"Fair Use or Nah?"
Consider the following cases to give awareness that even if an intellectual property may have a registered right or license, it may not always be protected from people who use it without permission.
TRADEMARK PROTECTED OR FAIR USE?
Consider the following cases to give awareness that even if an intellectual property may have a registered right or license, it may not always be protected from people who use it without permission.
TRADEMARK PROTECTED OR FAIR USE?
Oprah recently won a lawsuit after being sued for using the
phrase “Own Your Power” on the cover of her magazine. The issue was whether
the phrase was protected by fair use or not. Courts determined that the trademark
owned by Simone Kelly-Brown was not protected. The court’s reasoning was that
the phrase lacked the distinction that would cause confusion about
Kelly-Brown’s trademark.
Furthermore, the court determined that Kelly-Brown did not sufficiently prove that there would be any confusion with her trademark and Oprah’s use of the phrase. However, trademarks are put in place so that one’s creative content can be protected and not confused with any other association or classification. But this article seems to go against the main function that trademarks were created to protect. The court’s ruling seems to convey that Oprah’s use of the trademark was fair use partly because it did not cause confusion with an association to Kelly-Brown. But technically, the purpose of a trademark is to protect a mark so that no one else uses it without permission and that should be respected.
Furthermore, the court determined that Kelly-Brown did not sufficiently prove that there would be any confusion with her trademark and Oprah’s use of the phrase. However, trademarks are put in place so that one’s creative content can be protected and not confused with any other association or classification. But this article seems to go against the main function that trademarks were created to protect. The court’s ruling seems to convey that Oprah’s use of the trademark was fair use partly because it did not cause confusion with an association to Kelly-Brown. But technically, the purpose of a trademark is to protect a mark so that no one else uses it without permission and that should be respected.
Seltzer, a street art artist, (Street Artist) filed a lawsuit against a music band, Green Day, (The Band) because he found out that the band was using one of his pictures as a backdrop. The issue was whether the
band infringed on the copyright of the street artist by using the picture without permission.
Years prior to the lawsuit, the street artist took a picture of the band and added creative elements in the picture. For a period of time, the band used the picture as a backdrop, until years later, the street artist found out that the picture was being used, with creative modifications, as a backdrop for the band.
Objectively, it should be fair to say that if the band
was the subject of the whole picture that they should be able to freely do as
they please with that picture; but, that is not the case according to the street artist. The street artist claimed that the band's use was copyright infringement.
Interestingly, the court ruled, [using a four factor test] that the band’s use of the picture was fair use and not copyright infringement. Based on the ruling of this case, the verdict seems to favor a freedom of expression and First Amendment right; not Seltzer's copyright. I dissent with the court's opinion and the reasoning behind the fair use factor test.
Years prior to the lawsuit, the street artist took a picture of the band and added creative elements in the picture. For a period of time, the band used the picture as a backdrop, until years later, the street artist found out that the picture was being used, with creative modifications, as a backdrop for the band.
Interestingly, the court ruled, [using a four factor test] that the band’s use of the picture was fair use and not copyright infringement. Based on the ruling of this case, the verdict seems to favor a freedom of expression and First Amendment right; not Seltzer's copyright. I dissent with the court's opinion and the reasoning behind the fair use factor test.
INFRINGEMENT FOR SAMPLING A SERMON OR FAIR USE?
Pastor T.D. Jakes filed a lawsuit against rappers Jeezy and Kendrick Lamar for sampling content from his sermon for their song called Holy Ghost. I think he is correct in doing so because he’s entitled to the same rights that music artists are entitled to for use of their song lyrics. However, critics argue that the pastor might not have a strong case because the use of his sermons might fall under Fair Use.
Pastor T.D. Jakes filed a lawsuit against rappers Jeezy and Kendrick Lamar for sampling content from his sermon for their song called Holy Ghost. I think he is correct in doing so because he’s entitled to the same rights that music artists are entitled to for use of their song lyrics. However, critics argue that the pastor might not have a strong case because the use of his sermons might fall under Fair Use.
To say the fair use issue is simple to determine, it is not. Each case of Fair Use is unique and cannot be scrutinized under general regulations. Most cases regarding this issue are difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment