My dog ate my ...
 

And this is why you <b>don't</b> coat you Palm with dog food.

Dude felt it necessary to copyright that?

It's a perfect reason to buy a new visor handspring prism. I'm loving mine :)

Any work you create is automatically copyrighted. Getting it registered, which he probably didn't do, is what really helps to back it up.

Palm, Inc. may have something to say about Lipsman's right to copyright this image.

I don't know, NN. What about Andy Warhol's famous Campbell's soup cans? That his own personal copyrighted work, though it contains the trademark of another. ...Not to liken a dog's teeth marks to famous pop art, but it may be Jeff Lipsman's 15 minutes.

On Sun, April 11, 1999, Amalyah Keshet <akeshet@imj.org.il> wrote:

This is the information I received from the Warhol Foundation regarding Andy Warhol and Campbell's Soup, as promised.

Andy Warhol did not originally seek permission from Campbell Soup Company to paint their soup cans. He apparently did not run into problems with the company who saw his usage as amusing and the freedom of expression.

It was only after Warhol's death, when the Andy Warhol Foundation began making licensing agreements with various manufacturers to use Warhol's imagery on products, that there was an official legal agreement between the Andy Warhol Foundation and Campbell Soup Company. Presently, both parties own a stake in the copyright and neither party can make licensing agreements without the other party's permission. Happily, we have a good relationship with them and are involved in various licensing deals with them covering a wide range of products.

So, to answer your question, while he was alive, Warhol did retain the copyright to his own artworks but never addressed the issue himself as far as Campbell Soup Company was concerned.

Thanks to Ms Keshet for sharing the Warhol Foundation's account of its relationship with Campbell's Soup. It answers a question that often comes up in my trademark class. I, for one, would be equally interested in knowing whether there is a similar relationship with the Estate of Marilyn Monroe, and whether Mr. Warhol sought permission to use Marilyn's image when he did his famous series on her.

According to the Warhol Foundation, they have a similar licensing arrangement with the estates of Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, and James Dean. I assume that the situation is the same as with Campbell's: Warhol did not seek permission initially, but the Foundation did when it sought to exploit the works commercially after his death.

Tyler T. Ochoa
Associate Professor
Whittier Law School
<tochoa@law.whittier.edu>

btw, here's an unauthorized site for Warhol, which is probably the way Andy would have liked it.

So I guess we have to wait for the weimarener to finish eating this guy before we can get PalmLegal(R) to acquire the remains of his estate (which may or may not consist of a broken Palm Pilot handheld and a hungry dog).

Would I do that?
 

copyright and trademark are very different
 

Being careful to say off topic...

Trademarks and coyprights are two completely different animals. The Warhol/Campbells deal notwithstanding, you can create a copyrighted work that includes trademarked names/logos without getting the permission of the trademark holder. Open just about any computer book and you'll find a mention somewhere in the front matter that says "trademarks belong to their owners" or some such drivel. So you are allowed to use "Microsoft Windows" in a copyrighted work without getting MS's permission beforehand.

As far as I know (which, granted, isn't a whole lot), this guy could a) include an image of the product as part of his copyrighted work, b) use the trademark 'palm pilot' as part of his copyrighted work, and even c) write an essay about why you shouldn't feed your dog a palm pilot that includes the phrase 'palm pilot' in the title. I'm not sure if he'd be required to put the little TM next to the name in the latter two instances, though. (Or mention that Palm Pilot is a trademark of Palm, Inc.)

copyright
 

I'll bet anything the guy didn't do anything more than just include the copyright symbol after his name. It's too easy not to do.

This post copyright (c) 2002
Web Consultants LLC.
All Rights Reserved.

See?

Complete BS but it looks great.

I could also have included "No part of this broadcast may be reproduced without the express written consent of the National Football League" just to be sure, but I decided not to since for one I have no connection with the NFL and for two this wasn't a football game.

RAMS #1 WOOHOO!!!!!!!!

Hey Joe -

Like I said before, if you create something, it is <b>automatically</b> copyrighted to you. Just like your post was copyright Joe, and mine is copyright David Ham. Period.

He's perfectly correct in including that symbol, because he took the picture.

Yea, I caught that on fark also. I'll one-up ya and post a link from the message board, though :) <a href="http://www.palminfocenter.com/graveyard/">Palm Graveyard</a> - pix included!!

http://www.massena.com/darrin/pilot/luiz/images/DOG.gif

I hate it when they block my referring link! :p