Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Intellectual Property Laws, Their Rights, Responsibilities, and Infringement

There are three main areas of intellectual property law: copyright, trademark, and patent. These rights are protected by the Federal government; although, if the copyright, trademark, or patent is not registered with the proper office, it can be difficult to sue a person for infringement, plagiarism, or misappropriation.

Most people have heard the term “copyright;” however, probably only a few know that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides for copyright protection.  The laws of copyright are outlined in Title 17 of the U.S. Code and in the 1976 Federal Copyright Act. Copyright protects an individual or group’s original work or expression of ideas. If created after 1978, the copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the death of the owner. Copyright covers original works such as music, literature, art, movies, architecture, etc. and protects against unauthorized use of these works by others and also gives the owner express rights of reproduction, distribution, etc. Whether or not the work is registered, affixing the copyright symbol (©), the date, and the name of the author on works that others see will make them aware of the copyrights.

Trademark law is similar in concept to copyright law in that prevents others from unlawful use; however, trademark protects a company’s brand name and reputation, and prevents others from taking advantage of or misrepresenting a brand. A trademark is a distinctive identifier of a product, which is not easily confused with another brand – think McDonald’s golden arches, the Nike swish, Starbuck’s coffee goddess, etc. Trademarks become protected once they are used by a business – such as on letterhead – and can be renewed indefinitely. The rights to a trademark are abandoned once the company stops using the brand/logo or for ten years after the date of registration. But, again, they are not easily defended in a lawsuit unless they have been registered. As with copyrights, affixing the trademark symbol (™ or SM) will make others aware of trademark ownership. Registered trademarks enjoy the privilege of extra legal protection and should always be accompanied by the symbol for a registered trademark: ®.

With regard to patent law, inventions are protected by the Constitutional provisions as copyrights and give the owner the right to make, use, and sell their inventions. Patent protection is good for 20 years from the date of the patent application.

Fair Use is governed by the Copyright Act and allows use of copyrighted material for limited purposes such as comment, news reporting, teaching, research, etc. depending on the purpose of the use. In general, Fair Use can be considered when only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used, or if it is for critical commentary, news reporting or parody.

Plagiarism occurs when a person uses another person’s copyrighted work (words, thoughts, or ideas) and represents it as their own without authorization or acknowledgment of the owner and misappropriation of personality refers to using another person’s image for financial gain – such as using a celebrity’s image on a product because an association will help sell more products.

As public relations professionals, we need to be vigilant about copyright and trademark laws and protecting the rights of our clients as well as making sure the practices of our client do not infringe on the rights of owners of other copyrights or trademarks. A good example of how this is not could occur is the 2010 Oprah Winfey “Own Your Power” trademark infringement lawsuit in which she was sued by a motivational speaker for the use of her trademarked (and registered) catchphrase, which she used for her business.  At first, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Oprah had a right to the “fair use” of the catchphrase; however another judge remanded the lawsuit for further proceedings requiring Winfrey to prove the catchphrase was used descriptively only and in good faith, which is not likely to prevail since the Winfrey camp used the catchphrase, essentially, like a campaign slogan, for their corporate-sponsored event in conjunction with a magazine cover and episode of the show.  Was it fair use when it was so widely used? Certainly Oprah’s Oprah Winfrey Network general counsel is familiar with the ins and outs of trademark law and knew they were courting infringement. Did they reasonably expect that the phrase was not registered or was it really only descriptive and motivational? If it was just random and descriptive, why the repetition?  Additionally, it is worth note that Oprah bought the rights to her OWN (network) at the same time the registration application was filed for the motivational speaker in this lawsuit and it was noted that if a search had been done for “OWN,” “Own Your Power” would have popped up as well.

Additionally, in 1997, Oprah was sued by two of her former staff photographers over copyright of photographs they shot over almost a decade of the show. The lawsuit originated from Winfrey’s use of photographs that were individually copyrighted to her production company in a weight-loss book. They both wanted control of the photos. Oprah wanted them to be sure they did not land in tabloid magazines and the photographers wanted to have access to the photos, as it was the whole of their work for ten years and was defined by one, somewhat understandably, as his “legacy.” Under copyright law, the two exceptions to ownership are: when work is done under the employ of another or corporation or when the work is contracted by an individual or a corporation. In this case, it is clear that Oprah paid these photographers as staff and had the reasonable expectation that the pictures would remain the property of her corporation, Harpo Productions, Inc.; however, the judge ruled they would share the use of the photos. The photographers would retain creative rights of the photographs and would be able to go forward with publication of a book featuring photos from the show’s early years, but Winfrey has ensured, through the court, that none of the photos will be leaked to tabloids. That right is now court-protected.  This suit was settled amicably for both parties, but it could have been a very disastrous and expensive loss for the photographers since, according to the law, it was evident they were employed by Harpo Productions and were only taking these photographs at the direction of their employer, so they really should have lost the rights of ownership.

