Free Copyright Webinar Tuesday, Jan. 27th 3pm Eastern

I’ll be conducting a FREE webinar on Copyright Law tomorrow at 3:00pm EASTERN.  The session will be tailored to authors, but applicable to anyone in creative fields.

This is where creativity and business overlap. If you’re in a creative industry, you really need to be familiar with this stuff.

Just go HERE: http://xiosoftpresenter.com/?eventid=5793384

You should be able to use the same link to review the session if you miss the live webinar.

This is hosted by Morgan James Publishing as a service to creative people everywhere.  For access to the entire back-list of GREAT tele-seminar files click here.

Play Nice: Legal Issues & Social Media

You already know, or are learning, that social media tools like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn are wonderful ways to keep in touch with your friends and business associates. However, unthinking posts in such forums could land you on the wrong side of a lawsuit.

My goal here is plant a few seeds in the back of your mind about social media content you create. I won’t be able to cover every possible way you can get yourself in trouble, but I’ll hit the highlights.

Of course, each situation is unique to you, your state, the people on the other side of any discussion, and a bunch of other factors, so don’t simply take my word for it. If you find yourself in trouble, consult your own attorney — everybody should own one.

The most probable ways you can find yourself in hot water are:

Defamation: damaging someone’s reputation.

Privacy: disclosing someone else’s secrets.

Interference with Business Relations.

Negligence: being a dork and harming someone.

Contract: ending up in an enforceable agreement.

Trademark: confusing consumers about a brand.

Copyright: sharing something that’s not yours.


Defamation

In today’s world, we lump harms to someone’s reputation arising from a written statement (libel) or from a spoken statement (slander) under the common term “defamation.” Here’s what we look for:

1.              Defamatory language on the part of the person being accused, which could be you or someone else online. Note that the language does not have to be direct, it can also be innuendo, satire, etc.

2.              That language must be “of or concerning” the person claiming to be harmed by the language.

3.              The language must be “published,” which is just assumed in the context of our discussion of a troubling tweet or other social media content.

4.              The language has to damage the reputation of the person making the complaint. Note that even a statement of opinion might be trouble, for instance: “I don’t think Sylvia can be trusted with the key to the store” would be actionable because you’re implying a personal knowledge and accusation of dishonesty that would harm Sylvia’s reputation.

If the language refers to a “public figure” or involves a “matter of public concern,” then we have to also prove:

1.              Falsity of the language; and

2.              Fault on the part of the accused person.

Remember that you can get in trouble with statements that target an individual, company, association, or anyone that has a reputation to be damaged. And, it could cost you big-time, especially if you are referring to a few special cases such as a statement that goes to a business or professional reputation, says someone has a “loathsome disease,” has committed a “crime involving moral turpitude,” or imputes “unchaste behavior to a woman.”

Even a truthful statement can get you into trouble if sharing that bit of truth damages someone’s reputation.


Privacy

This one is touchy. If you disclose something that a “reasonable person” would not want disclosed, then you could wind up in trouble, even if the disclosures are truthful. An example would be disclosing the real name and location of someone in witness protection. Another example would be attributing to someone views he doesn’t hold, or saying someone did something they did not do. Exposing someone’s extramarital activities inadvertently by posting a photo showing person X with date Y when the date is not X’s spouse could land you in hot water.

Note that this right is personal. Companies cannot claim a right of privacy, although they have other avenues to pursue similar situations, such as “Intentional Misrepresentation,” otherwise known as “fraud” or “deceit.”


Interference with a Business Relationship

This one is pretty well explained by the title. To get in trouble here you have to know about a valid contractual relationship, or a valid expectation that someone will be entering a valid relationship, then you have to intentionally mess it up. Enough said.

Negligence

Think about a car accident. Now think about a car accident online and you’ll be heading down the road to understanding this potential problem.

When you drive a car, you have a duty to conform to a specific standard of conduct, which was breached in the accident and caused actual damage to someone. The same can happen online. Do you have some duty of care?

A good example would be an attorney or doctor who has a duty to keep client information confidential. You also signed, but probably didn’t read, a “terms of use” agreement for each social media site when you signed up. Those agreements generally define your duty relative to the content you post on the site.

Did you breach that duty? And, did your breach cause damage? All four elements have to be in place to get you in trouble for negligence.


Contract

All it takes to fall into a contract is an offer, an acceptance, and a promise to pay, known as “consideration.” That’s it.

You might think you’re joking around during an online exchange, but just a single post and response could bind you into some contractual action. Watch out that you don’t agree to something you really don’t want just because you don’t think social media exchanges count as contractual language.

Heck, you could also get in trouble here by making an offer for business services that are seen as an open offer for everyone. The possibilities are endless.

Trademark

Trademark law is all about protecting someone’s investment in their brand — personal or business. It’s about consumer confusion.

The test for trademark infringement is if an appreciable number of consumers would be confused about the source of some goods or services, thinking those goods or services come from, are affiliated with, or endorsed or sponsored by the person making the complaint. The affiliation and endorsement factors will get you in trouble.

So, don’t use someone else’s brand name for your online name, and avoid inferring that you are associated with people or brands with which you really have no affiliation or sponsorship.


Copyright

I admit it will be hard to get yourself into a copyright infringement situation from a single 140-character tweet, but you might be tempted to post a few tweets in a row to share a short poem or song lyrics. Don’t do that.

It’s easier to get in trouble on Facebook, LinkedIn, or MySpace because there you might be tempted to post a photo or piece of music that will land you squarely in a copyright infringement situation. Just because it’s online and easily copied, doesn’t mean you have the right to make and post other people’s creative work. You don’t.

