Tag: copyright

Civil Rights, Copyright, and Owning a Movement

  By

When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “ I Have a Dream,” I’m pretty sure he wasn’t considering for one second the copyright implications.  There will be many posts today celebrating his great achievements, but why not also talk about some copyright law. All his iconic speeches are still under copyright and not free for the public domain to access as yet. So the bigger question then, who owns the IP of social movements?

I probably spend too much time thinking about the legal side of history when it comes to too many things, especially IP law. I’ve noticed a battle that’s been brewing for years between protecting someone’s IP and making sure the public can learn and be inspired by their work. What’s even more complicated is when the work and that person happens to be a civil rights legend who reshaped history.

Things have gotten tricky in the digital age; Tik Tok, Instagram, X etc. can reach millions each day. The advent of these platforms have made it more difficult for the estates of these social movement pioneers to keep the messages authentic. 

Add in AI to this and you get a barrage of deep fakes, voice cloning and you may see Dr. King giving a speech he never gave. 

Here are a few ideas on how to keep Dr. King’s legacy (and others like his) safe from misappropriation while allowing people to learn and share his message freely for proper usage in our 24/7 digital world.

  1. Limited-Term Copyright for Social Impact Works – Possibly let crucial civil rights speeches and works enter the public domain faster (currently life span of the author + 70 years), while still protecting the financial interests of the estates. 
  2. Open Licensing for Educational Use – Give teachers, historians and educational institutions the ability to teach the content without having to jump through hoops.
  3. Fair Use Expansion – Allow educators and activists to use more of the speeches and works and not have to worry about a copyright takedown for every little snippet posted.
  4. AI Ethical Guidelines – Create some concrete laws and ground rules so we are not facing a future where all our heroes and icons aren’t selling toothpaste or coffee mugs, unbeknownst to their estate.

As an IP Attorney, I admit I’m biased to keeping the law relevant and with the speed of social media and AI, we need to seriously consider how we protect important social messages. We need to try our best to keep history accurate. Should social movement speeches and texts remain locked behind copyright, or free for the public to share? And how does AI fit into this?

6 Differences Between U.S. and Canadian Trademarks

  By

Canadians should consider trademarking their brands in the U.S. due to its much larger consumer market, for protection against cross border infringement and to secure their brand’s identity in cross-border trade (particularly now with e-commerce etc.).  Without a U.S. trademark, many Canadian brands risk losing their competitive advantage in the United States.  Below are some differences between the two country’s processes. 

  1. The Use Requirements for Registration & Filing Basis
    • U.S.: An applied for trademark in the United States has a requirement that it is currently being used in commerce for it to be registered with the USPTO. Applicants are able to file for a trademark with an “Intent to Use” 1(b) filing basis, however, the examiner will not register the mark until there is evidence of that mark in use with a 1(a) filing basis.
    • Canada: Trademarks in Canada are not required to be “In Use” in order for the registration to occur, thus no filing basis is required. However, in order to maintain your trademark long term, the mark must be In Use or the trademark could be removed from the Register of Trademarks
  1. Trademark Duration and Renewal
    • U.S.: Registered marks in the United States must be renewed every 10 years and a declaration of continued use must be filed between the 5th and 6th year to maintain the registration. 
    • Canada: Registered marks in Canada must be renewed every 10 years, however do not require any midterm declarations
  1. Distinctiveness
    • U.S.: The USPTO maintains that distinctiveness is a critical element of a registered mark. If your mark is generic or descriptive it is not registerable. If your mark is descriptive the USPTO may ask for proof of “Secondary meaning”
    • Canada: Distinctiveness is important in Canada but is not as narrowly monitored as in the States. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) may accept broader descriptive elements than its U.S. counterpart. 
  1. Trademark Opposition
    • U.S.: Oppositions in the U.S. are filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) which operates as a semi-judicial body. 
    • Canada: Oppositions in Canada are handled by the CIPO itself and not as formal as the TTAB procedure.
  1. Examination of Applicants and Scope of Protection
    • U.S.: The USPTO has a stricter and more in depth examination process; Particularly their assessment of “likelihood of confusion” analysis with existing registered (and times applied for) marks.
    • Canada: The CIPO process is not as rigorous overall, but does include a broader assessment of descriptiveness and registerabilty.
  1. Nationwide Protection
    • U.S.: Federal and State registrations are available in the U.S.. However federal registrations are considered superior and only available if the mark is being used in interstate commerce. 
    • Canada: Registered trademarks in Canada enjoy federal protection even in cases where there is no inter-provincial or international trade.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter.

The transmission and receipt of information contained on this Web site, in whole or in part, or communication with Zamani Thomas PA via the Internet or e-mail through this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship between us and any recipient. You should not send us any confidential information in response to this web-page. Such responses will not create a lawyer-client relationship, and whatever you disclose to us will not be privileged or confidential unless we have agreed to act as your legal counsel and you have executed a written engagement agreement with Zamani Thomas PA. The material on this website may not reflect the most current legal developments. The content and interpretation of the law addressed herein is subject to revision. We disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this site to the fullest extent permitted by law. Do not act or refrain from acting upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.

No comments

5 Differences between Canadian and U.S. Trademark Applications

  By
  1. No Classes – The Canadian application procedure does not use a classification system like the U.S. procedure does. Without the class system, an unlimited number of goods and services may be included in a single Canadian application without additional fees.
  2. The Madrid Protocol – Canada is not a member of the Madrid Protocol, thus a registration in Canada can only be obtained through a Canadian application.
  3. The Canadian Trademark Office is much more lenient with Extensions of Time. The U.S. application process may be terminated in a time extension period is passed.
  4. Canadian trademark registrations are enforceable in every region of Canada even if the mark has been used prior or has become known in that region. In the U.S, the trademark may be limited by regions where the mark has been in use or known.
  5. When filing an application in Canada, it is important to correctly indicate whether or not the trademark has been used in Canada. If there has been use of the trademark in Canada, a date of first use must be claimed. Unlike in the U.S., it is improper to file an application on the basis of proposed use or intent-to-use if the mark has been used in Canada; a third party can successfully oppose an application on this basis.

Disclaimer

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS WEBSITE IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE ON ANY MATTER.

The transmission and receipt of information contained on this Web site, in whole or in part, or communication with Zamani Thomas PA via the Internet or e-mail through this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship between us and any recipient. You should not send us any confidential information in response to this web-page. Such responses will not create a lawyer-client relationship, and whatever you disclose to us will not be privileged or confidential unless we have agreed to act as your legal counsel and you have executed a written engagement agreement with Zamani Thomas PA. The material on this website may not reflect the most current legal developments. The content and interpretation of the law addressed herein is subject to revision. We disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this site to the fullest extent permitted by law. Do not act or refrain from acting upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.