A Long and Winding Road (Gibson's Self-Tuning Guitar)

Begging the pardon of The Beatles and their single-swan-song, the last studio single released in the United States (peaking at #1), "The Long and Winding Road", but it was a very suitable description of Gibson Guitar's latest technology, the self-tuning guitar having a cpu that communicates with robot-tuners that properly and mechanically tunes each guitar string.  Gibson (and inventor Chris Adams) admits that the conception, development, implementation, and "fine tuning" of this technology has been a long time (over 10 years) in the making.  The combination of the cpu and robot-tuners wind the stem of the tuning pegs to add or remove tension on the string necessary to meet the tuner's pitch. Although this is not the first attempt at auto-mechanical tuning of a stringed instrument (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,437,226 by Viking Technologies), Adams was successful in gaining patentable subject matter via the claims of U.S. Pat. No. 7,786,373.  As part of the long and winding process, Adams first filed an application in the European Patent office in May 2004, followed by a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty -- aka "International" application) in Jan. 2005, and followed by national phase entries in 2008, and followed by US issuance in Aug. 2010.  However, the patent owners allowed this patent to lapse (by failing to make the maintenance fee payment, presumptively to focus resources on other related inventions).

That focus has led to at least one other U.S. patent for Adams, including U.S. Patent No. 8,772,615 for the fine-tuning drive mechanism operating the tuning peg (to add/remove tension). Beyond the critics that question the reliability of the tuning (or more precisely, remaining in-tune), the device does not appear to be universal (at least beyond the Gibson models).

Unlike Gibson, which predominantly offers fixed tailpiece bridges and no locking nut at the headstock, most other guitar manufacturers have floating tremelo systems (e.g., Floyd Rose; Kahler; Steinberger) that must have a locking-nut at the headstock position to help maintain the string tunings.  In the locking-nut systems, a robot-tuner would (seemingly) be ineffectual as the locking-nut system maintains tension on the string (capable of withstanding dives and rises), and the robot-tuner would be unable to overcome the locked tension.

On the other hand, the Gibson robot-tuning system could still be installed and used on a locking-nut/tremelo system, but it would add the steps of requiring the person tuning the guitar to loosen the locking-nuts, allow the robot-tuner to place each string into proper tune, and then tighten the locking-nuts and fine-tune the strings based on the auto-tuner provided or by the ear of the human-tuner.

Whether this technology gains traction in usage by Gibson buyers (who will have no choice but to purchase the tech include in any new Gibson guitars) remains to be seen.  Musicians are hesitant to change anything that is not broken (or at least perceived that way).  Yet the convenience of a robot-tuning system is probably something that cannot be appreciated until it is used (and then not available).

If you have new or unique tech to add to an instrument, or have a new design for an instrument, please consider the intellectual property services of York Law LLC.  One never knows what new developments will strike the fancy of the instrument-playing public.

Celebrity Inventors & Inventions

I came across a news article discussing the recently issued design patent for an improved beverage and food cooler to Mike Golic (former NFL football player and current co-host of ESPN radio's Mike and Mike show), son Jake, and three other co-inventors. This got me to thinking about celebrity inventors and inventions (a distinction that will become more clear shortly), as well as the difference between utility (for mechanical arrangement and/or function) and design (aesthetic / ornamental design) patents. If it is not obvious, a celebrity inventor is someone that is already a celebrity and later develops an invention that is exploited in some way.  Although Thomas Jefferson was initially philosophically opposed to patents (and the limited monopoly provided), through his ministerial role as chief patent examiner as Secretary of State in the early years of the US republic, Jefferson came to appreciate the economic benefits derived from a patent system.  And despite is prolific mechanical acumen, Jefferson did not attempt to patent the many inventions he developed after the US patent system was implemented in 1791 (and, of course, many of his inventions pre-dated the system), thus falling outside a reasonable definition of celebrity inventor.

Before his election as the 16th President of the United States (but as a member of Congress), Abraham Lincoln received a patent for buoying water vessel over shoals.  Given the time (and times) of Lincoln's invention and congressional experience, any celebrity that Lincoln enjoyed at that point was limited.

Likewise, although Thomas Edison is extremely famous, his fame is tied to his inventions and his patents, and thus not quite within the celebrity inventor umbrella.

