|
|
Post by The Animal on Jun 19, 2006 16:26:05 GMT -5
Yes, he said he did that to seperate it from the character for copyright reasons. And who asked you? That is too cool! I wouldn't do it though, especially if you don't back him completely. How would that look? haha Dustin is sorely mistaken if he thinks that adding an extra "e" to the original name/word "Screech" is going to save him from copyright infringement. Federal Copyright law (as codified in title 17 of the U.S. Code, "the Copyright Act") covers all creative and original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It is extremely likely that the word "Screech" certainly falls within this definition and is therefore covered under the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act provides various rights to copyright holders, one of which is the right to prevent others from either using the exact copyrighted word/expression or using a derivative of the word/expression. A derivative of a copyrighted word/expression is a word/expression based on the original copyrighted word/expression that is either modified in some way or includes additional word(s)/expression(s). The word "Screeech" with the extra "e" likely consitutes an unauthorized derivative work as defined in the Copyright Act. All Dustin has done is add an extra letter to a copyrighted name of which we are all familiar. Therefore, Dustin is likely committing copyright infringement by using the word "Screeech" in conjunction with the t-shirts he is selling. There are some expections, however, under which use of the copyright word/expression would be allowed. The most common exception is called the "Fair Use" exception. For example, if Dustin were to merely give t-shirts away or make a sign with the word "Screech," he would probably not be committing copyright infringement, as it is likely that such use would consitute a "Fair Use" of the term. However, because he is asking for money, it is highly likely that the "Fair Use" exception is not applicable here. Dustin really needs to acquire competent legal advice before he acts. It's amazing to me that he isn't more careful after being burned before by not knowing the law. In any event, NBC probably wouldn't sue him because it wouldn't be worth the hassle, but I hope he's a little more careful next time. FYI, there was a famous copyright infringement case involving an actor, Clayton Moore, who played the "Lone Ranger" on the 1950s tv show. That actor went around making public appearances in the Lone Ranger outfit in the 1970s and he got in trouble with the owner of the Lone Ranger copyright and was found to have committed copyright infringement. An injunction was issued, barring him from making appearances dressed up as the Lone Ranger. See the Copyright Act here: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.htmlClayton Moore wikipedia entry: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_MooreDon't forget Microsoft's law suit against some guy named Mike Rowe because he named his software "Mike Rowe Soft". LOL!! |
|
tiosrec
Bayside Class Vice-President
Posts: 139
|
Post by tiosrec on Jun 19, 2006 18:49:10 GMT -5
Yes, he said he did that to seperate it from the character for copyright reasons. And who asked you? That is too cool! I wouldn't do it though, especially if you don't back him completely. How would that look? haha Dustin is sorely mistaken if he thinks that adding an extra "e" to the original name/word "Screech" is going to save him from copyright infringement. Federal Copyright law (as codified in title 17 of the U.S. Code, "the Copyright Act") covers all creative and original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It is extremely likely that the word "Screech" certainly falls within this definition and is therefore covered under the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act provides various rights to copyright holders, one of which is the right to prevent others from either using the exact copyrighted word/expression or using a derivative of the word/expression. A derivative of a copyrighted word/expression is a word/expression based on the original copyrighted word/expression that is either modified in some way or includes additional word(s)/expression(s). The word "Screeech" with the extra "e" likely consitutes an unauthorized derivative work as defined in the Copyright Act. All Dustin has done is add an extra letter to a copyrighted name of which we are all familiar. Therefore, Dustin is likely committing copyright infringement by using the word "Screeech" in conjunction with the t-shirts he is selling. There are some expections, however, under which use of the copyright word/expression would be allowed. The most common exception is called the "Fair Use" exception. For example, if Dustin were to merely give t-shirts away or make a sign with the word "Screech," he would probably not be committing copyright infringement, as it is likely that such use would consitute a "Fair Use" of the term. However, because he is asking for money, it is highly likely that the "Fair Use" exception is not applicable here. Dustin really needs to acquire competent legal advice before he acts. It's amazing to me that he isn't more careful after being burned before by not knowing the law. In any event, NBC probably wouldn't sue him because it wouldn't be worth the hassle, but I hope he's a little more careful next time. FYI, there was a famous copyright infringement case involving an actor, Clayton Moore, who played the "Lone Ranger" on the 1950s tv show. That actor went around making public appearances in the Lone Ranger outfit in the 1970s and he got in trouble with the owner of the Lone Ranger copyright and was found to have committed copyright infringement. An injunction was issued, barring him from making appearances dressed up as the Lone Ranger. See the Copyright Act here: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.htmlClayton Moore wikipedia entry: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_MooreI hope that this doesn't sound like me being a jerk, but that woudn't be a copyright issue. It would be a trademark/intellectual property issue. Yes, I know Dustin said it was a copyright issue but clearly Dustin isn't the most legalwise person. To make a long story short, yes you can get around such issues by adding an extra letter. If Clayton Moore did mortage commericals and refered to just himself as the "Loan Ranger (Or Loan Aranger)" That would have been considered on the verge of parody which is protected. |
