Archive

Posts Tagged ‘copyright’

What’s in a NAYME?

October 27th, 2009 No comments

Before offering my thoughts on name and title copyrights, I’ll first apologize to Anthony Bakowa for using the title of an earlier Godzilla blog post that he had written. “What’s in a Name?” is a post reflecting Bakowa’s reading of Lingua Fracta: Towards a Rhetoric of New Media. Though I may have used the same title, our posts address very different subjects and do not compete for readership. My intent is to support some of Siva Vaidhyanathan’s arguments for “thinner” copyright protection in his book Copyrights and Copywrongs. Plus, my spelling of “name,” while incorrect, is different from Bakowa’s. Doesn’t this make our titles different? Is an apology even necessary?

My intentional misspelling of “name” helps me introduce lawsuits filed by the widely famous Metal band, Metallica. Apparently, the band has sued several times over the use of its name. My blog title addresses Metallica’s suit against furniture store owner, Kim Hodges in late 1999 for calling his store “Metallika.” An online ABC blurb does state that the owner was a fan of the band, but clearly wasn’t marketing any music or products that would hurt the sale of records.

Earlier the same year, the band pursued a lawsuit against lingerie-giant, Victoria’s Secret for creating a line of “Metallica” lip pencils and cosmetics without the band’s permission. Victoria’s Secret, according to MTV article, Metallica Tell Wheel Company: Don’t Tread on Me, later settled out of court.

The MTV article first addresses a settlement proposal at the time of its publication on August 22,2001. A California wheel manufacturer was asked to discontinue and recall its “Metallica” wheel, named for its metal composition. The sales manager assured interviewers that his employer knew little of the rock band when chosing the product’s name.

The band’s lawyer, Jill Pietrini, explains “it’s just a matter of a company having the right to protect its name. I couldn’t start up a Coca-Cola record company.”

I suppose both the wheels and cosmetics could have been titled differently and simply used the adjective “metallic” to describe the metal-like appearance of the products without risking copyright/trademark infringement. I’m not sure I agree that the sound of the word “Metallica” should be protected, though. Vaidhyanathan discusses “derivative works” the copyright of “The Death Disk,” first published as a short story by Mark Twain. He asks if D. W. Griffith infringed on the copyrights of Mark Twain in his creation of the film “The Death Disc,” although he had changed elements of the story and the spelling (85-100). The same spelling of “Disk” is later used by Biograph and STILL falls into a gray area of copyright protection.

Vaidhyanathan offers justification in the use of “Disk” and “Disc” for the use of different elements in each of the works. Attempting to apply some of his thoughts and arguments, I wonder why a furniture, cosmetic, or wheel company couldn’t then use “Metallica” if not selling anything musically-related.

Some thoughts on Copyrights and Copywrongs

October 24th, 2009 No comments

Copyrights and Copywrongs by Siva Vaidhyanathan offers an in depth look at the history of copyright law and how it has morphed from its original intent.  Vaidhyanathan proposes three goals for the book.  The first of which is to “trace the development of American copyright law through the twentieth century…it will proceed to a series of accounts of how copyright law affected American literature, film, television, and music” (p. 15).  He walks us through key figures such as Mark Twain, Learned Hand, and D.W. Griffith.   Twain’s role as an advocate against piracy but in favor of artists building on other artist’s work is extensively discussed. The author also provides us with a description of the various copyright laws and acts.  This discussion starts with the Statute of Anne which as enacted in 1710 in Britain and is considered by some to be the first copyright legislation.   The Statue of Anne had copyright lasting for only 14 years and could be renewed for another 14.  This was done to encourage “learning and create an incentive to produce more books” (p.40).  From there we are taken though the various acts and court cases that have morphed our system into one that promotes the established over the emerging and dampens creativity.  The history ends at about the year 2000 (the book was published in 2001) with the last act being the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.  This act “grants complete power to allow or deny access to a work with the producer or publisher of that work.  The producer may prohibit access for those users who might have hostile intentions toward the work” (p. 248).  This may include critiques and scholars. The second goal set forth for this book is to “succinctly and clearly outline the principles of copyright while describing the alarming erosion of the notion that copyright should protect specific expression but not the ideas that lie beneath the expressions” (p. 15). The author argues for copyright law as it was originally intended; to encourage creativity, cultural expression, the spread of ideas, and the sharing of information.  The rights of the creator are almost a by-product of the more important goal of creating a well of information in the public domain.  However, copyright has shifted into a form of property law which stalls creativity.  The third goal of the book is to “argue that American culture and politics would function better under a system that guarantees “thin” copyright protection” (p. 15).  The author continually advocates for “Thin” copyright protection that is “just strong enough to encourage and reward aspiring artists, writers, musicians, and entrepreneurs, yet porous enough to allow full and rich democratic speech and the free flow of information” (p. 5). Rather than “’Thick’ copyright protection [which] has a chilling effect on creativity” (p.16).  The book left me reevaluating my stance on copyright protection and reweighing the benefits of these laws.