyright Office.
Perhaps the most seminal US Supreme Court decision, as far as copyright is concerned, is the 1991 Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. In it, the Court ruled that mere compilations of information or facts (such as, for example, telephone books) are not protected by copyright, according to US law. In other words, the ancient legal concept of 'sweat of the brow' (which simply means the amount of work required to gather and compile those facts/information) is not enough to qualify a work for copyright protection, if no creative effort is added to enhance its content. This is why I have always considered absolutely ridiculous Marple's efforts to watermark public information screenshots: it is useless (to the extent that it legally protects her from nothing) and, as her timelines, a mere compilation of facts (legally ditto). A similar approach is preferred by the UK and also by many Roman law legal systems, such as the French one - just making things clearer, here, by the way.
See how 'Erself is roughly doing, right now, in this department:
But I am rambling. In my view, Lallybroch, as a pivotal concept used in Diana Gabaldon's books, is protected by the copyright granted to each and every of her books mentioning it, according to the Roman law principle 'accessorium sequitur principale' (the accessory follows the principal). So it will remain protected for at least 70 years since the last of her books mentioning it would have been published under copyright. Unless she chooses to separately protect the entire finished cycle as a whole, once Book Ten (fingers crossed) is published, preferably during our foreseeable lifetimes.
That being said, that goes only for one copyright category: (published) text - you cannot copyright that secret diary in your drawer, LOL. This is why, the current US Copyright Office records concerning Lallybroch look like this:
Sony Pictures Television Inc owns the copyright to the fictional name Lallybroch in the motion pictures category, as it is the title of the Episode 12, in Season 1 - DG has been handsomely compensated for this, no worries. And someone I have no idea about owns the rights to an original musical score she has written and titled Lallybroch in the music category, since October 2013.
Onwards to the trademark. This is something different and this is all about making your name/concept/idea profitable. It is all about branding it, putting it on a product and selling it under that brand. It includes all the graphic elements and the logo of the brand (accessorium...) - in short, its visual identity to the consumers. In the US, trademark issues are regulated by the 1946 Lanham Act and the public competent authority is the good old US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO).
Right now, the situation for the Lallybroch trademark is as follows:
So, we see three different trademarks: two of them, owned by Diana Gabaldon, are classified as 'dead' (cancelled and/or abandoned) and the third, Lallybroch Spirits, owned by S's Great Glen Company is pending approval - he will not be able to label any booze bottle Lallybroch Drink Me before permission is granted by the USPTO.
Let's unpack:
Both Lallybroch trademarks formerly owned by Diana Gabaldon were filed at the USPTO on February 21, 2000 and granted on December 12, 2000. The first was aimed at producing 'tartan fabrics for the manufacturer of clothing' and it was abandoned in December 2003:
The reason is that the owner did not file in any Statement of Use after the trademark was granted. She had three years to do so, and since she chose not to do anything about it, the trademark was deemed abandoned (Stacy K. Smith is the attorney hired by Herself, btw). That means she specifically implied not to intend using it in the future. As such, she may claim NO rights on a now free to use mark:
The second trademark was aimed at producing 'clothing, namely, t-shirts, dresses and headwear' and also 'jewelry, namely, rings, pins and necklaces'- to cut the story short: OL merchandise - and it was cancelled on March 1st, 2013:
The reason is that the owner did not file the Section 8 declaration (of continuous use for five years) within the allowed legal timeframe (6 months after the fifth anniversary of the trademark granting renewal). Her trademark federal rights are now deemed canceled (but not her state law and/or common law rights!) and if she wants to ever use that name again, she would have to start the whole process over, bearing in mind the trademark could have been granted to someone else, in the meanwhile (not her case).
And for anyone who might ask, 'Erself does not own any other trademarks whatsoever:
The other (Doll Lab - LOL for ages) Diana Gabaldon is a pharmacist from Albuquerque, NM. Chill. 🤣🤣🤣
The owner of the copyright to the fictional toponym Lallybroch, as far as published text is concerned, is Diana Galabdon.
