#Legal
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.
102 notes
·
View notes
Text
A free article to read about the importance of getting the right lawyer for the job at my Substack.
42 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Mexican Supreme Court has officially ruled to decriminalize abortion across the nation.
The Supreme Court declared that “the legal system that criminalized abortion in the Federal Penal Code is unconstitutional [because] it violates the human rights of women and people with the ability to gestate."
GIRE, a reproductive rights group in Mexico City, also noted that this ruling means any federal public health service or federal health institution must offer abortion to any patient who requests it.
Source: Pink News, September 6, 2023
5K notes
·
View notes
Text
KOSA Moves to the House
KOSA is still moving forward and OTW Legal explains how fans can add their voices and who to contact. Read more at https://otw-news.org/37dhnd5a
2K notes
·
View notes
Text
Dang. Idk if anyone has ever laid out Donald Trump’s entanglement with Russia sO clearly.
If you’ve had enough of watching the Trump clowns defending Trump & white supremacy, the Sutori link is definitely worth reading. It is a very enlightening, detailed and comprehensive timeline that puts Trump’s very very long history with Russian mobsters into sharp perspective.
👉🏿 https://www.sutori.com/story/timeline-you-might-be-interested-in--pTTyLH39r7FsRtF51JZi4BVt
👉🏿 https://forensicnews.net/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/
#politics#donald trump#republicans#trump indictment#espionage act#legal#lawyers#treason#traitors#mobbed up#russian mafia#russian mob#money laundering
3K notes
·
View notes
Text
It's 2024 now. I immediately set upon drawing up a new tshirt design for my threadless shop that is very legal to sell. It is extremely legal now. People can legally buy this from my threadless. Or, you could draw your own, they can't stop you anymore.
LINK
718 notes
·
View notes
Text
Kylin kalani 47
#kylin milan#kylin kalani#so hot 🔥🔥🔥#beautiful model#celebrity#actress#fashion model#sexy tease#sexy content#sexy pose#nswf selfie#legal#18 years old#bikini pics
627 notes
·
View notes
Text
550 notes
·
View notes
Text
study vibes downtown
#my the paris review tote is literally my best friend#i don't go anywhere without her#even though totes are a black hole and i spend hours digging for my keys#study inspiration#studyblr#mine#studyspo#tea-tuesday#study#study motivation#studying#books#legal#law school#lawblr#choatic academia#city#downtown
543 notes
·
View notes
Text
A historic legal agreement approved in federal district court yesterday afternoon commits the Environmental Protection Agency to a suite of proposed reforms to better protect endangered species from pesticides. The settlement, which covers more than 300 pesticide active ingredients, marks the culmination of the largest Endangered Species Act case ever filed against the EPA.
Under the agreement’s terms, the EPA will develop strategies to reduce the harm to endangered species from broad groups of pesticides, including herbicides and insecticides, while taking further steps to target meaningful, on-the-ground protections to endangered species most vulnerable to harm from pesticides.
Thanks @walking-on-a-scream for the submission!
#submission#endangered species#good news#hope#pesticides#herbicides#insecticides#environment#endangered species act#legal
487 notes
·
View notes
Text
lmao great job, MAGFest signage team
217 notes
·
View notes
Text
More Adventures With Very Bad Publishers
Enjoy.
For those who have complained that these posts were behind a paywall, that was not intentional. There's an automatic paywall that pops up after posts have been online for a few weeks. I have removed it. You can now read everything for free.
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
In unrelated news, the CEO of MGA Entertainment deleted his Twitter in 2020 after bullying a creator whose likeness they allegedly plagiarized for a toy
348 notes
·
View notes
Text
"Canadian shoppers may be more willing to admit that they've stolen from grocery stores lately, whether in defiance of corporate greedflation or out of sheer necessity amid an only partially-explicable spike in food prices, but the fact remains that shoplifting is illegal — and landing a charge could spell big, big trouble.
But it doesn't necessarily have to ruin your life, according to one local legal professional who will defend anyone arrested for stealing food from grocery stores pro bono (as in for free) right now.
Licenced paralegal Frank Alfano, whose firm represents people all over the Greater Toronto Area, published an Instagram post earlier this week that is as much of a public service announcement as it is an advertisement for people seeking legal help.
"Criminal convictions have many serious consequences such as jail time, a criminal record, not being able to travel to America, not being able to get some jobs and more," reads the caption of that post.
"We understand that it is difficult to deal with criminal charges by yourself... We offer legal services for criminal offence summary convictions as regulated by law society of Ontario. To qualify for free representation this must be your first offence, the value of the goods must be less than $5,000, and it should be in the GTA area."
The post displays an image of someone stealing food with the text: "You do not deserve a criminal record because you wanted to feed yourself or your family!" — a sentiment Alfano believes in strongly."
Full article
Tagging: @allthecanadianpolitics
#cdnpoli#canada#canadian#canadian news#canadian politics#toronto#ontario#greater toronto area#law#legal#food#food insecurity#poverty#mine
740 notes
·
View notes
Text
A British Columbia lawyer alleged to have submitted bogus case law “hallucinated” by an AI chatbot is now facing both an investigation from the Law Society of B.C. and potential financial consequences.
Earlier this month, it was revealed that lawyer Chong Ke allegedly used ChatGPT to prepare legal briefs in a family law case at B.C. Supreme Court.
In reviewing the submissions, lawyers for the opposing side discovered that some of the cases cited in the briefs did not, in fact, exist.
Those lawyers are now suing Ke for special costs in the case.
Full article
Tagging: @politicsofcanada
#cdnpoli#canada#canadian politics#canadian news#canadian#british columbia#BC#law society of BC#Chong Ke#AI#chatgpt#law#legal#legal system#BC supreme court
91 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
hesitationss
nothing in this world belongs to me
asiasarts
Asia's Art blog
askteaminstinctspark
Instinct or Extinct
floraslcve
fede
janjan-the-ninth
goes ding when there's stuff