Shortly after she launched her American-film acting debut, in an effort to contribute to the allied war-effort during World War II, actress Hedy Lamarr teamed with George Antheil to develop a frequency-hopping signal system to prevent naval opposition from jamming naval torpedo signals that would cause the torpedo to veer off course and miss its target.  Lamarr (under her married name Markey) and Antheil were awarded U.S. Patent No. 2,292,387 in 1942.  However, a skeptical U.S. Navy did not adopt the technology.  Instead, the technology sat unused until the 1960s, when it was finally adopted.  Although Lemarr skirts the edge, since her technology was not adopted until after the patent term expired, this too falls short.

The several (and best) examples of celebrity inventors generally come from the performing arts, where some necessity was the inspiration for an invention for integrated use in the performer's milieu.  As such, Harry Houdini is probably the first celebrity inventor, creating a diving suit awarded a patent in 1921, some thirty-years into his illusionist career.  Walt Disney held two patents for animation and motion picture techniques, with the animation patent forming part of the launching pad for Disney Studios.

Although Houdini and Disney had utility patents, design patents are well represented by George Lucas and his LucasFilm empire.  Being the pioneer in film-to-toy merchandising, Lucas (and with the artistic input of legendary artist Ralph McQuarry) holds at least 11 issued design patents for various conceptions of characters from the Star Wars universe, such as the uber-popular Boba Fett, Yoda, and the AT-AT imperial transport.

The world of music provides some of the more recognizable implementations of invention-by-inventor.  Eddie Van Halen created a removable try that attaches to the underside of a guitar for assisting the guitarist in accessing the guitar like a piano (now expired).  EVH also invented and owns the patents for a single-string de-tuning system (branded as the D-Tuna) and the design for a guitar headstock (with a scallop cut removed).  EVH also has purchased other patents (here and here).

Musical genius Prince held a design patent for a portable keyboard (expired in 2008).  Prince's chief musical rival in the 80s, Michael Jackson, invented a shoe-device that created the illusion of anti-gravity, most effectively used in his video for the hit-song "Smooth Criminal".

The previous examples stand in contrast to "celebrity inventions" that are really no more than celebrity-endorsed products invented by other non-celebrities.  The "George Foreman Grill" is one of the best examples of this, since the grill was actually invented by Michael Boehm.  With the success of the Foreman Grill, the copycats followed, with the Evander Holyfield Real Deal Grill, the Carl Lewis Health Grill, and the Hulk Hogan Blender.  However, these are good examples of the licensing, use, and (somewhat) successful utilization of the valuable name, image, and likeness (aka, NIL) of a well-known celebrity.

Whether the Golics can land a licensing deal or sell to a cooler manufacturer, and achieve the desired monetary success with the ornamental design of this new cooler remains to be seen.  Mike Golic's celebrity certainly will be a large selling point in getting the product recognized, often one of the hardest parts of achieving commercial success.

While you may not (yet) be famous, if you have an invention that you believe functions or appears differently from what is out there, contact York Law LLC to get more information on what you can do to start down the path of success.  (E: oly3@olenyork.com).

(Cosmo) Kramer Teaches the Importance of an NDA

As it perpetually cycles through its Seinfeld inventory, last week TBS aired one of the early episodes ("The Pick") showing the entrepreneurial spirit of (not-yet Cosmo) Kramer.  "The Pick" is thematically connected to the previous season's "The Pez Dispenser" episode because of Kramer's concept for a fragrance based on the smell of the beach. In season three's "The Pez Dispenser", Kramer labels his fragrance "The Beach".  Through an acquaintance of Jerry's, Kramer gets an opportunity to pitch "The Beach" to an executive at Calvin Klein.  But, that is as far as the pitch goes, and to Kramer's knowledge, the idea dies a quick if not bloodless death.

Yet, in season four's "The Pick", Jerry begins dating an attractive model photographed for Calvin Klein's advertisement for the new fragrance "The Ocean".  The model visits Jerry in his apartment sporting the new fragrance, and despite his best efforts to keep the model (Tia) and Kramer from crossing paths, Kramer discovers the scent and declares (to Jerry) that CK had ripped off his idea: "I could've been a millionaire.  I could've been a fragrance millionaire!!"  Kramer confronts Calvin Klein, but allows himself to get sidetracked by an offer to model men's underwear for CK.