|
elliot5
Bayside Class Vice-President
Posts: 249
|
Post by elliot5 on Jun 19, 2006 19:10:14 GMT -5
tiosrec, it is an intellectual property issue and copyrights (and trademarks) are intellectual property. It is copyright infringement - if you don't believe me, I suggest you read the statute. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.htmlTrademark law is not relevant here. A trademark is used to indicate the source or origin of a product. (see - www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/) Diamond is not using the name "Screeech" to indicate the source of a product - the name on the shirt is the product. Several years ago NBA coach Pat Riley copyrighted the phrase "3-Peat" and made money off the licensing of shirts with that phrase when the Bulls won their third consecutive titles in 1993 and 1998. "3-Peat" was copyrighted, not trademarked. If the guy who played the Lone Ranger had dressed up in the Lone Ranger outfit and appeared in a commercial for a mortgage company, I guarantee you that he or the company he was advertising would get in trouble for copyright infringement. That's an open and shut case. It's one thing to do it as a joke on Saturday Night Live, but to do it in a commercial where the primary purpose of the commercial is to sell the products the Lone Ranger guy is advertising is a clear example of copyright infringement. It's not a Fair Use when you use someone else's copyright in a commercial to sell your own products. |
|
tiosrec
Bayside Class Vice-President
Posts: 139
|
Post by tiosrec on Jun 19, 2006 20:35:16 GMT -5
tiosrec, it is an intellectual property issue and copyrights (and trademarks) are intellectual property. It is copyright infringement - if you don't believe me, I suggest you read the statute. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.htmlTrademark law is not relevant here. A trademark is used to indicate the source or origin of a product. (see - www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/) Diamond is not using the name "Screeech" to indicate the source of a product - the name on the shirt is the product. Several years ago NBA coach Pat Riley copyrighted the phrase "3-Peat" and made money off the licensing of shirts with that phrase when the Bulls won their third consecutive titles in 1993 and 1998. "3-Peat" was copyrighted, not trademarked. If the guy who played the Lone Ranger had dressed up in the Lone Ranger outfit and appeared in a commercial for a mortgage company, I guarantee you that he or the company he was advertising would get in trouble for copyright infringement. That's an open and shut case. It's one thing to do it as a joke on Saturday Night Live, but to do it in a commercial where the primary purpose of the commercial is to sell the products the Lone Ranger guy is advertising is a clear example of copyright infringement. It's not a Fair Use when you use someone else's copyright in a commercial to sell your own products. I am familiar with the copyright/trademark/intellectual property statutes. I have been a member of the Missouri Bar for 4 years now. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) www.uspto.gov/ defines trademarks and service marks as follows: "A TRADEMARK is either a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product." Furthermore, "a mark for goods appears on the product or on its packaging, while a service mark appears in advertising for the services." The Library of Congress www.copyright.gov/ defines copyrights as: Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works. This is what is protected under the umbrella of Copyright: Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section The Library of Congress goes on to the describe the difference between Trademark, Patents, and Copyrights as: Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others. Now to tie this all together: The script in which the character "Screech" does any type of action would be copyrighted. Names in said script like "Screech" ,"The Max", and "Zach attack" would be trademarked. Now another way of looking at is if "Zack Attack" was a real band. They would trademark their name and then copyright the music,lyric,and recordings of their Cd's. As for the Pat Riley comment, Pat Riley did not copyright the word "three-peat" He trademarked it. ttp://www.yalefedsoc.org/archives/2005/12/how_about_a_bus.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threepeatwww.schwimmerlegal.com/2002/06/if_the_lakers_w.htmltess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=cdofh8.4.8tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=cdofh8.4.6tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=cdofh8.4.5P.S. if Zach Attack was a real band, that would be awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by Muffin Sangria on Jun 19, 2006 20:38:08 GMT -5
I hope Dustin can get his act together, and hopefully not off the backs of his fans or he'll never learn the lesson here.
I've always been pretty good with my money, so it's a little difficult for me to sympathize with him, but I understand his problem and don't envy his situation. Credit/financial disasters are such a serious problem for so many people in this country. Of course a good deal of the blame should lie with the individual, but there are too many people/organizations out there that are eager to rip you off so they can turn a profit...."Sure we'll give you an advance on your paycheck, just as long as you don't mind paying 200% interest and signing your soul over to Satan".
