Are you allowed to do this?

[elfin_odalisque]

Not only that, but I separated this discussion from British practice in post #18.

Elfin is just being her usual dopey self.

You are everything lovecraft accuses you of.

My comments are totally focussed on the moribund US system that J K Rowling has used effectively to protect her interests.

sr, you are so provincial and uworldly you would do better not commenting on issues you are ill-informed about.

 

[sr71plt]

The United States signed the Berne Convention in 1989.

It just hasn't passed U.S. legislation to give the Berne Convention any teeth in U.S. courts.

 

[sr71plt]

Have no fear, Elfin. I have you firmly lumped with Lovecraft as well.

(As far as not knowing what you're talking about, want to state again that the United States hasn't signed the Berne Convention? )

Incidentally, serious readers of this thread, Rowling, of course, has nothing to do with the level of the discussion here. This is erotica free use and e-booking we're talking about here. Let's not get ridiculous. Rowling had a major publisher, pushing her books at the best-seller level--yes, even before the first one came out. They jolly well could demonstrate marketability of their book project to the trademark commission (although I don't think they did. I think it's Warner Brothers who took out a trademark--and later than book publication). If you don't want a life of grief, try to keep your life in perspective and with some connection to reality.

 

[sr71plt]

Incidentally, Elfin, a source please on your assertion that Harry Potter was trademarked before the books were published.

According to the records of the Trademark office, The trademark for "Harry Potter" was filed by Warner Brothers on December 22, 1999, and registered on May 15, 2001, registration number 2450788. I can find no other trademark registration for this book series by Rowling (although she recently filed for trademark of a website).

Rowling's first Harry Potter book was published in (ahem) 1998.

So, source please, for the base from which you rant your irrelevant (to this thread) point.

 

[Artina Heartflash]

This is the open Internet with folks playing their roles with assumed names and dropping material for free read. There's no legal angle to much of anything happening here.

So basically you are saying if someone posts poems of their own creation in threads. anyone can pick up some of the works and publish it for whatever purpose he wants? To me, that's feels as bad as identity theft--- the character of such folks as bad as those who take pics from the amateur pic threads and promote their own porn sites.

Oh well... i guess I'll be keeping a much tighter guard on my poetic sentiments and art henceforth. the more I see the warnings like "stealling is lame" at the tops of submissions, the less I want to contribute.

Thank you for the info.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

It's not identity theft. Internet accounts (most of which are fake names anyway) aren't "persons" legally. They don't have a legal identity--they have to be "absolutely" attached to a real person behind them, and you have to go after the real person. This is getting not as hard but still very hard (and expensive) to do. Try proving that no one else but one real person could possibly be using an Internet account. (The "Law and Order" type shows are just getting around to using this as a plot bunny.)

And the poems were submitted here for free reading. Legally, their authors have declared them to be worthless.

You are mixing up legality with ethics.

Welcome to the Internet. Government (the courts) have absolutely no interest in going into this murky field hand in hand with you--unless you are very, very important and have lots and lots of money and clout.

 

[Artina Heartflash]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

It's not identity theft. Internet accounts (most of which are fake names anyway) aren't "persons" legally. They don't have a legal identity.

And the poems were submitted here for free reading. Legally, their authors have declared them to be worthless.

You are mixing up legality with ethics.

Welcome to the Internet.

SR, I will point thsi out only one more time:

i personally had copyrights made of several pieces BEFORE they were posted as submissions here. The posting of those poems and stroies here did not mean I declared the previously achieved copyright as invalid. They are still legally on file.

Enough... I am off here.

 

[sr71plt]

SR, I will point thsi out only one more time:

i personally had copyrights made of several pieces BEFORE they were posted as submissions here. The posting of those poems and stroies here did not mean I declared the previously achieved copyright as invalid. They are still legally on file.

Enough... I am off here.

And I'll point this out one more time. Take any infractions to court you see of your copyright the legal route and let us know your experience with that. Until you've done so (or can cite court cases of others doing so), you don't know squat how all of your time, effort, and financial investment is going to pan out. So far, I don't see that it's panned out for anyone on the level of this discussion. (I, of course, wish it would--I've got a whole lot of published work out there myself.)

And again, one more time. The main person you don't want to fool in all of this is yourself. (But you can go right ahead and do so, if you like. It's not really my problem--I just have concern for the readers of these threads.)

Oh, and let us know how your phone call to the Trademark office goes.

 

[PennLady]

SR, I will point thsi out only one more time:

i personally had copyrights made of several pieces BEFORE they were posted as submissions here. The posting of those poems and stroies here did not mean I declared the previously achieved copyright as invalid. They are still legally on file.

Enough... I am off here.

I'm not sure, though, that this means anything. You retain copyright when you post on Lit (and other sites) b/c, well, they say you do and it's part of the agreement when you publish. But it seems to me that even if you've filed for copyright, you seriously depreciate the value of a work when you publish it for free.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

I would note that Rowling is British and I gather there are different requirements for copyright, etc., there. Not sure how that would cross the pond, but it's worth remembering.

