Monday, August 30, 2021
5 Top Copyright FAQ's
Wednesday, July 28, 2021
Conventions and Contributory Liability
I’ve been thinking about the return of comic book conventions. More specifically, I’ve been thinking about contributory infringement. Recently, the second circuit decided a case involving contributory infringement of a trademark at a retail property in New York. Contributory trademark infringement allows a trademark owner to pursue liability against a third party who did not directly infringe the trademark but somehow benefited from the infringement or encouraged it. As most convention attendees know, there is a good amount of unlicensed merchandise being produced and sold at conventions. Whether or not this case could have implications for operators of comic book conventions is a fascinating question. In particular, it is an interesting question to determine whether or not a vendor’s sale of goods or art could lead to contributory infringement on the part of the convention operator.
In the case Omega SA v. 375 Canal LLC[1], the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict awarding the manufacturer of Omega watches $1.1 million in damages. The decision focused on a building owner’s willful blindness of the infringing activities taking place at their building, namely repeated sales of counterfeit high-end watches and luxury handbags, and the owner’s failure to reasonably act to stop the infringing activity upon learning of it.
Whenever people talk with me about the legal issues surrounding fan art and publisher enforcement, one of the issues I bring up is how difficult it would be for publishers to monitor for infringing activities at the numerous conventions held across the country. I know of instances where a publisher’s employees have complained about infringing goods being sold at a convention. Typically, when a publisher’s employee complains the vendor is removed or the infringing item is removed. Obviously, the burden on publishers’ employees to enforce their intellectual property could be substantive. However, this decision in 375 Canal, and other similar cases, does present an opportunity for publishers to exert more pressure on convention owners to take steps to monitor and mitigate infringing activity.
In my experience, the typical convention operator handles claims of infringement in two ways. First, they will have exhibitors sign a contract stating the goods they sell do not infringe any 3rd party’s rights, and the exhibitor will cover the convention operator’s costs if the operator suffers harm due to the vendor’s sales of infringing goods. Second, if someone complains about a particular item or vendor, the operator may remove the vendor from the convention.
The contractual part is a good first step, and recommended, but still leaves the operator exposed because most vendors would not be able to reimburse the operator in the event of a lawsuit. However, the contract is necessary to establish that the operator is taking infringement seriously. As for asking a vendor to leave due to infringement, this policy is a must. If the operator knows the vendor is selling unlicensed or counterfeit goods and does nothing, then they could be liable for contributory trademark infringement.
As mentioned above, protecting and enforcing trademark rights at conventions around the country (and world) can be difficult for publishers. I’m certain trademark owners would love to force operators to take a harder stance on preventing infringement, and this case opens a slight door to do so. If a convention operator has a history of allowing infringing goods to be sold at their conventions and a history of turning a blind eye to such infringement, then the operator could be found guilty of contributory trademark infringement.
[1] 984 F.3d 244 (2021).
Wednesday, June 30, 2021
Trademark FAQs
Saturday, May 29, 2021
Copyright, Trademark, and Comic Book Character Names
Copyright law and trademark law are both very important to comic book creators. As an intellectual property lawyer, these are the two areas of law I deal with the most. They are also areas of law that can be easily confused, but they protect very different things.
Copyright law at its most basic level protects a creative work. It protects the way a work is written or drawn. It gives the creator of the work the right to recreate it, publish it, and create derivate works based upon it. It also prevents unauthorized uses of the work that infringe on the creator’s rights.
Trademark law serves a different purpose. A trademark is “[a] word, phrase, or logo, or other graphic symbol used by a manufacturer or seller to distinguish its product or products from those of others.”[1] The purpose of a trademark is to identify a seller’s legitimate goods in the marketplace and to prevent consumer confusion. A trademark does not protect the title of a single creative work. However, it can protect the title of periodical publications, such as comic books. It does not protect the name of a character unless that character’s name also serves as a trademark.
A comic book series can be protected by both copyright and trademark law. The art and story in a comic book are protected by copyright law. The depictions of the characters, such as their design and character attributes, are also be protected by copyright. The title of the work is protected by trademark law.