Public relations professionals have a responsibility to follow the letter of the law with regard to intellectual property, but they should also be aware of how other people or organizations are using the ideas of their clients to make sure they never cross the line from fair use to infringement and, if they do, that proper legal action is sought to protect the business and reputation of the client.



References:

"Canada: Fleeting Reference To Starlet In Song Not A Misappropriation Of Personality." Mondaq Business Briefing. (April 5, 2013 Friday ): 285 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/11/10.

 “Copyright: Fair Use.”copyright.gov.U.S. Copyright Office, June 2012. Web. 09 November 2013.

 “Copyright Law and Regulations.”copyright.gov. U.S. Copyright Office, n.d.Web. 09 November 2013.

 “Copyright Law of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code.”copyright.gov.U.S. Copyright Office, n.d. Web.09 November 2013.

Gower, Karla K. Legal and Ethical Considerations for Public Relations, 2nd Edition. Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 2008. Print.

“Oprah Winfrey Must Once Again Defend ‘Own Your Power’ Lawsuit.”hollywoodreporter.com.The Hollywood Reporter, 2013.Web.09 November 2013.

Posner, Richard A. “Misappropriation: A Dirge.” Houston Law Review Volume 40 (01/2008): pp. 621-1455. Web. 09 November 2013.

“Professional Standards Advisory PS-14: Expropriation of the Intellectual Property of Others.”prsa.org.Public Relations Society of America.2010.Web.09 November 2013.

“Professional Standards Advisory PS-16: Plagiarism.”prsa.org.Public Relations Society of America. September 2010.Web. 09 November 2013.

“United States Copyright Office- A Brief Introduction and History.”copyright.gov. U.S. Copyright Office, n.d. Web. 09 November 2013.

“Winfrey, Photographers Settle Copyright Suit.”chicagotribune.com.Chicago Tribune, 17 August 2000.


16 comments:

  1. Great post! I had no idea Oprah had so many copyright issues. While the photographers probably should've lost rights to the photos, it is a tricky situation considering how those photos represented so much of their career. PR professionals have to be aware not only of the materials we use in work, but our own work as well. If someone plans a legendary campaign and wants to use their writing from it and their firm/company claims copyright, it's the same situation as Oprah and the photographers. Like all of the blog topics, there's a lot of grey area involved and navigating through the situations can be difficult.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Katie, I suppose even a woman/company with pockets as deep as Oprah/Harpo Productions, Inc. cannot seem to find a perfect staff. Lawyers are humans and humans can make mistakes. From what Dr. Whalen wrote below (she is correct in all she said - and provides great clarity on the matter), the photographers did not, in fact, sign a contract giving all of their copyrights to Harpo, so, since they were the artists, they were the copyright owners.
      I guess what happens with an employees campaign and the firm's copyright ownership depends on the contract they sign, but yes, there seems to be a lot of grey area in copyright law and public relations.

      Delete
  2. Great post! I didn't know Oprah was so troubled when it came to the copyright issues, etc. I guess not every high profile celebrity can have it all! There are always so many hoops to jump through when going through copyright, trademarking. They even have specific lawyers to handle things like this because it is so complex and complicated. PR professionals should know what they can get away with and what they can't in terms of what work to use. There is definitely a lot of room for error but at the same time there is a strict guideline that must be followed. Great work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jared, yes, I was going to say the exact same thing until I read further, regarding the attorneys. There is a whole field of intellectual property law. I would say that it might even be beyond the scope of knowledge for PR professionals beyond a general knowledge. This should emphasis the relationship though, between PR and other departments, specifically legal, in providing a whole spectrum of services for a company, so they can be thorough in their work - especially the legal aspects. We don't seem to hear about this type of thing often, but I'll bet it happens more often than we realize, which is why we have to be vigilant on the front end of a campaign - to avoid litigation afterward. Thanks, Jared.

      Delete
  3. Great job, Beth. I think the amount of lawsuits regarding intellectual property that Oprah has been involved with, or really any celebrity, is fascinating. When it comes to infringement, it seems as if people mostly seek financial restitution from well-known, wealthy people, not from the "common" person. Does that change things? Have these laws become manipulated?

    I like the point that you made that not only do we need to know the law to prevent out clients from infringement, but we also need to track the property of our clients to make sure people aren't infringing on them.

