Mike Norman from Marietta GA in big trouble

By now you’ve probably heard about the racist bar owner who sold T-shirts with Curious George on them and the words “Obama 08”. As John Lynch of Stranger Fruit pointed out yesterday, “And I’m sure Houghton Mifflin’s lawyers will want to have a word with someone …”.

Well today Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has stated their displeasure, here’s a couple of quotes from an AP article:

The publisher of the popular children book’s series “Curious George” is considering legal action against a Georgia bar owner for selling T-shirts that link Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to the inquisitive monkey.

“Houghton Mifflin Harcourt did not nor would we ever authorize or approve this use of the Curious George character, which we find offensive and utterly out of keeping with the values Curious George represents,” said Richard Blake, the company’s spokesman. “We are monitoring the situation and weighing all of our options.”

Mike had better hope that they offer him a cheap settlement and then take it without hesitation. This is because violating copyright and trademark laws can carry very steep penalties, steep enough to put him in bankruptcy. Last night I had noticed Mike Norman was trying to make himself look better by saying:

“It wasn’t meant to be racist,” Norman said. “It was just funny to me because they look so much alike – the ears, hairline.” A friend gave him the shirts, Norman said, and he donated the profits to the Muscular Dystrophy Association.

I wondered if the Muscular Dystrophy Association had seen this story so, I sent them an email last night with a link to the story. Today I got a nice response from the MDA saying they have declined to take his money. They also said that their lawyers have sent him a cease-and-desist order so he doesn’t use their name again.

Of course some people still don’t get it as evidenced by this comment on a blog post at the AJC:

everybody relax, curious george is a celebrated and respected storybook character and obama should be honored to be compared to him.

This sounds like the type of person who thinks there’s nothing offensive with the confederate flag, duh.

Some of the articles on this subject:

Georgia bar’s T-shirt links Obama, Curious George | ajc.com

Marietta Daily Journal – Mulligan’s shirt drawing protests

Curious George publisher may sue over T-shirt | ajc.com

T-shirt draws protests | ajc.com

BBC threatens Dr. Who fans

From the EFF comes this story of extreme copyright holder stupidity, Knitwit BBC Goes After Dr Who Fans.

Like Dr Who’s Ood, fans are happy to serve their favorite franchises when treated well. But if the BBC starts treating them like this, they can all too easily rise up and attack the very brand value the BBC is overzealously seeking to protect.

The BBC is following in the footsteps of the RIAA by threatening Dr. Who fans with legal action over knitting patterns. The BBC legal department must not be fans of the show, why else would they work to eliminate the free publicity from the Dr. Who fans.

May 12th update

Digging a little deeper into this story I found that there is a bit more that either makes the BBC look worse or better depending on which version is true. Over at the mazzmatazz site the knitting section has an entry for April 10th titled “I am furious”.

I have added creative commons licenses to all patterns now, as they are NOT to be used commercially, and the patterns are NOT to be resold.

If I continue to discover that they are being sold, they WILL be removed.

Then on May 5th is an entry about the BBC take down. Over at the TechnoLlama blog the post about this topic has two comments that add substantially to the story. Both comments point out that someone besides the creator of the knitting patterns had started selling knitted characters on eBay. What happened next is different between the two comments. The first comment says that the BBC got eBay to take the stuff down and then told the fan to take the free patterns down. If that’s true then I’d give the Beeb a little slack, they saw a serious infringement and then kept going a bit too far in stopping it.

The second comment states that it was the fan who had eBay take down the characters. Then the BBC went after the fan a few days later. If this is what happened then IMO, the Beeb should have thanked the fan for the help and just let the knitting patterns slide for personal use.

If you want to see pictures of all the characters this very talented fan made check them out at the site.

Copyright and License Primer

Recently a case involving software licensing and copyright was discussed on an engineering list. Reading the discussion it became clear to me that it is likely that a majority of people don’t know how copyright and licensing go together. So I thought I’d write a brief primer on the basics of copyright in the 21st century. The particular case in that article illustrates how the wrong choice of license can lead to the loss of some rights that the copyright holder did not intend.

But I’m getting way ahead of myself here, let me start with the basics. First a disclaimer, I am absolutely, positively, not a lawyer. If you have any doubt about any copyright issue that could cost you money consult a copyright lawyer. Second point, I only know about US copyrights, the copyright laws in other countries may be very different. Final point, in this post I’ll be using the terms work and works to indicate any writing, painting, photo, video, music, graphics, software and other types of creative output that is protected by copyright law.

For readers closing in on 50 years old like me or, already past it, I’ll start with how it was before 1978. When I first learned about it the law of the USA was the Copyright Act of 1909. This law specified that copyright was something you had to intentionally place on works if you wanted protection. If you distributed a work without attaching a copyright notice and filing for copyright protection the work was considered public domain. With the adoption of the 1976 Copyright Act, which went into effect in 1978, this situation was reversed. Since 1978 any work a person creates receives full copyright protection immediately without any filing or adding of notices. This means that even a finger paint drawing a three year old creates is automatically protected as a copyrighted work of the three year old the moment it is created.

This gives us the two ends of the copyright spectrum, fully protected and public domain. Public domain works can be used in any way by any person with no restrictions. This means that if someone wants to they can take your public domain work and sell it for money without giving you any credit or money. Full copyright protection prevents everyone from doing almost anything with the work unless they previously were granted permission by the works creator. There is an exception to this known as “fair use” that does give some limited usage rights to critics, reviewers, buyers of the work and others. Fair use is a complicated topic that I don’t have time to cover in this post, see the Wikipedia article for more information.

Often the two ends of the spectrum don’t provide a content creator with a usable option. Putting your work in the public domain makes it difficult to earn a living from your works. Enforcing full copyright on your work severely limits your distribution options because you need to individually grant rights to your customers. When you want to retain control of your works but not burden yourself and your customers with individually granting rights, the solution is to apply a license to the work.

A license for a copyrighted work is a way to take some rights away from the copyright holder and give those rights to the customer. An example of a right most software companies and developers want to give their customers is the right to make archival copies for backup purposes. Without a license granting this right it could be a violation of copyright law for your customer to make a backup copy of the CD you gave them when you sold them the software. (Note fair use doctrine may give some archiving rights to the customer)

You should put a good deal of thought into choosing a license for your works because the wrong license could turn into a big problem. You can create your own license with the help of a copyright lawyer and this is what big businesses usually do. However the costs can be large and if there is a mistake in the license you could lose some of the rights you meant to retain. So, for individuals and small businesses the best solution may be one of the pre-made licenses that are freely available. The Free Software Foundation created and maintains the GNU General Public License (GPL) for software. While this is an excellent license created by some great legal minds it is very restrictive and may not be what you want. So other licenses have been developed such as the LGPL, BSD, Apache and others. For non-software works until recently there were not many choices other than full protection and public domain release. Thankfully the Center for the Public Domain recognized this need and has created the Creative Commons licenses for non-software works.

For more information see:
U.S. Copyright Office
Copyright Law
A brief intro to copyright
10 Big Myths about copyright explained