The most prominent example of how these differing laws interact in comic book publishing is Captain Marvel. As I’ve discussed before, Fawcett introduced the character Captain Marvel in the late 1930s. After DC Comics brought a copyright infringement lawsuit against Fawcett by DC Comics, Fawcett stopped publishing the character because the court found that the character infringed on DC’s copyrights to Superman. Had Fawcett continued publishing the character, Fawcett would have been found to have committed additional copyright infringement. (Note: I still believe the decision to be incorrect, but that was what the court decided.)
Subsequently, Marvel Comics obtained a trademark registration to publish a comic book using the title Captain Marvel. Marvel Comics introduced a new character using the same name, and continued to publish comic books titled Captain Marvel. When DC Comics obtained the rights to use Fawcett’s Captain Marvel, they were prohibited from calling the book Captain Marvel due to Marvel’s ownership of the Captain Marvel trademark registration covering comic books. Hence, DC published the stories of Fawcett’s Captain Marvel character under the title Shazam!
Two characters with the same name can coexist simultaneously. If they are not copies of each other, or close imitations, then they do not violate copyright law. If the works in which they are published do not include their name, then trademark law is not a concern. However, if one character is published in a work that includes their name, such as Captain Marvel, then another publisher with a character using the same name would be prohibited from using that character’s name in their title.
Generally speaking, it is advisable to avoid using the name of a character that already exists. Even if copyright law isn’t a concern, the elements of trademark law could trip up the unwary.You might find yourself in an undesirable situation, such as a threat of a lawsuit or the inability to use your character’s name as the title of your book. As I mentioned in my Comics Startup 101 post, a clearance search is the best way to protect yourself from unwittingly running afoul of trademark law.
[1] Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Pocket Ed.
Sunday, April 25, 2021
Copyright Termination Basics
The news recently broke that the original screenwriters of the Predator movie are seeking to reclaim ownership of their screenplay from Disney, who acquired the franchise when they bought 20th Century Fox. Since the concept of copyright terminations will continue to be an issue for years to come, I am going to do a quick summary.[1]
What is a copyright termination?
*There are two other provisions addressing terminations for works that are specific to works created or assigned before 1978. I will not be addressing those provisions here.
Why were authors granted the right to terminate copyright transfers?
How can an author terminate a transfer?
The author, or his heirs or estate, may terminate a transfer by sending a written notice of the termination. It must be signed by the author, it must state the date of the termination (which must fall in the 5 year window mentioned above), and it must be served between two and ten years before the termination date. A copy of the notice must also be filed with the Copyright Office.
Can the termination provision be waived via contract?
No, the termination provision cannot be contracted around. The author cannot give up or waive the termination right before it vests.
Are there restrictions on what types of work can be terminated?
Yes, the termination provision does not apply to works-made-for-hire.
What happens after termination?
The author reclaims all rights that were transferred and can exploit the work in the future. Derivative works prepared during the term of the grant may continue to be exploited by the grantee pursuant to the original terms, but no new works may be produced.
[1] All provisions discussed can be found in 17 U.S.C. §203
[2] H.Rep. Report No. 94-1476, 124.
[3] Id.
Monday, March 22, 2021
Book Review: Poisoned Chalice: The Extremely Long and Incredibly Complex Story of Marvelman (and Miracleman)
I’ve always found
the history behind Marvelman fascinating, but I never got around to doing a
deep-dive into it. Fortunately, Pádraig Ó Méalóid’s book Poisoned Chalice: The Extremely Long and Incredibly Complex Story of
Marvelman (and Miracleman) exists to fill in this history. As the title suggests,
the history of the character Marvelman (also known as Miracleman) is both long
and complex. Poisoned Chalice provides
a detailed chronicle of the character.
The book starts
before the creation of Marvelman. It provides details and context for the rise
of superhero comics, and the lawsuit that led to the creation of Marvelman. It
goes on to discuss the character’s resurrection in the early 1980s, its name
change to Miracleman later in the decade, and the legal wrangling that has
sidelined the character for the last few decades.