Yes, PL, copyright is wildly different because we in the US won't sign up to the Berne convention. Still, any European writer goes through the hoop to register copyright, trademark and financial interest in the US. As I said before, Western courts look to compensate for financial loss.

Yes, the US, like China, will not recognise the copyright of anything not put through that country's own copyright system. However that is just a part of America's arrogant belief that US law can be applied to people who have never, ever been to the USA but perform acts in other countries which would be contrary to US Law if they had been committed in the USA.

... i personally had copyrights made of several pieces BEFORE they were posted as submissions here. The posting of those poems and stroies here did not mean I declared the previously achieved copyright as invalid. They are still legally on file. ...

I'm not sure, though, that this means anything. You retain copyright when you post on Lit (and other sites) b/c, well, they say you do and it's part of the agreement when you publish. But it seems to me that even if you've filed for copyright, you seriously depreciate the value of a work when you publish it for free.

Oddly my copyrighted books are still for sale, and still selling copies, although several of them have been posted for free (several years after original publication).

 

[Artina Heartflash]

Oddly my copyrighted books are still for sale, and still selling copies, although several of them have been posted for free (several years after original publication).

I am glad you posted this fact. TY.

The primary reasons I write and offer my literature are listed on my author's profile page. I don't CARE if the pieces never sell!!! I make no investment other than the copyrights for the work.

The value of the story/poem/commentary/message is not in dollar worth. It is the measure of satisfaction in expressing myself. Equally important is how the public values it in PERSONAL benefit. Did it teach the reader anything? Did it make him stretch his wings (emotionally/mentally) ? Did it touch him in any personal way, cause him to reflect/examine his own life and worth? Did it make him curious about the author? Did it inspire him to good things?

Nothing about money in the cause. The legal copyright is there in order to discourage those who want only to take my gift and make money with it.

 

[PennLady]

Oddly my copyrighted books are still for sale, and still selling copies, although several of them have been posted for free (several years after original publication).

And sr71 posts his stories some months after they have been published. I'm sure others do the same. I've gone the opposite direction, posting and then pulling stuff down to publish. It still doesn't change the fact that at some point, we effectively said, here, it's free.

Nothing about money in the cause. The legal copyright is there in order to discourage those who want only to take and make money from the gift.

The copyright is no doubt smart to have. I just wonder how much protection it will really offer -- in a court, say -- after you've made the work available for free. Plus, anyone who's going to grab other people's stuff and put it on Amazon or wherever probably isn't going to be deterred by the copyright.

 

[oggbashan]

...The copyright is no doubt smart to have. I just wonder how much protection it will really offer -- in a court, say -- after you've made the work available for free. Plus, anyone who's going to grab other people's stuff and put it on Amazon or wherever probably isn't going to be deterred by the copyright.

What amuses me about the theft of my stories posted here is that the thief usually leaves my copyright statement alone, so I can search for "copyright oggbashan" and find the stolen stories.

 

[sr71plt]

What amuses me about the theft of my stories posted here is that the thief usually leaves my copyright statement alone, so I can search for "copyright oggbashan" and find the stolen stories.

That does show how little the rattling of a copyright claim bothers them.

 

[Artina Heartflash]

What amuses me about the theft of my stories posted here is that the thief usually leaves my copyright statement alone, so I can search for "copyright oggbashan" and find the stolen stories.

At least confront the offender and expose him.

BTW, I love "the penalities" lit

 

[sr71plt]

hesitate to stir you from your primeval swamp but you are completely wrong. All the Harry Potter names were oficially trademarked before the first edition appeared - no requirement for 'substantial investment in business use' is required.

Are you not going to provide a source citation for this assertion of yours, Elfin?

You made it up, didn't you?

Who, again, is trying to speak out of their depth on copyright/trademark issues?

 

[PennLady]

I admit I may be out of my depth, but I just searched the US PTO database for Harry Potter trademarks, found bunches, and saw no filing date before 1999. According to Wiki, HP & the Philosopher's Stone (Sorcerer's Stone in the US) was released in 1997. I don't know what trademark or copyright Rowling might have done in the UK, but it doesn't look like anybody did anything in the US until 1999.

 

[lovecraft68]

That doesn't either copyright or trademark those names. You can't copyright a name (in reference to specificially this, check out author names--or character names, for that matter--on Amazon. You'll find many duplicates). And you can only trademark a name (which is a different process and government office from copyrighting) if you can prove substantial business investment in the business use of that name and substantial financial loss by someone else using that name. They don't hand out trademarks like candy.

You aren't legally protected from anyone else using that name/character.

But you can certainly try to bluff others--and fool yourself--with this line of reasoning, if you like.

You're right a name cannot be copyrighted. In my new series each of the characters has a name based on mythology or a historical figure. Of course, being a die hard I had one named Lovecraft.

That was fine when I was dicking around with it at home, but now that I am putting parts of it on lit and the rest will be an e-book, I was wondering if I could use it.

