PROCESS FOR TRANSFORMING A GOAT INTO A UNICORN:

BRAINWASHING GOGGLES:

LIGHT BULB CHANGER:

PROCESS FOR EXERCISING A CAT:

Chuy Always Registers His Copyrights

ASCAP compiled a great list of the top career development articles in 2011.  My favorite, and most useful for my listeners is How You Can Clear Cover Songs, Samples, and Handle Public Domain Works. This is one of the most frequently asked questions on my show.  Here’s a list of things in this area to keep in mind regarding licensing music:

1. Remember, if a song is in the Public Domain, it doesn’t mean the recording of it is. You might have to record a new version.

2. You always need two licenses, one for the recording and one for the song itself (that comes from the writer, publisher, or publishing adminstrator).

3. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC do not license songs to you, or for you. They are not publishers. They just collect money owed to songwriters and publishers when the songs are performed in public.

4. Registering with one of these entities listed in #3 does not mean your song is copyrighted.

5. You can record a cover song using a “compulsory license” without obtaining permission from the songwriter / publisher. However, if you want a discount rate, you will need to pay an advance and make a deal directly with the publisher / writer / or their rep (Harry Fox Agency).

6. You always need permission to synch a song to video. There is no compulsory license for that. It’s the wild west. People can charge whatever they want.

For some expert legal analysis by an accomplished former dancer now Greenber Glusker attorney, check Julia Haye’s posting in Law Law Land.

The I.P. Vulnerable Pacific Island Rockers "The Slants."

The band is The Slants. They are Asian rockers from Portland, Oregon that sounds like Depeche Mode and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has denied their application to register their name for Federal Trademark protection. That’s rough. According to Section 1203.1 of the Trademark Examiners Manual if your mark is “Scandalous” or “may disparage” it can be denied on those terms. This kind of subjective judgment of what’s offensive to who never works as intended in the real world. Evidently these Asians like to be called “slants.” Some gays like to be called “queers.” Punks call themselves punks, what does that mean to old timers? A prison boy toy, or something like that. And what about the Washington Redskins?

My trademark in the name Vandals was offensive to a the Honorable Ross Klein in Los Angeles Superior Court the other day when I appeared before him. He told me _...@vandals.com was not a suitable email address for an attorney. He said it was just as bad as _...@hooligans.com. Don’t tell him about the Sweet And Tender Hooligans. I also have a trademark in the name Chi-Com, International. Those lazy trade mark examiners didn’t do their homework that day. Chi-Com is a disparaging term for communists working for the Chinese during the Cold War.

Should the Trademark Office have this standard? Yes, probably. If you want to be edgy, it perhaps should cost you a bit. You either don’t get the Federal protection Trademark Registration provides, or you pay more for an attorney like me to appeal your denial. And if it’s really offensive, grow up. Do you agree, or have I just become a crotchety old man?  Reed more about the case here.

Classic Telecaster Shape With bridge From Your Host's www.evertune.com

Michael Bienstock, Esq.  of Bienstock & Michael will explain how and why The Fender Guitar Company was not allowed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to Trademark their legendary guitar shapes, thus allowing the continual copying of these shapes by other guitar manufacturers. How did this happen? Was it the correct decision? Ronald will tell all on this week’s edition of The Barely Legal Radio Program beginning at 11 am on Friday June 10 on Indie 1031.com and then again at 2 PM on Radio Weezer through IheartRadio.com. Read the tribunal’s decision here.

Hangover II Vs. Mike Tyson's Face: You decide!

Tonight our first our is pre-empted by a Galaxy game, however, we’ll be on at 6 PM PST on KTLK AM 1150 for hour 2 of the regular show. Call us live at 877-520-1150.  And please check out this video regarding the Vandals Fair Use case: Daily Variety’s Peter Bart Discusses Case With Fullbright & Jaworski Lawyer. Also, please vote in the battle of Mike Tyson’s Face Vs. Hangover II at the Fair Use Authority.

I say the less attractive, the higher the commerical value.

On a recent Sunday of my KTLK show, a listener, let’s call him Tom because that’s his name,  posed a fascinating question. It’s more of a puzzle. He has old photographs that belonged to his ancestors and were inherited by him. First off, does he own the copyright in them? He owns them, they’re unpublished, but he didn’t create them. Whoever did create them did it in 1910. Copyright protection is not available to works created back then so are they in the public domain? How can they be? They’ve never been published.

Determining when something is in the Public Domain, or how long a copyright lasts is often complicated stuff. Here’s a chart made by smart people at Cornel that I often refer to on my show for you to print out and keep on hand, and I always recommend the book The Public Domain by Stephen Fishman from Nolo Press. It’s indispensable if you are planning to exploit old stuff.

If Tom just published his inherited photos in the book he planned, he could copyright the book as a whole, but could he prevent people from using these photographs without his permission? He didn’t create them. One theory I proposed was what I call the museum theory. The Louvre doesn’t own the copyright in the Mona Lisa, the image is in the public domain. However, they only let their own photographers take professional quality pictures of it (with tripods and enhanced lighting, etc. The museum owns those pictures.  Those are the ones with commercial value. It makes sense that copyright law would protect them.

So Tom just needs to “take a picture” of his ancestral photos and copyright those professional quality photos and put those photos in his book and place copyright notices where appropriate. To be safe, he should put the originals in a vault so that no one can gain access to those “non-copyrightable” versions.

Or, by this theory, maybe placing them in a book IS taking a picture of them that you can protect through copyright. I don’t know if this has ever been litigated but to me, taking a high quality picture, with good lighting (arguably a creative process) would be a good foundation for protecting a copyright interest in an otherwise non-copyrightable work.

OK copyright scholars, what do you think?

Archival Gold!

Pam Raised All The Money She Needed For Her Film Using Kickstarter

I was inspired by listener Pam Nole’s resourcefulness when she called my show to ask about filming without permits. She took my advice, created a successful pitch presentation to raise money for a small video project, and then successfully met her fund raising goals on Kickstarter.com. Check her out. She may inspire you to get off your bottom and make a small dream or two come true. Her project is called !Death: 40 Ft. Tall! Good luck Pam and thanks for letting people know that many of the legal costs for your project can be free if you call my show!