There are several important lessons in this episode for entrepreneurs and innovators.  First, if one believes s/he has a valuable idea, concept, or product, one should try to envelope the idea/product in some form of protection.  At a bare minimum, one should disclose a proprietary idea to an outside entity only if the entity will execute a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).  An NDA binds the parties from engaging in the unilateral disclosure of the proprietary information received.  Any unilateral / unauthorized disclosure of the non-public/proprietary information would (potentially) be actionable as a breach of contract claim.  However, NDAs are problematic because even if one proves a breach occurred, the damages for such a breach are often highly speculative.  Consider:  how does a judge or jury evaluate the commercial value or potential of an idea/concept that likely has few if any antecedents in the market?

Accordingly, an NDA should be only one of the several arrows drawn from the entrepreneur's quiver.  In addition to an NDA, one should consider the use of a provisional patent application, esp. in light of the US's move to a first-to-file application system (an abandonment of the first-to-invent system).  Without a provisional patent application on file prior to disclosure to a third-party, even if an NDA is used, the novelty of any inventive subject matter is forfeited and the validity of any claims issuing from the subject matter will be in serious jeopardy.  The ease (and relative low cost) of filing a provisional patent application, and the twelve-month secrecy in which it exists, also allows the innovator to abandon the patent pathway for trade secret protection if it becomes evident that trade secret protection is more beneficial than one or more issued patents.

The most conservative route includes waiting for the issuance of one or more claims in a patent issued by the USPTO, in combination with an NDA and/or other beneficial contractual clauses.  However, the major draw-back of waiting for an issued claim (and patent) is that an inventor is likely pushing off commercial enterprise by three-to-five years as the administrative examination process moves at a less-than-optimal pace.  Yet, there may be limited circumstances where this strategy makes the best sense.

Looking back, Kramer would have been better off to use an NDA with Calvin Klein, while also utilizing the quick and low cost of the provisional patent application system to put him at the head of the line (and protect against the alleged theft that occurs after "The Pez Dispenser" episode).  Had Kramer had these two pieces of the puzzle in place, and had Calvin Klein proceeded with manufacture and/or sale of "The Ocean", Cosmo would have had several options in cutting the knees of Calvin Klein, and may have had a good shot at a significant monetary damages award (or a hefty settlement to save both parties a lot of litigation costs).

If, like Kramer, you have a fun idea or concept that you want to present to another business, but you want to prevent your idea/concept from being taken without any potential for compensation, please contact me and my office (olyork at gmail dot com) for a consultation on what options you may have to protect your intellectual property.

King of Pop - And The (Un)Credited

Over the course of the last week, many music and entertainment outlets briefly observed the sixth anniversary of Michael Jackson's death. Love him or despise him (because of his music or behavior), the majority of credit for the King of Pop's album "Thriller" was shared between Jackson and producer Quincy Jones. Being the shrewd businessmen that they were, esp. Jones, Jones-and-Jackson utilized many talented musicians and songwriters to craft what may be the "perfect" studio release in music history (and certainly the most-successful),[1] including the credited use of several members of the band Toto (Steve Lukather, David Paich, Steve & Jeff Porcaro), composer and producer David Foster, Paul McCartney, and Jackson's sisters LaToya and Janet. However, and arguably the most significant musical contribution was the uncredited writing, arrangement, and solo provided by Eddie Van Halen on the song/single "Beat It". As the story goes, Van Halen (the band) is on a brief recording/touring hiatus, with three-of-the-four band members scattered to the winds. Eddie Van Halen (EVH) is alone at his home recording studio (later dubbed "5150", which is the California criminal code for the criminally insane) and receives a telephone call. Immediately on pick-up, the connection is fuzzy and nearly inaudible. An unfamiliar voice asks "Is this Eddie?" After several unpleasant responses by EVH, the unfamiliar voices identifies himself as Quincy Jones, and asks if EVH would like to play a solo on one of Jackson's songs. With his brother, the lead singer, and the bassist unavailable for consultation, EVH agrees to contribute, figuring he will do it for free, uncredited, no messy royalties to discuss (or split), and no one would be the wiser. The wishiest of wishful thoughts.