Marvelman was created in the ’50s. The character exists because of DC Comic’s lawsuit against Fawcett’s Captain Marvel, in which Captain Marvel was found to infringe upon DC’s Superman character.[1] After the lawsuit, the publisher of Captain Marvel comics in Britain decided to continue the series by changing the name of the comic and character, redesigning the costume, and making some other changes to the story. Hence was born Marvelman, a character that enjoyed some success in Britain until publication stopped in the early ’60s.
A new publisher relaunched
the character in the ’80s in Warrior magazine. The new stories were written by Alan Moore. Moore’s
run on the character, and later Neil Gaiman’s, are what elevated the character
in the eyes of many fans. However, complex legal issues involving the character
have stagnated new stories for decades.
Ó Méalóid does his
best to untangle the complex ownership issues that surround the character. It
is a daunting task, and he relies mostly on previously given interviews and
those that he has conducted himself. Without being able to directly review the
contracts of those involved with the character, it is nearly impossible to
completely answer the question of ownership at most points in time. However, as
the book notes, Marvel seemingly owns the character now.
Of particular
interest to me are the copyright and trademark issues that surround the
character. Marvelman’s creation sprang directly from a copyright lawsuit.
Additionally, the question of who owns the copyright in the character has
played an important role in the character’s publication history in the past.
While not as well
handled in the book, trademark law has also played an important role in the
character’s history. In the late 1980s, U.S.-based Eclipse Comics chose to
reprint the Marvelman stories that ran in Warrior
and to continue the stories that Moore started. Trademark law is the
explanation for the character’s name change from Marvelman to Miracleman so as
not to run afoul of any trademarks owned by Marvel Comics. Additionally, the
question of who owned the trademark for Miracleman in the United States likely
delayed Neil Gaiman’s and Marvel’s attempts to republish and continue Gaiman’s
stories with the character.
Poisoned Chalice is a self-published
book that collects and expands on a series of posts Ó Méalóid did for Comics
Beat. The book could have benefited from better chapter formatting and some
additional editing to tighten up some sections. Additionally, as I alluded to
above, at times the book did not always clearly reflect or describe some of the
nuances of copyright and trademark law and its impact on the character. However,
Ó Méalóid’s attempts to rely on legitimate sources instead of merely industry
heresay is commendable, and it makes the book a treasure trove of information for
anyone interested in researching the history of the character.
Overall, Poisoned Chalice is a fascinating and detailed look into one of the more intriguing characters of the comic book industry.
Update (2024-06-08): The affiliate link has been removed, and a new link to purchase the book is below.
You can order the book here.
[1] Click
the link for my brief description of the Captain Marvel lawsuit.
Sunday, February 14, 2021
Co-creator Compensation
For example, if Writer wants to hire Artist to draw their book, then Writer will pay Artist a set fee and have Artist sign a contract giving up all rights to their work.
It’s a straightforward arrangement, but it’s not ideal for everyone. Also, if you want to go this route, be prepared to pay more for it. Most artists have different, higher rates for work-made-for-hire projects. (And if you’re an artist and you don’t, then you should.)
Sometimes, the artist will receive a higher percentage until a certain amount is reached, and then the profits will revert to a 50/50 split again. For example, Artist might receive 80% percent of the profits until Artist has received $3,000. After Artist has received $3,000, then Writer and Artist would each receive 50% of the profits going forward.
There are a lot of different ways to structure this type of deal, but it is still relatively straightforward. For a lot of co-creators, this is the type of deal structure they will consider.
For example, Writer agrees to pay Artist $3,000. All profits from the book will be paid to Writer until they have received $3,000. Once Writer has earned back the money paid to Artist from the profits, then Writer and Artist will split all profits going forward 50/50.
If a writer can afford to do it, this is a nice option that recognizes and respects the effort put into the project by your artist co-creator.
The three payment arrangements discussed above are common, and they can be adjusted and modified to fit your specific needs. Consider them as helpful starting points when choosing a compensation structure for your project.