Most of Lovecrafts work was kept alive by August Derleth, notoriously litigious. I wasn't sure where I stood and on facebook contacted Robert Price, the living breathing expert of all things Lovecraft. He pointed me to an article that explained a name cannot be trademarked or copyrighted if it is an individual. So I could have an Adolf Hitler and it would be fine.

I do believe however names of events and products can be. Superbowl is one of them. Bars can advertise a big game party but can't call it superbowl.

 

[lovecraft68]

What amuses me about the theft of my stories posted here is that the thief usually leaves my copyright statement alone, so I can search for "copyright oggbashan" and find the stolen stories.

That's because it is a bot lifting them most likely.

 

[lovecraft68]

You mean the ones you "finished" that some dead guy left hanging? More likely than not, copy rights were created because of carrion eating vultures like yourself.

 

[lovecraft68]

I have copyrighted two series one that has two books published one that has not been released yet.

As for how far it could get me I am not sure, but I did it for the simple fact of at least I did something that could help my cause.

A lot of people cry foul and shake their fists, but aside from that do nothing. If nothing else, at the end of the day, I can say I made an effort to do as much as I could to protect myself.

 

[ishtat]

I admit I may be out of my depth, but I just searched the US PTO database for Harry Potter trademarks, found bunches, and saw no filing date before 1999. According to Wiki, HP & the Philosopher's Stone (Sorcerer's Stone in the US) was released in 1997. I don't know what trademark or copyright Rowling might have done in the UK, but it doesn't look like anybody did anything in the US until 1999.

I think you might be confusing the copyright and trademark issues slightly PL. The books were copyrighted on first publication in both countries. Trademarks and other intellectual property rights are a different issue. I suspect the trademark rights on the Potter books may well have been subject to contractual agreements with Warners prior to book publication.

My own experience with copyright disputes is in the financing of civil litigation, it's very expensive.

PS. Elfin isn't dopey and Pilot may be slightly imperfect. Before one becomes too dogmatic about a trademark or copyright issue one needs to know very exactly what was protected and what was not. We can argue about the law, but first the facts pertaining require exact establishment.

 

[Artina Heartflash]

I have copyrighted two series one that has two books published one that has not been released yet.

As for how far it could get me I am not sure, but I did it for the simple fact of at least I did something that could help my cause.

A lot of people cry foul and shake their fists, but aside from that do nothing. If nothing else, at the end of the day, I can say I made an effort to do as much as I could to protect myself.

Braaavoooo same here.

 

[sr71plt]

I think you might be confusing the copyright and trademark issues slightly PL. The books were copyrighted on first publication in both countries. Trademarks and other intellectual property rights are a different issue. I suspect the trademark rights on the Potter books may well have been subject to contractual agreements with Warners prior to book publication.

My own experience with copyright disputes is in the financing of civil litigation, it's very expensive.

PS. Elfin isn't dopey and Pilot may be slightly imperfect. Before one becomes too dogmatic about a trademark or copyright issue one needs to know very exactly what was protected and what was not. We can argue about the law, but first the facts pertaining require exact establishment.

Elfin's statement was that the publisher got trademarks before the book was published. This is false and she obviously just made that up to give a premise (false) to her attack.

The date of the filing for trademark (on Harry Potter) is a matter of accessible record, and I gave the case number and filing date on that (December 1999). Over a year after the first book was published. And it was filed by Warner, not the publisher (and it wasn't actually granted until 2001).

You can also find discussion on the Internet on Rowling's contract with Warner for the film rights. (Warner couldn't file for trademark on something it didn't have the rights to.) She dithered with them throughout 1999 (again well after the first book was published) because she didn't like letting loose of all the rights they wanted and final sold the movie rights to them for the first four books at 1 million pounds late in 1999.

All of this is contrary to the statement Elfin made here and hasn't backed up--and makes your supposition irrelevant to her statement, I think.

So, if you would prefer that Elfin be a liar for the purposes of personal attack to being dopey, I'm happy with that. But I really think it's because she's dopey--which is a more forgiving conclusion than you point to.

 

[PennLady]

I think you might be confusing the copyright and trademark issues slightly PL. The books were copyrighted on first publication in both countries. Trademarks and other intellectual property rights are a different issue. I suspect the trademark rights on the Potter books may well have been subject to contractual agreements with Warners prior to book publication.

I don't believe I do. This is what elfin wrote in post #21.

I hesitate to stir you from your primeval swamp but you are completely wrong. All the Harry Potter names were oficially trademarked before the first edition appeared - no requirement for 'substantial investment in business use' is required.

(bold emphasis mine)

I went to the US Patent & Trademark Office website and as I said, found no filings for any trademarks on Harry Potter anything (and there are trademarks for all the stuff you see out there -- toys, towels, mugs, etc.) prior to 1999. IIRC, a quick wiki search found the first book was published in the UK in 1997 (if not 1997, then 1998). I'm only pointing out that elfin's statement is factually incorrect as to the information I found, which is publicly available.