As the third single from what was becoming a pop-cultural juggernaut (Thriller), "Beat It" strayed from the R&B and pop playbook Jackson had been so successful with as a member of the Jackson 5 and during the infancy of his solo career. With Toto's guitarist Steve Lukather providing a tasty lead riff and underlying rhythm guitar, EVH's "trademark" squeals and screeches from his striped Frankenstein "strat" provided one of the more memorable guitar solos on pop-radio in the 1980s. More importantly, it was the "sound" of 80s guitar-power included on a pop-single, and gave hard rock and album-oriented rock radio stations, as well as the caucasian-rock-band-centric MTV, permission to play a young black man's song as part of the rock rotation. "Beat It" help propel "Thriller" into the phenomenon that it became.

Notably, this would not be the last time that EVH contributed uncredited music to a pop-culture success. In 1985, EVH's guitar (sounds) found its way into the film "Back to the Future" as music used to scare George McFly into submitting to the suggestions of a "robot".[2] Unless EVH is (and has been) lying to fans for decades, his work on Jackson's "Beat It" and "Back to the Future" were not only uncredited but also uncompensated. The thought that EVH made nary a cent from either contribution is a bit mind-boggling, given the record sales and ticket/rental sales each has logged in the three-decades since each was released.

Jackson (and video director John Landis) would later pay a small (double) homage to EVH and "Back to the Future", having young Macaulay Culkin strap-on an Ernie Ball Music Man (EBMM) Wolfgang model guitar designed by and for EVH and hit a power chord akin to the one hit by Michael J. Fox in "BTTF" in the intro of the song/video "Black or White".

In the "small world" category, Jackson himself contributed uncredited backing vocals to the Doobie Brothers 1978 release Minute By Minute (on songs "What a Fool Believes", "Here to Love You", and "Minute By Minute"), working with future Van Halen collaborators producer Ted Templeman and Doobie Michael McDonald (sharing a co-writing credit on the 1984 Top 15 single "I'll Wait" from the album 1984). Later, Jackson would be credited with backing vocals on the #2 hit-single by Rockwell "Somebody's Watching Me".

Jackson and EVH's uncredited contributions are consistent with the occasional uncredited contributions of mega-popular artists, including Mick Jagger's famous uncredited backing vocals on Carly Simon's hit-single "You're So Vain".[3] Of course, when you are the type of recording stars that Jagger, EVH, and Jackson (at the time of working with the Doobies), getting another co-writing and publishing credit may be less of a reward than the work itself (maybe). OTOH, these guys passed up A LOT of money by not getting those credits.

Footnotes

1. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Jackson's "Thriller" is tied with The Eagles' "Their Greatest Hits, 1971-1975" with certified sales of 29 million copies. However, "Thriller" is an original studio release (1982), while "Their Greatest Hits" is a compilation of The Eagles biggest hits, thereby supporting the distinction as most-successful studio release. Also notable, "Thriller" has not been certified Aug. 2009, while "Their Greatest Hits" has not been certified since Jan. 2006. It is highly likely that each is now over 30 million in certified sales. 2. Back to the Future / EVH 3. You're So Vain

Swift v. The World (It Only Seems That Way)

So, last week, Taylor Swift was using her muscle to first call-out and then praise global-behemoth Apple Inc. once the Cupertino, CA company fell into line with her way of thinking (on royalty payments during the trial-period of Apple's new streaming service).  This week, Swift is on the outs with photographers (and photographers on the outs with her - I sense a song coming from this episode). Apparently, Swift and at least one photographer disagree on whether the photographer is wholly restricted or selectively restricted in using a photo more than once (taken during the "1989 World Tour").  The photographer claims that each photo can be used only once and that the copyright ownership is retained by Firefly Entertainment (Swift's label) presumptively under a "work made for hire" provision in the contract.  Conversely, Swift claims that while each photo may be used only once, additional uses may be provided by submission for approval to Firefly Entertainment, and that the copyright ownership is retained by the photographer (and no "work made for hire" situation ensues).  Obviously, without the executed agreement between the parties, it is difficult to guess which side has the best or better argument(s).  However, "work made for hire" (WMFH) situations are usually very clearly denoted in such agreements, using the specific language from the statute to make it clear that the photographer is being hired by the performing artist for a specific purpose, for a specific (enhanced) fee, and with copyright ownership clearly aligned into the portfolio of the performing artist.  The confusion of whether the photographer is or is not operating under the WMFH provision is, well, confusing.

