On May 29, 2020, Netflix released a new comedy television series starring Steve Carrell titled “Space Force.” It is a workplace comedy from one of the creators of “The Office” that focuses on the presumed sixth branch of the United States military. This concept is directly derived from the United States’ Space Force that was announced by President Trump and authorized by Congress on December 20, 2019.
By any standard, the existence of both things is somewhat of
a farce. Making things even stranger is that no one seems to understand how
names and titles and trademarks work, which led to a series of articles this
week about the purported trademark rights to SPACE FORCE being lost by the
United States government. This premise is ridiculous and this article will
attempt to explain why this is a non-story.
On Saturday evening, May 16, 2020, Donald Trump shared
a cartoonish deepfake video to his Twitter account. Trump’s 80 million
followers saw an edited video of the famous speech from the 1996 movie “Independence Day,” only
with the faces of the characters being edited to reflect certain individuals in
politics and pop culture, namely with Trump’s face superimposed over Bill
Pullman’s face (but not his voice).
While this predictably led to outrage from various corners
of the internet, including
from Bill Pullman himself, the most common complaint seemed to be “isn’t
this copyright infringement?” The answer to this question, as always, is: well,
Trump is unlikely to have acquired permission to use this
clip from Disney,
including any right to create or share derivative works, but
whether or not Trump’s uses constitute copyright infringement is not an easy
answer. Copyright is not absolute. There are always defenses to allegations of
infringement. Trump could assert the defense of fair use, specifically the
right to use the work as part of a parody – which the Supreme Court has held is
a fair use of copyright.
If this use is considered a parody, legal precedent holds
that Trump did not infringe any copyrights. What if Trump’s use is instead
considered satire? Yes, there is a difference between “parody” and “satire” and
these distinctions are significant in a copyright fair use analysis.
Even in the midst of a pandemic and an unofficial national
lockdown, people still have to eat. With outings to the local restaurant and trips
to the grocery store being potentially risky, food delivery services have
become an essential part of American life in 2020. For large-scale service
providers like Grubhub, it has been a relative goldmine for business.
But is Grubhub scamming us all? On May 15, 2020, BuzzFeed
reported that even if you seek to bypass Grubhub service fees by calling restaurants
directly, you may have been fooled by a bait-and-switch phone number. These restaurants
are still paying Grubhub for extra fees.
How is this legal? More specifically, is this a violation of
the Lanham Act for false advertising or customer confusion and deception?
… and your own concert
video recordings on YouTube could be infringing, too
Prince has been gone for nearly four years. But his presence
still looms large over copyright law. Even in death, Prince’s estate continues
to keep a watchful eye over potential infringers of his musical works. The
latest dispute is a potentially haunting restriction of a popular feature on
YouTube: people posting video clips of live performances. On January 6, 2020,
the federal district court in Massachusetts determined
that Prince’s estate has the sole right to distribute video clips of his live performances
and that uploading certain song clips to a YouTube channel may even constitute
This case presents a multitude of legal issues to assess. Additionally,
this ruling leaves a potential to a technology-based philosophical conundrum for
future copyright cases as they intersect with YouTube style sites. I have a
YouTube channel. On this channel I have posted covers of songs that I play on
guitar. My videos are nothing fancy, but this recent case and others like it
have determined that these videos can actually be infringing works. This
article will try to address these legal landmines while exploring any
possibility for copyright law as it exists today to be reconciled with how
these personal camera-phone videos are treated by the law.
As of this morning, there are seven (7) pending applications
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register some
variation of OK BOOMER as a trademark.
Thanks in part to the New York Times
article in October, the casually dismissive phrase “ok, boomer” went from a
limited internet audience to a mocking cultural term du jour. Inspired would-be entrepreneurs rushed to file
applications with the USPTO to “own” this phrase as a trademark.
It is unlikely any of these applications will mature into a
trademark registration. Simply put, this is not how trademarks work. Following in
the footsteps of such whimsical terms like COVFEFE, TACO
TUESDAY, and ALTERNATIVE FACTS, most of these alleged marks will fail to
acquire a registration from the USPTO.