Trust your instincts — if you had worked hard to create something, would you want it posted by someone else? Probably not.

I’m sure there is some form of legal trouble that you could get yourself into that goes beyond this list. But I’m going to assume that you’re not a criminal mastermind and that you’re not going to use your online accounts to harass people or solicit young boys or girls to meet you at the mall for a date.

Use your account only for good, to make friends and help people. It’s a jungle out there, so be careful and play nice.


August 2007 Scene Magazine Article

Thank you. Thank you very mush…
© 2007 Kevin E. Houchin

With our local film festival, the TriMedia Film Fest (www.trimediafilmfestival.org) coming up September 7-9, I thought it would be fun to take a look at some of the legal issues that go into making a film, believe me, there are plenty, but the ones that are most fun involve copyright. Let’s take a look at an issue facing one of the festival’s entries from last year. The film in question (we’ll call it G&A) includes a female Elvis impersonator as one of the characters. It uses some Elvis tunes as part of the soundtrack. Simple enough one would think–just pay the Elvis estate the licensing fee for the music and get permission to use Elvis’s likeness in the form of the impersonator.

Not so fast hound dog. The Elvis estate won’t release the music rights unless the backers pay royalties anytime an Elvis image shows up in any of their projects. (It happens that the backers of G&A also finance a lot of other projects as a major broadcaster.) Long story short: the film stays in the can. Feeling pissed off? So am I.

As a copyright and trademark lawyer, I understand the need to protect people’s rights to their creative work (copyright and patents), and to protect their investment of time and money in building a distinctive brand (trademark). But there has to be a balance, and I don’t think the Elvis estate is not honoring that balance. The framers of the US Constitution gave Congress the right to establish Patent and Copyright policy balancing advancement of society though the arts against individual rights of artists and inventors.

The creative rights of authors and inventors are offset in several ways. First, copyrights and patents expire on a certain date and “fall” into the “public domain.” Once the term expires, everyone can freely use those works directly in new work and thus advance society. The second balancing point is the free expression rights granted under the First Amendment. These free expression rights inform and motivate the final balancing theory, known as “fair use.” Fair use is a good thing for everyone in the creative industries to know about.

Remember the point of intellectual property law is to advance society and society doesn’t advance unless creativity is shared–we can’t hide our lights under bushel baskets and expect our community to prosper. Yet, we can’t just rip the financial incentive to create away from authors by allowing everyone to use whatever they want whenever they want. So, when is it “fair” to infringe?

Trademark, Patent, Copyright all have fair use “doctrines,” but we’ll focus on Copyright. Copyright fair use is covered by section 107 of the Federal Copyright Act and states explicitly that it’s fair to infringe for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research subject to four inter-related factors. As you can see, these uses generally help advance society through intellectual debate and discussion.

The four factors are subjective, meaning there is no percentage or word count or other such objective measurements for what is fair. The first factor is the nature and character of the infringing use–is the infringer a professor quoting a passage in a scholarly journal, or a popular musician grabbing a riff to help sell records? (Think of Vanilla Ice’s “inspiration” for the rhythm in Ice Ice Baby vs. Queen and David Bowie’s Pressure). The second factor is the nature of the original work–was the original created for general use, or was the creative act how the author makes a living? The third factor is the “amount and substantiality of the portion used” in relation to the original work as a whole. This is where people get stuck on the idea of word counts or percentages. Obviously, the less you “take” the more “fair,” but if you take a CRITICAL element of the original you’ll get in trouble. The fourth factor, the “effect of the [infringing] use upon the potential market for or value of the original work.” Remember that a judge or jury that may have no creative sensibilities at all will ultimately make this subjective decision.

So, let’s get back to the Elvis impersonator. Could G&A run without permission from the estate? The practical answer is that the filmmaker would probably prevail on the issue of the impersonator as long as no endorsement of the Elvis estate is inferred. But, if the filmmaker wants to run the film with the actual Elvis recordings as part of the sound track, she needs permission for at least the music. In this case, as in most films, the music is a very important creative and emotional element. So, the film is canned until the Elvis estate backs off. Any bets on when that’ll happen? I didn’t think so.

Kevin E. Houchin is principal of Houchin & Associates, PLLC – a copyright, trademark, arts & entertainment, business development, and branding firm located in Fort Collins, Colorado. To contact Kevin, call 970-493-1070 or email kevin.houchin@houchinlaw.com.

Reminder: Business of Creativity Presenation at MoCA

There are just a few seats left…

Take a break from the heat of Fort Collins’ New West Fest on Saturday, August 19th from 2-4pm to attend a FREE presentation on the Business of Creativity. The session will be held at the Fort Collins Museum of Contemporary Art (MoCA), 201 South College Avenue.

Find out more about the topics of business entity formation, copyright, trademark, contracts and internet law – the cornerstones of creative businesses.

Space is limited, so please reserve your seat immediately.

For more information or questions email me.

FREE: Business of Creativity Presentation @ MoCA

Take a break from the heat of Fort Collins’ New West Fest on Saturday, August 19th from 2-4pm to attend a FREE presentation on the Business of Creativity.  The session will be held at the Fort Collins Museum of Contemporary Art (MoCA), 201 South College Avenue.

Find out more about the topics of business entity formation, copyright, trademark, contracts and internet law – the cornerstones of creative businesses.

Space is limited, so please reserve your seat immediately.

For more information or questions email me.