What may not be readily apparent is that this is not really a fight over copyright issues (or, at the least, the copyright issues are secondary and subservient to a larger set of issues).  Consider: the images captured by the photographer are of Taylor Swift, not of the stage set-up, costumes, band and back-up singers, or the like.  All individuals, famous or not, have the common law right of publicity - the right to exploit his/her name, image, or likeness (aka, NIL rights), or prohibit exploitation by others.  It is a non-federalized form of intellectual property, but tends to be a companion to trademark litigation cases and/or other forms of unfair competition.  And despite these cases not generally grabbing the headlines the way a good patent, trademark, or copyright row grabs, these cases are often more interesting and fairly important (esp. for the entertainer or athlete involved).  In the case of someone as famous as Swift, the ability to exploit and protect against against undesirable (or perhaps over) exploitation makes this form of intellectual property particularly useful for individuals with an established and branded identity.

Right of publicity, and esp. the NIL issue, has grabbed headlines recently with the litigation spurred by former collegiate athletes Sam Keller (Arizona St. quarterback) and Ed O'Bannon (UCLA basketball center) and the class of current and former  collegiate athletes each represented in suing the NCAA and EA Sports.  Although the cases were different, each touched on the right of athletes to exploit their NIL rights.  In Keller et al., the plaintiffs successfully sued EA Sports, surviving an appeal, for its use of collegiate NIL in their popular (and realistic) collegiate video games.  After surviving the EA Sports appeal, the NCAA settled with the Keller plaintiffs for $20 million.  In O'Bannon et al., the plaintiffs successfully sued based on an anti-trust claim that collegiate athletes were not allowed by the NCAA and its member institutions to individually or collectively negotiate with EA Sports (the advantageous beneficiary of amateurism concepts) for pecuniary gain in the use of collegiate athletes' NIL.  Because EA Sports and the NCAA had negotiated the use of NILs of collegiate athletes for a sizeable licensing sum, there is established value in the NILs of the athletes.  By cutting out the athletes, and by denying the athletes a cut of the licensing fee royalty, the plaintiffs alleged that the actions of EA Sports and the NCAA were anti-competitive and a restraint on commercial trade.  This case was also sent up for appeal before the Ninth Circuit, with a decision looming.

Accordingly, rights of publicity and NIL issues are of considerable importance, esp. when the prospect of others free-riding and making a considerable profit.  While it may appear such celebs are on a power trip, protecting one's valuable NIL in the age of electronic media is a harrowing but necessary proposition.

Intellectual Property & You (Taylor Swift)

Like or dislike her music, Taylor Swift is one of the few singer/songwriters presently achieving mega-sales, having now crossed-over from country-pop to super-pop-star status with the recent smash 1989.  In glossing over the very recent reports of Taylor Swift's rebuke of Apple's proposal not to pay (performing rights organizations on behalf of producers and writers) during its three-month free trial of a new streaming service, and Apple's subsequent reversal, I ran across this interesting tidbit:  in late Oct. 2014, Swift had applied for multiple (40) trademark applications based on song lyrics.[1] Although this has been misreported as Swift having "trademarked" five lyrical phrases, when in fact these were "intent to use" (ITU) filings[2] without any registering decisions made from the US Patent and Trademark Office, it certainly shows a keen attentiveness to the value of her intellectual property regardless of form or media at issue.  Seemingly ripping a page from the KISS (Gene Simmons/Paul Stanley) playbook, and then like a creative coach tweaking the play, Swift has taken some of the more popular (catch-phrase type) lyrics from the collection of songs found on 1989 and filed these ITU applications to further monetize the lyrics beyond the digital downloads and net-streaming revenue available for artists.  While I wouldn't expect a Taylor Swift casket, or for Swift's name to become the nickname of an Arena Football League franchise, Swift's aggressiveness with this type of branding and marketing may know few bounds.

Footnotes

1. The lyrical phrases "Part Like It's 1989" and "This Sick Beat" are taken from the hit song "Shake It Off"; Swift filed intent-to-use applications for both phrases, and each phrase was filed in 16 separate classes of goods and/or services (or 32 applications in total). Three other phrases, "Cause We Never Go Out Of Style" (3 classes of goods/services), "Could Show You Incredible Things" (3 classes of goods/services), and "Nice to Meet You. Where Have You Been?" (2 classes of goods/services), were each taken from the hit song "Blank Space", comprising the remaining applications of the 40 filed by Swift. 2. An "intent-to-use" (ITU) application is designated as a "1B" application and signifies that the applicant has a bona fide intent-to-use the mark in interstate commerce in the future and in association with the goods and/or services identified, but no present interstate commerce usage exists as of the filing. An ITU application for a mark, if approved, requires that the applicant eventually start using the mark in interstate commerce or forfeit the right to use the mark exclusively in those classes of goods and/or services.

