Very Fine Print - Just Because It Says It's A "Reminder" Doesn't Mean It's Not a Pitch

"IMPORTANT - OPEN IMMEDIATELY"

Unfortunately, the American 1st Amendment allows anyone to make the misleading claim that their written communication is "Important", and to demand (using the imperative mood) that the recipient of the missive is hasty in reviewing the material.

If you review this hastily, you might not notice that this "Reminder" comes from somewhere called "Bureau", rather than from the USPTO ... which is an Office. You might also not notice that this "reminder" gives your ten-year anniversary date as a whole year (or more) earlier than the renewal is actually due.

Signing and returning this document will not actually renew your trademark, it will empower the helpful Bureau to renew your trademark on your behalf. The large block of fine print most professionally and politely discloses to the target reader that the "Bureau" is a private business, and also that they are not endorsed by the US government.

Government websites are usually .gov

Like this one:  https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/caution-misleading-notices

The USPTO warns about a great many purveyors of perhaps premature and unnecessary reminder services

and their list should be a go-to for authors and trademark owners.

Fascinatingly, the sample envelope that the USPTO displays purports to come from New York, but was postmarked from Santa Clara. It is also always interesting when a business sends mail from a seemingly prestigious (Park Avenue?) address, but encourages respondents to mail to a PO Box in a different zip code.

Rent at 230 Park Avenue appears to be as low as $33.80 per day.  That is, per individual, and for a multi-month lease.

That reminds this author of the interesting details of the work experience of an author-client-funded publisher's London-office-based representative, by Henry Coburn

http://www.theindependentpublishingmagazine.com/2018/07/the-radiance-of-banality-predatory-publishers-in-the-uk-part-one-henry-coburn-guest-post.html

http://www.theindependentpublishingmagazine.com/2018/07/the-radiance-of-banality-predatory-publishers-in-the-uk-part-two-henry-coburn-guest-post.html
 

Other helpful sites for aspiring authors:

https://www.sfwa.org/other-resources/for-authors/writer-beware/

https://writersweekly.com/whispers-and-warnings/09-13-2018
 
https://blog.reedsy.com/scams-and-publishing-companies-to-avoid/

https://justpublishingadvice.com/new-authors-beware-of-scam-agents-and-publishing-sharks/


The above are also jolly reading for those who enjoy the occasional, regrettable bout of schadenfreude.

Please respect the copyrights of helpful (and of unhelpful) sites. That may go doubly so for our European readers, given the passage of  Article 11 and Article 13, despite the efforts of the highly alarmed folks at EFF and others.... much to the glee of musicians in particular, who may now look forward to being paid when their work is monetized by others without their permission or fairly negotiated compensation.

https://thetrichordist.com/2018/09/13/totally-pissed-off-by-big-tech-spam-eu-gives-artists-a-copyright-victory/

Article 11 is described as a "link tax", which may mean that content creators' publishers may demand payment when major platforms quote and link to copyrighted works such as stories. There are exceptions for small and micro platforms. With luck, individual bloggers are considered small, and perhaps "fair use" rules will continue to apply, although what is "fair" may in time be more narrowly interpreted (as reportage, parody, review, scholarship.)

Article 13 holds platforms responsible if the platforms permit or turn a blind eye when users upload and share unlicensed, copyrighted work, which might mean music, music videos, photographs.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Dangerous Embedfellows And... Death Of The Meme?

Imagine you happen to be in the right place at the right time, and you snap the perfect photographic scoop of a famous person doing something newsworthy.

In your excitement, you share your photo with a few friends on Snapchat. You forget that, while once upon a time, Snapchat was a place where you could show a photo to chosen friends for a few seconds, and then the photo would vanish, now those friends can capture and keep those tantalizing shots.

Then, it dawns on you that you could probably sell or license that photo to a newspaper.

Too late. One of your erstwhile friends snags the sneak peek, and uploads it (thus infringing your copyright) to Twitter. Twitter does not warn your sneaky friend that he (or she) must have written permission from the copyright owner before they can legally upload a picture. Now, by virtue of Twitter's TOS, that thieving friend has given Twitter a limited license (albeit perhaps a license that friend had no right to give) to further publish and distribute that photo.

Then, a news network (perhaps even the last one on this planet to which you would willingly give free content, or perhaps your first choice for a juicy sale) embeds that valuable picture to illustrate a story, and they publish it. Now, your chance of selling that photo is gone forever.

Breitbart believes that, because they merely "embedded" a Twitter thingy, and didn't host your .jpg on their servers, they are free and clear of liability. Maybe not.

The inspiring predicament is discussed in real life detail by Jack A. Wheat blogging for the law firm McBrayer McGinnis Leslie & Kirkland PLLC in Court In Copyright Case: Don't Embed That Tweet!

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e278507a-6cfe-4bcd-8c5d-7e98399b36c0&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2018-06-11&utm_term=

Apparently, the court decision in favor of the photographer is being appealed. Eventually, it may go to SCOTUS.

For our UK readers, the law is similar. If you did not take the photograph, beware sharing it. UK legal bloggers Jill Bainbridge and Nicola Rochon for Blake Morgan write a really helpful article titled Sharing photos online - the risks of Copyright Infringement.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c6ddedba-c1e8-48b1-a7ef-fd0ce7c595fa

Just because a social media platform makes it possible, nay easy, for you to upload someone else's stuff to their site does not mean that you should do so, or that you are legally on safe ground if you do so. It would not be hard for Facebook, Twitter, Google, Ebay, et alia to develop a pop-up before you physically could proceed to upload a photo: "Did you take this photo yourself?" Yes/No  "Do you have written permission from the person who took the photo?" Yes/No.

There ought to be similar pop-ups on other user-generated-content reliant sites. "Did you write this e-book?" For instance. "Did you write all 100,000 ebooks on this DVD?"

Saquib Shah, writing for the Sun, warns UK readers (and the rest of the world) that Memes may be in mortal peril.

 https://nypost.com/2018/06/08/revamped-eu-copyright-law-could-mean-the-death-of-memes/

The problem with memes is that they rely on often-copyrighted images or movie clips that are appropriated by busy internet users, "transformed" (not very much) by users who add text or other edits to communicate amusing social or political commentary.

Can people no longer communicate without disrespecting other creators' copyrights? Would it be respectful to that fine actor, DeNiro, to take his recent stage pose with fists at shoulder level and edit in a MAGA banner between his raised hands? Do actors who roll their eyes in one context necessarily welcome their eye roll being used as commentary on any topic?

Here is a link to the proposed EU law.
 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593

It is perhaps a sad state of affairs if those who object to the proposals really believe that people cannot freely and clearly (and wittily) put their thoughts and opinions and knowledge into writing.... or emojis.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry