Forget Just Copyright, Now People Are Trademarking Music As Well

from the stop-it-before-it's-too-late dept

Fri, Oct 1st 2010 5:58am — Mike Masnick

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

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2010 @ 6:08am

Lets not forget the "dilution" problem also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon B. (profile), 1 Oct 2010 @ 6:19am

big deal?
I didn't click through to the article, but I don't see the big deal on this one. Trademark doesn't prevent people from copying the the 16-second song. It just prevents people from using it in commerce in a confusing way.

What's more ridiculous: trademarking a longer 16-second musical composition or trademarking a shorter series of 3 notes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tracker1 (profile), 1 Oct 2010 @ 11:04am
  
  Re: big deal?
  Not sure about three notes, but I could see a legit trademark on the Intel bom-bom-bom-bom, for example.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2010 @ 12:57pm
    
    Re: Re: big deal?
    Exactly. AMD really shouldn't be allowed to use that in ads (if they had ads, that is).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 1 Oct 2010 @ 6:33am

It is the recording that is trademarked
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,

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 chronology ]
- tracker1 (profile), 1 Oct 2010 @ 11:05am
  
  Re: It is the recording that is trademarked
  Trademark covers dilusion of brand, which would include similar works... for example MS's suit against Lindows.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2010 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re: It is the recording that is trademarked
  Trademarks (musical or otherwise) don't have to be exactly alike to create a likelihood of confusion, and therefore be infringing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 1 Oct 2010 @ 6:54am

You missed this interesting tidbit: "the trademark office did not require any information on whether Oppedahl is the composer or copyright owner"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ima Fish (profile), 1 Oct 2010 @ 7:21am
  
  Re:
  It doesn't matter, there are plenty of examples of trademarks where the copyrights were held by different entities. I'm still shocked that Paramount has a trademark on the Frankenstein monster. The one with the flat head and the bolts coming out of his neck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atomic Kommie Comics (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 1:33pm
    
    Re: Trademark on the Frankenstein Monster...
    "I'm still shocked that Paramount has a trademark on the Frankenstein monster. The one with the flat head and the bolts coming out of his neck."
    
    !) 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 chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2010 @ 6:55am

Forget trademarks sign your soul to me now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 1 Oct 2010 @ 7:31am

i cant see this working with standared lengh songs (eg. 3 minutes ) at least in the UK as it is a trade mark no radio station could play it as it then becomes an advertisment. of course if the artist paid for the air time...... o wait thats how it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Brown, 1 Oct 2010 @ 7:39am

Apples and Oranges
Trademark and copyright are two different things. Carl Oppedahl wasn't trying to protect the music, as music - the copyright belongs to someone else and he has a license to use it - he was trying to protect the use of that music as an identifier for his talks.

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 chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2010 @ 8:16am

If this catches on? If? IF??!!

Holy shit, what's that rumbling sound.... get out of the way, STAMPEDE !!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2010 @ 9:07am

All your base are belong to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2010 @ 12:55pm

Nothing new. Think of the three-note NBC xylophone (vibraphone?) musical mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh Taylor, 1 Oct 2010 @ 2:01pm

Blocking people from singing a trademarked song will require surveillance cameras to be installed in homes to monitor their personal or family activities to determine whether if they sing a trademarked lyric that would be considered a trademark infringement.

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 chronology ]
Allaun Silverfox (profile), 2 Oct 2010 @ 7:48pm

So I suppose it's similar to.......
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you! :p just thought it deserved mentioning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]