Coming to American Pizza Huts? Pizza Table-Turned-Video-Projector

Last week, a couple websites took notice that in Hong Kong, Pizza Hut has introduced a new pizza protector (saver/table) that has a lens in its center.  The protector + lens may then inserted into a hole in the front of one of four specially designed Pizza Hut delivery boxes.  A video player (e.g., smartphone) may then be placed within the box, with the lens magnifying the video image(s) onto a wall or screen.  However, as the articles indicate, because the player is buried inside a cardboard box, any audio synchronized with the video may require additional amplification. This is an interesting wrinkle on basic technology:  adding a lens to the pizza protector and adding a hole in the box for the lens apparatus.  Carmela Vitale was issued a patent on the original package saver in 1985.  Although there have been a couple of dozen improvements in arrangement, manufacture, and aesthetic design in the pizza table, the basic design depicted in Vitale's patent remains.  The addition of a magnifying lens is a clever thought.  Certainly, some folks have re-purposed pizza tables, including holding items of varying size and shape.  Modifying the pizza box to accommodate the protector + lens is also clever, keeping this new feature completely contained without any additional components necessary.

Whether Ogilvy Hong Kong (designer) or Pizza Hut has filed a patent application in any office protecting the various aspects of this idea is unclear, although it does not appear any action has taken place in the U.S. or through WIPO that the public would be able to access.  My suspicion is that the appropriate entity filed the application(s) very recent and the product is being made available in Hong Kong to test the market and taking advantage of the procedural lag times that occur with international patent application filing protocols (via the PCT system).

Former Van Halen Vocalist: VH Brothers Trying to Stop Hagar from Performing VH Songs

As readers will (hopefully) come to learn, Van Halen (all eras) is my favorite band, for a laundry list of reasons that I won't bother to list in this post.  However, as a fan of the band, one has to either ignore or accept the juvenile passive-aggressive non-sense that passes from the mouths of present and former members.[1] It is futile trying to really understand why this group of people, comprising mostly 60+ year-olds, cannot simply move-on from decades-long disagreements, arguments, grudges, and feuds.  It defies reason. The latest:  on Eddie Trunk's podcast this week (approx. 31:00), former Van Halen vocalist Sammy Hagar alleged that Edward and Alex Van Halen have tried to stop him from performing Van Halen songs written and recorded during the Hagar-era of the band.  As an example, Hagar was scheduled to record an episode of "Live from Daryl's House" (Daryl Hall of Hall & Oates fame).  Hall wanted to duet with Hagar on VH Top 40 hits "Why Can't This Be Love"[2] and "Finish What Ya Started"[3] .  Apparently, this required some type of licensing approval, and the Van Halen Brothers denied the request and blocked any attempts to perform the songs. Show producers did not want to try and fight this issue with a recording-deadline looming, so the songs went untouched during the recording. ** SIGH **

Assuming this version of events and facts as true, it is bad enough that the brothers are that petulant to try and block Hagar's Daryl Hall performance, but the fact that Hagar publicized this example knowing that the Van Halens could not legitimately block him (or any other performer(s)) from performing these songs live is similarly silly and unnecessary.

Most issues addressed in the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. et seq.) are default positions. In other words, absent a contract addressing a particular issue, the parties resort to the Copyright Act for determining unassigned or non-transferred rights. For example, in most cases, co-writers of a song (including music and lyrics) each own an equal share of the song, unless there is a contract to the contrary.

Accordingly, unless there is a contract between the Van Halens and Hagar that has changed the songwriting shares, or otherwise restricts/prohibits performances in some way, Hagar as a co-writer has the rights accorded by the Copyright Act, owning an equal share of the credits with the Van Halens and former bassist Michael Anthony. One of those rights includes the right to publicly perform such compositions subject to the reporting required of the host-venue to the appropriate performing rights organizations (PRO, such as ASCAP or BMI).[4] Similarly, co-writers also have the right to record/distribute sound recordings subject to accounting to the other co-writers.