Just remember, if you can't pay for it tomorrow, don't buy it today!
|
|
|
|
Post by Barb on Jun 19, 2006 20:39:28 GMT -5
Yes, he said he did that to seperate it from the character for copyright reasons. And who asked you? That is too cool! I wouldn't do it though, especially if you don't back him completely. How would that look? haha Oh! LOL Must have missed that. Anyways, its some AM radio show. www.wsjs.com You're right, Barb. That's the main reason I am hesitant to do it. I really can't anyways...I have plans soon. So I won't be able to do it. haha Cool, did they find your site or how did they come about finding you? |
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Jun 19, 2006 21:39:58 GMT -5
Oh! LOL Must have missed that. Anyways, its some AM radio show. www.wsjs.com You're right, Barb. That's the main reason I am hesitant to do it. I really can't anyways...I have plans soon. So I won't be able to do it. haha Cool, did they find your site or how did they come about finding you? They must have, yeah. I guess. They didn't say. |
|
elliot5
Bayside Class Vice-President
Posts: 249
|
Post by elliot5 on Jun 19, 2006 23:09:15 GMT -5
tioresc, actually I just looked it up - the owner of the rights to the Lone Ranger character got an injunction against Clayton Moore under a New York unfair competition law, not trademark or copyright. That may be NBC's strongest cause of action against Diamond if they were to ever sue. Maybe you're correct that there could be a trademark claim in addition to a copyright claim.
Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this any further, but the fact remains that he didn't consult with a lawyer before going ahead with his shirt advertising and sales and that is unfortunate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Jun 20, 2006 18:17:47 GMT -5
|
|
Dezden
New Kid @ Bayside
Posts: 34
|
Post by Dezden on Jun 21, 2006 0:41:39 GMT -5
Did anyone buy the shirt??? I am considering it, but I don't know.
Also, this is legit, right? If Screech is stealing my money, I'll be so freaking mad.
|
|
|
|
Post by QueenKelly on Jun 21, 2006 19:37:31 GMT -5
In all honesty, I would highly suggest no one this shirt. With the way Dustin manages money, I would wonder where the money would go.
If I met Dustin and we hooked up and get in a serious relationship and I found out he had bad credit, I would have told him that we were going to rent an apartment, or a smaller house, and clear up the credit. Then once the credit is good, We could go house hunting, but I would be in charge of the finances. He would know EVERYTHING that was happening with his money and I would teach him how to be more responsible about it.
|
|
tiosrec
Bayside Class Vice-President
Posts: 139
|
Post by tiosrec on Jun 22, 2006 7:28:51 GMT -5
Yes he does. Esp. if each shirt cost Dustin $5.00 to make and ship. That's 150K right there. Has anyone really bought a shirt? After shipping it's almost $22.00. What is Dustin going to do next year come tax time? All this money is considered taxable income. Another thing, if you thought giving Dustin 15.00 wasn't enough and you want to give more now you can. How about giving him a grand for a "brick"? getdshirts.com/buy.php |
|
|
|
Post by Barb on Jun 22, 2006 10:54:54 GMT -5
Looks like Discount Office Items bought a brick. You'll see some businesses donating, that's about it...and it's not for him, it's a tax right-off and advertising for them if anything.
Oh, and I'm sure the t-shirts aren't being paid for by him. He's got their logo on the back of the shirt and a huge logo on the site, it's advertisement for them. If he was buying them, their logo wouldn't be on the shirt.
What I want to know is where he's getting the money for his ratecomedy.com website. Does he really need that? ...No. He's got a couple other domains out there too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Jun 23, 2006 12:46:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Jun 23, 2006 13:02:37 GMT -5
You know...the more and more I hear about his story and learn new aspects of it....the more and more I am not feeling any sympathy for him.....I hate to admit that...because he seems like such a cool guy and all....but ugh....his irresponsibility just irritates me!!!   He needs to shut up about his home...get an apartment...pay off his debt....get some more gigs...get health insurance...and oh yeah....get a financial advisor for goodness sake!!!! He's 29 years old....have he started his life with $250,000!!!! Who starts off like that?  Do you know how much I wish I can start my life with $250,000!!!! Since when is that "little" money....PLease give me a break....People start off their lives without any money.....and they get by OK and work their way up..... Ok I need to stop....because I am getting myself all worked up here...lol I am really disappointed. By us helping him...do you really think he'll learn? The best thing, in my opinion, is to watch him hit rock bottom (which he shouldn't be afraid of since he's already showing this low point in his life and how he's handeling it) As much as I hate to admit it, he needs to get to that really, really, really, low point in his life to learn from this....if that means living in an "apartment" for him...well then so be it....a lot of other people have it harder than him.....he has so many oppurtunities to get money...ways we WISH we could earn......ugh....I am really saddened by this whole thing.  |
|
Visit our blog today! 
Do you know how much I wish I can start my life with $250,000!!!! Since when is that "little" money....PLease give me a break....People start off their lives without any money.....and they get by OK and work their way up.....