Because they almost certainly fail to function as trademarks.
Taylor Swift is one of the most prominent and successful
musical artists of this decade. She has registered over 100 song copyrights
with the U.S. Copyright Office. Of
course, Swift was a teenager when she first entered the music industry. The
stories of exploitation within the industry by record companies, managers,
agents and representatives are vast. It appears not
even Taylor Swift was immune from a rather nasty dispute with the entity
that produced her first six albums.
Over the weekend, Swift sent out a tweet to her 85 million Twitter
While I am very familiar with who Taylor Swift is (though I prefer Tool),
there are enough
stories about her ongoing dispute with Scooter Braun, Scott Borschetta and
Big Machine Records. I
will let someone else explain the gossipy details involved there. Nor will
I perform any deep dives into the private equity acquisition of Ms. Swift’s
former record company that led us to these contractual impasses. Elizabeth Warren
and AOC have
already dipped their toes into that murky water.
Instead, I immediately realized this topic has copyright law
implications. Did you know that most recorded songs have at least two separate copyrights associated with
them? That is partially why there is such drama between Taylor Swift and Big
Machine’s new owners. Ms. Swift, for one, very much does not welcome these new corporate overlords.
Trademark law is quirky. Look no further than the attention
being given to recent filings to the USPTO by LeBron James and Ohio State
University. TACO TUESDAY and THE. These legal matters are receiving
But the subsequent news blurbs, articles, and media stories all seem to have
one important thing in common:
Nearly everyone is wrong about what is going on here.
At this point, I expect ESPN and Darren Rovell to fail
at describing the intricate
proceedings of trademark matters. That much is a given. It is everyone else
piling on these stories that is making me nervous. Accordingly, to address
these issues, and because the internet practically runs on top 10 lists, here
are 10 misconceptions about LeBron and Ohio State’s trademark filings.
July 31, 2019
The music industry has been in the news a lot recently
regarding intellectual property rights and related disputes. Just this week, a
federal jury determined that Katy Perry was liable for copyright infringement.
This tracks with the ongoing
trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Gibson Brands, Inc., which
continues to fascinate me.
Though in my research of these various topics and the
feedback I have received from writing about these legal issues, I have learned
that the terms “trademark” and “copyright” are being used interchangeably by
the public. This is troubling because they are absolutely not the same thing. I
would therefore like to take the opportunity to explain the differences in
these two legal doctrines. Because not all “infringements” are identical acts.
In May 2019, Gibson Brands,
Inc. sued Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc. for trademark
infringement, unfair competition, and counterfeiting.
Armadillo may not be a well known name, but it is affiliated with the guitar
brands Dean Guitars and Luna Guitars, which compete with Gibson.
Gibson is one of the most prominent names in the electric guitar industry,
alongside Fender. In this lawsuit, Gibson accuses Armadillo/Dean of infringing
at least four “body shapes” of its electric guitar models: the Flying V, the
Explorer, the ES, and the SG, each of which Gibson cites as a registered
This case caught my attention because I am a guitar player
and I often write about music and the music industry as it relates to
trademarks and copyrights. Here
I do not personally own any Gibson-branded guitars (they are too heavy in the
neck), but I do own one acoustic Dean Guitar – though not one of the types that
is accused of infringement in this case. With regard to electric guitars, I
prefer Schecter Guitars. Always a
Armadillo has not yet responded with an Answer to this
lawsuit, but I anticipate Dean Guitars will present a substantial defense to
all of Gibson’s claims. It is important to note that this is not a patent case.
This is not about who “invented” the particular shape or style of an electric
guitar. Any patent rights for these designs would have expired decades ago.
Instead, this dispute concerns trademarks. It essentially seeks to determine
whether a particular shape of a guitar evokes a specific source in the minds of
the relevant consuming public. With regard to the guitar industry, there is a long
history associated with these particular “body shapes” and how they impact pop
culture and the competition between the most popular brands and manufacturers.