Of course, the public is hearing only one-side (Hagar's) of these issues at the moment. Perhaps the Van Halens have legitimate reasons for pursuing the courses they have pursued thus far, given the acrimonious and distrustful state of affairs between the brothers and Hagar (and Anthony).

It is odd (if not notable) that Hagar did not make specific mention of the brothers trying to stop the release of Hagar's "The Circle" live recording entitled "At Your Service" containing seven songs co-written by Hagar and the Van Halens, but did mention the block of two songs from "Live at Daryl's House". Does Eddie Van Halen have a burr in his backside over Daryl Hall's public comments that Van Halen's keyboard parts in "Jump" were inspired by the piano riff in Hall & Oates mega-hit "Kiss On My List"?[5] As noted in the current Billboard Magazine cover article, Eddie Van Halen does not appear to hate anyone, but his grudges run long and deep.[6]

Or, on the other hand, did the Van Halens bully the last-minute production of Daryl Hall's television show based on opportunism while avoiding "The Circle" live disc because it knew the futility of doing so? More than likely, because the acrimony and overall distrust between Hagar and the Van Halens, this is little more than power trips and egos at play. But, there may also be some underlying accounting issues that have been bubbling that the public is not aware of.

Hagar and the Van Halens squabbling over music is hardly surprising. The strong egos of those involved make future disagreement(s) inevitable. Just another sad episode in the Van Halen melodrama.

Footnotes

1. Despite the high-drama, Van Halen still has a fairly strong and devoted following, as exemplified by the robust fan-site VH Links. 2. "Why Can't This Be Love" was the lead-single from Hagar's debut with Van Halen, the 5x platinum 5150 released in April 1986. "Why Can't This Be Love" peaked at #3 on Billboard's Hot 100 Singles Chart in May 1986; 5150 debuted at #13 on Billboard's Top 200 Album Chart, peaked at #1 for a three-week run, and spent more than one-year on the chart. Additional information may be found at 5150 Info. 3. "Finish What Ya Started" was the third single from Van Halen's May 1988 release OU812. The song was a departure for Van Halen, blending rock, country, and an exotic drum sound and beat, sounding as much like a Rolling Stones song as a Van Halen tune. "Finish What Ya Started" peaked at #13 on Billboard's Hot 100 chart; OU812 debuted at #1 on Billboard's Top 200 Album Chart and spent four-consecutive weeks in the top spot. 4. ASCAP and/or BMI distribute royalties to songwriters and publishers based on frequency of play from reports by terrestrial and satellite radio, Internet streaming services, concert venues, and the like. 5. 5 Things About Jump 6. Billboard - EVH on Addiction, Roth, Touring

HBO's "Ballers" & the NFL's Trademark(s) and Image(ry)

(hat-tip to Uni-Watch) As notably reported by NBC's online outlet "Pro Football Talk" (Mike Florio), HBO has a new quasi-fictional series about life in-and-around the NFL entitled "Ballers" and starring ex-college football player and professional wrestler Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Admirably, Johnson has turned himself into quite an entertainment force, and is a natural for this type of serial vehicle in television. The series promises to hold a mirror up to the NFL and its personalities, although how close and how detailed the mirror actual is will be sorted out down the line. With the various public relations issues the NFL has suffered in the last twenty-four months, the NFL has to hope that the series is either (a) well received by the public in depicting ordinary day-to-day issues players have (and operating to rehabilitate the league image) or (b) doesn't put too fine a point on these issues and instead puts a little (lip) gloss (on the pig, perhaps?).

Aside from the ripped-from-the-headlines-of-the-NFL inspired storyline(s), as pointed out by Florio at "Pro Football Talk", what is also notable is HBO's non-licensed use of the league's and teams' logos and trademarks. I specifically use the term "non-licensed" as opposed to "unauthorized" or "impermissible" - the NFL has not given HBO written authorization to use the trademarks, and perhaps from the league's perspective it is semantics: non-licensed is the same as unauthorized and impermissible. The NFL is considered a image (if not trademark) zealot by many, and often stepping over the line a bit.  However, whether HBO's proposed non-licensed use of the marks is illegal (and thus, truly unauthorized and impermissible) is a different question. A question that tends to not get litigated.

