"Copyrighting" the Strawman is Erroneous

[fulltitle]

Absolute erroneous concept:

* You copyright artwork, scripts, books, manuscripts.
* You trademark symbols [text can be symbols], logos [seals, etc.] trade names.

You do not copyright names. Unless maybe its a very, very short poem?

If you put an (R) next to a trademark/tradename and its not registered its a lie. If you attempt to license it with the idea that its registered that could be seen as fraud. If you just put (TM) next to it thats just fine. Its sufficient notice to show its a trademark whether its registered or not. But thing is, a non-profit org can have a trademark just as a for profit one might.

But be mindful of the presumptions you might be supporting or sustaining.

true, according to THEIR law, but who said you have to do things THEIR way?

[Grench]

Yea, and think about it for a minute. Why does a "non-profit" have a trademark/logo and that nature? To "seperate" from other "corporations". Same thing with your strawman.

Phil

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Absolute erroneous concept:

* You copyright artwork, scripts, books, manuscripts.
* You trademark symbols [text can be symbols], logos [seals, etc.] trade names.

You do not copyright names. Unless maybe its a very, very short poem?

If you put an (R) next to a trademark/tradename and its not registered its a lie. If you attempt to license it with the idea that its registered that could be seen as fraud. If you just put (TM) next to it thats just fine. Its sufficient notice to show its a trademark whether its registered or not. But thing is, a non-profit org can have a trademark just as a for profit one might.

But be mindful of the presumptions you might be supporting or sustaining.

I agree with what you say about copyrighting the name and also the use of (R) with regard to the trade mark/trade name. I also believe that it is an exercise in futlity to try and collect when someone uses the trade mark unless it is registered. I know of no one that has ever collected on a common law trade mark/trade name violation. I am beginning to believe as Winston Shrout and others do regarding this issue. I know Winston just claims a proprietary right to the name and says that is all that is necessary.

[fulltitle]

Yea, and think about it for a minute. Why does a "non-profit" have a trademark/logo and that nature? To "seperate" from other "corporations". Same thing with your strawman.

The logos and trademarks are likely a class of seal or stamp. I've heard from a bird for example that if one goes through customs with a certain brand of camera one might get charged. But if one removes the logos and stuffs them away, one doesn't. Stamp tax?

[theghost]

Here's what most are missing when talking about copyrighting the name. When people say you can't copyright a name, (a name in the human sense) they would be correct. But, when John Henry Doe publishes a copyright on JOHN HENRY DOE, he is NOT copyrighting a human name, he is copyrighting the name of a legal entity, a corporation. Can anyone show me where in the english writing manuals a human name written in all CAPS is proper, in any context? Copyrighting is for protecting written works, such as articles, books, etc. I believe the STRAWMAN is a written work. How else could we recognize it or engage in commerce with it if it is not written down? It is a written work, and not a human name. Although, some argue, and maybe rightfully so, that a tradename/trademark may be more appropriate.

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
You could COPYRIGHT all the agreements, papers, documents associated with the strawman as a privately copyrighted book. That would likely involve putting a Copyright notice on all the documents.

If you drew out the name of the STRAWMAN in a fancy way with strawberries and vines you could COPYRIGHT the artwork you could even register it as a TRADEMARK.

However, being able to copyright ILOVECHICKEN? Thats rather erroneous. [You could conceivably copyright stylized artwork with plain fonts. The copyright may limited only to that stylization and set of fonts really.] To make ILOVECHICKEN™ a trademark. Thats a different story.

I suggest anyone read what a copyright is vs. what a trademark or a tradename.

Consider 'IBM'. The IBM trademark is the blue logo--thats the trademark. Scholastic is a word. It is not a trademark. But the LOGO for Scholastic Books drawn out and styled as art that is the TRADEMARK. It is copyrightable AND can be a trademark.

One [abusurd] thing going on in one English speaking South Pacific country is that the government has copyrighted the shape of the landforms so that no one can produce a map of said landform without violating copyright. They havent done it in the Americas ... yet. This prevents people from making maps of the land itself--this didnt happen until after fiscal problems broke out in the country [its as if someone has staked claim to the entire set of landmasses after some sort of bankruptcy or something...hmm].

[Coming soon to an Amerikkka near you?]

[KaosTheory]

Fulltitle,

The whole purpose of copyrighting the NAME was to prevent someone (i.e. agent of XYZ Corp) from creating a bond and holding you as the surety for it.

The notice by written communication was official notice to said agent that the name he is using or planning on using is private property and that he (agent) can not use it without expressed written consent by the owner (you).

Fulltitle, are you saying that one would not be able to notice such a person (agent) of one's claim to one's private property? Are you saying that I may use your private property for my personal gain and not compensate you? Or ...are you saying that one's NAME is not one's property?

Finally, how do you propose that one should go about protecting themselves from those (agents) who would create bogus bonds and hold them (you) as the surety?

KT

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Originally Posted by KaosTheory

Fulltitle,

The whole purpose of copyrighting the NAME was to prevent someone (i.e. agent of XYZ Corp) from creating a bond and holding you as the surety for it.

The notice by written communication was official notice to said agent that the name he is using or planning on using is private property and that he (agent) can not use it without expressed written consent by the owner (you).

Fulltitle, are you saying that one would not be able to notice such a person (agent) of one's claim to one's private property? Are you saying that I may use your private property for my personal gain and not compensate you? Or ...are you saying that one's NAME is not one's property?

Finally, how do you propose that one should go about protecting themselves from those (agents) who would create bogus bonds and hold them (you) as the surety?

KT

I get the gist of the goal. But copyrighting the name is erroneous, IMHO. However, the appears to be one concerning *trademark* and not copyright.

By trademarking would it make it clear that the SYMBOL is a distinct trademark of ...whatever or whomever.

Generally...

This makes perfect sense: "JOHN JACOB JINGLEHEIMERSCHMIDT™" to be included in the flow of text.

Even this (as a notice or at the footer of a page): "JOHN JACOB JINGLEHEIMERSCHMIDT" is a trademark of John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt. Unauthorized use is prohibited. International treaties may apply.

This makes little sense: "JOHN JACOB JINGLEHEIMERSCHMIDT©". It would look more like one is a completely clueless concerning intellectual property issues. If I saw a lawyer do that I'd think he was drunk.

This (the following) makes sense at the bottom of the page [or title page] for a document (promissory note, certificate, form ANYTHING such as a printed work): "Copyright 2000 John Henry Doe."

Alternatively: Copyright 2005 JOHN JACOB JINGLEHEIMERSCHMIDT. All Rights Reserved. [But then isnt the ENTITY is copyrighting it, not you?]

Alternatively: Copyright 2005 John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt. All Rights Reserved.

But "Copyright 2005 JOHN JACOB JINGLEHEIMERSCHMIDT™" may be saying that the trademark (the thing itself) holds copyright.

Use of the © symbol if I am not mistaken may be an allusion to a statutory copyright rather than an organic one.

Seems that staying out of commerce and business might be a far better solution.

See:


http://inventors.about.com/od/copyrights/a/CopyrightNotice.htm

http://www.wartburg.edu/copyright/visuals.html

[fulltitle]

http://www.inta.org/info/faqs.html