The owner of the copyright to the fictional toponym Lallybroch, as far as motion pictures are concerned, is Sony Pictures Television Inc.
The owner of the copyright to the fictional toponym Lallybroch, as a personal work of music, is Mrs. Kelly Ruth Davis, of Pennsylvania, USA.
The owner of the Lallybroch Spirits trademark will be Sam Roland Heughan, when that trademark is granted by the USPTO.
I hope this answers your question, @rosfrank. Thank you for asking.
87 notes
·
View notes
Text
instagram
Los videos del Live pesan mucho y no se pueden subir descargados a tumblr o a mi no me deja asi que van con el enlace a la cuenta de MPC.😬
The Live videos are very heavy and cannot be uploaded downloaded to Tumblr or it won't let me, so they go with the link to the MPC account.😬
24 notes
·
View notes
Text
Sam Heughan for Nobleman Issue 25
📷 noblemanmagazine.com/sam-heughan-2/
Photos by Randall Slavin
29 notes
·
View notes
Text
Live...
noix_de_coco75
From @mypeakchallenge IG.
#MPCGala2024
#samHeughan
#Edinburgh
19 notes
·
View notes
Note
We've heard DG make many references to the significance of the forget-me-nots that were in the first episode when Claire goes through the stones for the first time. I was wondering what you think that significance is and how you think it will play out. (not really a question, more a line of thought hahahaha)
Let me share what Diana Gabaldon has said:
The choice of flower was deliberate
She won’t share yet what the significance is
Claire did not plant them
I also found this on the forum for the Scot and the Sassenach podcast:
During some of the pre-show publicity, I remember Diana saying that Ron asked her if it was important that the flower at the base of “the” stone was a particular type. She told him, “Only if you plan to do the entire series.“
Also found this:
Victorian Interpretation: Based mostly on its name, the forget-me-not signifies true love in the Victorian age. It also relates to good memories, memories that you wouldn’t want to forget.Superstitions: The flowers of forget-me-nots almost always have a story that relates to love. Mainly, if couples wore the forget-me-not as a garland, they would never be forgotten by their lovers. What the Forget-Me-Not Means: Just as the name implies, forget-me-nots mean remembrance. It can mean the remembrance of good memories like when two people are together as a couple. It also signifies true love.
Forget-me-nots are also poisonous, though they do have medicinal properties.
Given that Diana is a trained scientist, with a particular interest in botany, I can’t think that the placement of this plant is flippant or accidental. She doesn’t put in *any* kind of plant or animal in her stories without some underlying intent.
To me, there’s a deliberate meaning behind this plant. Whether or not it was deliberately placed there, the choice of the forget-me-not reflects (in part) the journey that Claire is about to go on. And like with so many other things in the Outlander universe, we’ll just have to wait and see…
(I also found this lovely Outlander Plants blog which shares more information about the forget-me-not plant, as well as many other plants featured in The Books)
247 notes
·
View notes
Text
He was too perfect, despite being one of the most imperfect people I knew.
Richelle Mead . The Indigo Spell
52 notes
·
View notes
Text
Instagram...
added about 1 hour ago
samheughan stories
mypeakchallenge y
samheughan
Edinburgh, Scotland
Something is about to go down🙌….
.
.
.
.
#MPCGala #MPC2024 #MyPeakChallenge #SamHeughan
21 notes
·
View notes
Text
Last Line Meme
Thank you to the lovely @philtstone for the tag!! 💜
Rules: In a new post, show the last line you wrote (or drew) and tag as many people as there are words. Or as many as you feel like
Jamie had never given much appreciation to the way the summer sun filtered through the bedroom window in the mornings, casting the bed in a golden glow, until he had someone in that bed with him, as vibrant as the sunbeams that caught the breadth of colors in her wild curls.
His wife.
no-pressure tagging @walkinginland @theawkwardterrier @frasers-of-my-heart @forgetmenotsassenach17 and anyone else who has something to share!
40 notes
·
View notes