Forget Just Copyright, Now People Are Trademarking Music As Well
from the stop-it-before-it's-too-late dept
Ah, the world of intellectual property law is getting more and more ridiculous. The latest is that patent lawyer Carl Oppedahl has been allowed to trademark a 16-second musical introduction. The USPTO had initially pointed out that with a song that long, it seemed like it should be covered by copyright, not trademarks. But Oppedahl pushed them on this, pointing out that other long recordings have been trademarked as well. Still, if this catches on, it could become an issue. You could see a potential case where a musician could try to get around compulsory license rules for covers by claiming trademark on the work, and using that to block others from performing the song. That would set up quite an epic court battle, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it come to pass before too long.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: carl oppedahl, sound recordings, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
big deal?
What's more ridiculous: trademarking a longer 16-second musical composition or trademarking a shorter series of 3 notes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is the recording that is trademarked
My interpretation of the original link is that it is the recording that is trademearked. Another musician performing the same work would fall outside the scope of trademark protection unless the resulting recording was indistinguishable from the original.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apples and Oranges
There's nothing new or unusual about this. The Harlem Globetrotters registered the tune "Sweet Georgia Brown" as a trademark for "entertainment services in the nature of basketball exhibitions". Going back even further, part of the William Tell Overture is registered for "entertainment services, namely, a continuing drama show distributed over television, satellite, audio, and video media" - Hi Yo Silver, Away!
That doesn't stop someone from singing "Sweet Georgia Brown" or an orchestra from performing "William Tell", it just means no other basketball team or TV show can use those themes in connection with their services.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Holy shit, what's that rumbling sound.... get out of the way, STAMPEDE !!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: big deal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It is the recording that is trademarked
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: big deal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It is the recording that is trademarked
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think Weird Al Yankovic, and Cletus T. Judd will be both going to prison since they're parodying a trademarked lyric.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So I suppose it's similar to.......
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you! :p just thought it deserved mentioning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trademark on the Frankenstein Monster...
!) Universal Pictures (not Paramount) has a trademark on the makeup design, not the character.
ANYONE can do a "Frankenstein" movie, tv series, novel, comic, etc. (The original novel is Public Domain)
It's just that the Monster can't LOOK like the version from the Universal film series!
Go to the Internet Movie DataBase to see how many different versions there have been since the first Universal Frankenstein in 1931!
[ link to this | view in thread ]