    I really like the idea of Fair Use. I think one of the best, current uses of Fair Use is the recent parody of "What Does the Fox Say?" I had never heard of that (ridiculously idiotic, yet catchy) song before SNL made a parody of it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jofNR_WkoCE). I watched the parody video, which lead me to watch the original, and now I can't get it out of my head. It's pure torture for me, but awareness for the "artist," which is a positive for them.

    I think one of the most interesting conversations about intellectual property is if infringement actually help someone You could argue that a major lawsuit against a large corporation for infringement can bring publicity to that product/property, which would increase awareness, interest, and eventual profit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Teddy, I hadn't seen the SNL parody yet (so just watched it) although I had seen the original video before. This is the exact thing we are talking about in social media class - spreadability vs stickiness. This fair use of 'What Does the Fox Say' is a perfect example of spreadability. It is legal and it helps to spread the campaign. However, I think this can also be such a slippery slope for people that don't understand the policy/regulations.

      Delete
    2. Teddy,
      Wait...you hadn't heard about, "What Does the Fox Say?" It's rpretty ridiculous and hilarious. My son has Caillou DVDs with these weird humans-dressed-as-animal sketches and I swear that is where the Fox idea must have come from! By the way, parodies - are protected under copyright law, but I think I mentioned that in the Fair Use paragraph.

      I am sure companies get a lot more exposure with a lawsuit than they do with expensive (and limited because of that expense) advertising. Lawsuits, especially with large companies, receive a lot of news coverage.

      I don't know why people sue celebrities so often. Sure, it seems like an easy way to get money. Many times, they will settle out of court to avoid legal costs and negative media; however, I'd be afraid that if I were to sue a celebrity or corporation and lost, I would also have to reimburse their legal fees! Great insights...thanks, Teddy!

      Delete
  4. Beth, thanks for all of the information on these terms and laws! Some of them at first seem to be common sense, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, it can be pretty confusing. Even for PR professionals for huge celebrities as we’ve learned from the articles you shared about Oprah’s ordeals and lawsuits. If one is not well versed and educated in these policies, then it will cause a lot of trouble, which leads to spending a lot of money. You would think that this is why people would be careful about holding on to their copyrights and ensuring ownership.

    Well, in this article http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d9955c0e-d48f-46fc-9be1-387e4d9b8ebc, it is obvious that copyrights are a point of contention for even the most popular characters. The famous comic creator/author Stan Lee had transferred his copyrights to Stan Lee Entertainment, who then transferred it to Stan Lee Media. Around the same time, Stan Lee had also transferred his copyrights to Marvel (something about a breeched contract with the other corporation?), who then transferred the copyright to Disney. Now there is a lawsuit between Stan Lee Media and Disney, vying for the rights to all of the Blockbuster movie heroes – including Iron Man, Spider Man, X-Men, and the Avengers. Those are some big clients!! Basically in the end, the court/judge sided with Disney saying that Stan Lee Media couldn’t prove copyright ownership. If you don’t have the backing of the person who created the characters, maybe it’s a sign that you should change your business’ name?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sarah, thank you for this article. I'm sure Oprah and her team would have saved a lot of money and heartache if they had a simple paragraph in the contract with the photographers ensuring their copyright ownership. It's a lesson learned, I suppose.

      With regard to Stan Lee, it seems the judge should almost revert back to original ownership to determine the rightful current owner, but if the original owner signed rights to two entities, then what? I feel Disney will probably win because it's such a huge and powerful company; however, it would be really dignified to see the judge give the rights back to Stan Lee Media with some sort of limited use/ownership going to Disney (and paying a pretty penny to Stan lee Media for it). I think a compromise is in order, but it will be interesting to see how the lawsuit is settled.

      Delete
  5. Beth great post! Like everyone else I never knew Oprah had faced so many problems over copyright issues. This goes to show that no one, no matter how famous they may be, is safe from copyright laws. When people create something they become protective over it, never mind when it is actually something of value. Even though we has professionals do not have any specific laws that regulate our field, these guidelines like so many others are on the list of laws we have to be knowledgable about in order to be successful. We are constantly working with words, images, phrases, songs and so on, so it is crucial that we understand what we can utilize for creative purposes or a message or campaign for a client and those items which are off limits. Yes it is frustrating when we feel as though certain things like a picture should have free reign for all, but like so many other laws, if we blur the lines in one area then that leaves question for all areas. Overall really good and informative post on this topic. We have been taught throughout our education that copyright and plagiarism are two things we must always avoid and this reiterates those lessons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Katherine, can you imagine the job of lawyers on Oprah's staff who have to register all of her copyrights and such? I imagine they have to be so careful to protect everything. I think, considering the information, campaigns, print, new network, etc. that they have had, it's surprising (in what, 30 years?) that she did not have more litigation. I'm sure there were many cases settled that we never heard about, but regarding major cases, she's had relatively few.

