This is the first post in what I suspect will be a long series of frustrated posts on the inability of the news media to understand basic intellectual property issues or terms.
So if the dispute is a trade mark one, why does the title of the piece refer to "iCopyright"? Note: the original SMH article didn't have copyright in its title.
Ok, Stuff editor, sit down and take your lesson.
The Lesson
What is the difference between trade marks and copyright? To keep things really simple, trade marks protect brands. Copyright generally protects expressions of ideas - e.g books, musical works, designs, drawings, photographs etc.
It would be very difficult to claim copyright ownership in a single word*, though I suppose it might be possible if a word were distinctive enough. That's why this dispute is a trade mark one, not a copyright one.
And another distinction: you don't have to register anything to get copyright protection. It exists from the moment the work in which the copyright subsists comes into existence. Trade marks are usually registered. There may be limited rights in an unregistered trade mark, but those rights are harder to enforce than if you have a registration.
Not so hard, was it? Though that was the dumbed down version.
* exception: a sylisation of a word or series of words can attract copyright protection. A good example of this would be the distinctive Coca Cola writing that appears on Coke bottles and cans.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. I am thick-skinned, thanks to years of serving my reptilian overlords, but I won't tolerate abusive comments. Feel free to criticise the substance of what I have written, provided your criticism is intelligent and constructive. Don't abuse me or other commenters.
3. Please don't defame people.