      Also, and I said something similar to Jared, we can always consult the legal department and, where none exists, contract a lawyer to review...contracts or campaigns or trademarks/copyrights to make sure we haven't missed something. We are not lawyers, but we have to be the gatekeepers of that knowledge and make sure things like copyright registration and such are attended to. We shouldn't feel like the burden is ours alone though. I think in most corporations and agencies, there is some sort of a legal department or general counsel who can be consulted for things like this. It's actually cool to have that responsibility - as long as we are diligent and vigilant about it.
      Thanks, Katherine...

      Delete
  6. Nice job Beth! Your post was very informative and actually clarified some questions I had about the differences among copyright, trademark, and patent laws.

    In all honesty when I think of Public Relations practitioners this is probably the last area I would associate with the job. This week was definitely eye opening for me and a little intimidating because I am not familiar with these laws by any means. But, I have been increasingly more aware this past week and have been intrigued by some extra research I have done on the topic. I agree with Katherine completely, I had no idea Oprah faced so many intellectual property law discrepancies in her prime but as mentioned in previous comments, it just goes to show the importance of knowing the laws and how to go about protecting your intellectual property the right way.

    This is definitely an area I will need to pay more attention to as I hope to someday be in the world of Public Relations and I don't ever want a client to have to face some of the predicaments that Oprah and her network encountered.

    Great Post!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kacey, not to worry...this gives us a primer for copyright and trademark laws. You can always defer to text books or attorneys! There must be a need for public relations somewhere in the field of intellectual property as well! Every field must have a basic need for copyrights or trademarks and I imagine that our knowledge about the field of intellectual property will expand exponentially when we put it in practice. As Oprah always used to say, "When we know better, we do better."
      Thank you for your post, Kacey!

      Delete
  7. Great job, Beth, condensing a lot of information into a single, well-written article. You provided all the key definitions within a good summary of the various assigned readings. Two things, I wanted to comment on, however, to be sure there is no confusion.

    On the topic of plagiarism, you say, “Plagiarism occurs when a person uses another person’s copyrighted work (words, thoughts, or ideas) and represents it as their own without authorization or acknowledgment of the owner.” This is true except for two things: ideas cannot be copyrighted, but they can be plagiarized. And you can still be guilty of plagiarism, even if you are not violating copyright law. (Let’s say you attended a lecture on a topic and used a small quote from that lecture in a paper you are writing for a class – the lecture is not copyrighted (unless it was recorded for posterity or presented from a written speech) so using the quote in your paper as if you thought of it yourself is not in violation of copyright, but if you do not attribute the quote to the originator of it, you would be committing plagiarism. This is an ethical violation, not a copyright law issue.

    On the issue of the copyrights to the photos of Oprah, you say, “Under copyright law, the two exceptions to ownership are: when work is done under the employ of another or corporation or when the work is contracted by an individual or a corporation. In this case, it is clear that Oprah paid these photographers as staff and had the reasonable expectation that the pictures would remain the property of her corporation.” There’s a little more to it than that. Just contracting someone to take pictures for you and paying them – even over a 10-year period – does not transfer the ownership of the copyright to the firm (or Oprah). There has to be a written and explicit clause in the hiring contract and signed by the photographer that says that the copyright will transfer to the firm – otherwise the photographer will own those rights to use the pictures in any way he or she wants after the firm has used them (that’s how all those questionable photos show up of Hollywood stars twenty years after they had posed for them). The only time the rights to the work belong to the firm is if it is done by an employee (who works exclusively for the firm and who acts as the company photographer (or writer, or artist, etc.) as their main job (and even then, most companies still have you sign something to that effect in the employment contract just to avoid confusion and potential lawsuits). From the facts of the case, it wasn’t as clear as you suggest that the two men were staff photographers (they argued that they were freelancers). The judge came up with a compromise ruling that seemed to satisfy both sides.

    Pat Whalen

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr. Whalen,
    Thank you for this informative and important post and for correcting my information. I was interested to read that you can be guilty of plagiarism without violating copyright laws, but your description clarifies the issue - thank you. Also, I did not know that the photographer's in Oprah's lawsuit had the contractual agreement minus the copyright ownership (for Harpo). Thank you for bringing this to light. Did I miss that in the reading?! That perfectly explains the reason for the judge's ruling. Now it makes sense. I think, knowing what I now know, that the judges ruling was a fair compromise.
    Thank you!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.