Unless a film or television production has an agreement with a company for product or mark placement, most film/television production houses avoid using real products and associated marks. In instances where the show/film is scripted, then faux brands and products are created, such as the many faux Internet browsers, email clients, databases, and other electronic devices and interfaces that permeate scripted visual performances. In the reality genre, or in quasi-news reporting, video and still photos may feature someone with a shirt or other article with a brand logo that is blurred out. These efforts are undertaken to avoid any perceived (or real) trademark entanglements, in which the brand holder may be thought to endorse the show/film and its content. Many folks assume that unless an owner authorizes trademark use that any such use implies approval, endorsement, sponsorship, or some type of association between the content creator and the brand owner that is unwanted, undesirable, and/or uncompensated free-riding.

Because logo blurring and simple non-use have become the practice in trade for the tv/film industries, it does not address the tension between HBO's perspective and the NFL's perspective. Against industry standard, HBO has declared that its use of these marks is not a legal concern; the NFL's "no comment" echoes rather loudly that at the least they are huddled with legal counsel crafting a response and/or a potential challenge. But the question remains - who is (most) right?

I cannot say with 100% certainty that this is a case of first impression, but I'm not aware of any cases litigated to a decision in this area because the industry standard is practiced by virtually every entity in the industry. In particular, sports-themed fictional shows/films have often avoided these issues by completely fictionalizing the league, the teams and trademarks, and the personalities, unless it is a bio-pic or documentary. Though not exhaustive, here are several examples. The book and film "North Dallas Forty" were fictionalizations of writer Peter Gent's stent with the Dallas Cowboys, with the film depicting a pro football franchise named the "North Dallas Bulls". The films "The Replacements" and "Any Given Sunday" created leagues and teams for their respective pro football worlds. In the 1980s, the HBO television show "1st and 10" about professional football was wholly fictionalized. More recently, ESPN produced the fictionalized world of pro football entitled "Playmakers".

So, what does HBO know or sense about this situation that it can say with confidence that there are no trademark issues here, against industry practice and little-to-no legal precedent (for or against)?

Although one would not expect HBO and the NFL's collaboration on the reality series "Hard Knocks" to have transferred any authorization to HBO beyond that used with that series, perhaps HBO negotiated a grand bargain and took advantage? However, that seems unlikely. Since trademark infringement and trademark dilution are the big potential legal issues in play, and because each is analyzed under a "likelihood of" infringement/dilution standard, perhaps HBO is relying upon the degree of care exercised by and sophistication of the viewer to appreciate that the show is fictional and the use of the marks adds a flavor of realism without creating an endorsement or sponsorship by the NFL? In connection with carefully crafted credits, including long pauses on the production company(ies) involved (and perhaps a disclaimer at the start or end, or both), perhaps it will be evident that the NFL has no part in the show other than as props? Or, maybe HBO doubts the propriety of the NFL speaking for all 32 teams on this issue, and will use a nominal number of teams and marks and roll the dice that each individual team isn't going to devote the resources to litigate the matter? The NFL teams pool their licensing money and divide the revenue, but whether the NFL is authorized to act on behalf of each individual team in regard to each of the 32 team trademarks is less-than clear (though I suspect it to be up to each team to act).

Regardless of what the parties believe at this moment, this may become an interesting trademark tussle between two giants in U.S. pop culture. And we'll be watching.

American Pharoah

"Heeeee did it! American Pharoah has ended the thirty-seven year drought to a deafening roar to the fans here at Belmont Park."  Tom Hammond (NBC's Host) intoned nearly thirty-seconds after the impassioned declaration of race announcer Larry Collmus that the American Triple-Crown (ATC) drought was over.[1] **** Horse-racing is an unusual competitive event, since most of the action lies with the horse (and not a human).  Moreover, unless one has a monetary or competitive stake in a particular horse, many horse-racing fans don't care which horse wins the Kentucky Derby; however, fans do want that horse to win the Preakness and the Belmont Stakes.  To see excellence and observe history.  We celebrate and immortalize athletes that achieve such greatness. And occasionally, when the athlete transcends sport, the personality and/or image becomes an important part of American culture and commerce.  While horse-racing is a less-popular competitive event compared to team or individual professional or collegiate sports, and the transcendent personalities relatively infrequent, horse-racing still has its share of marketable names and personalities. For example, Secretariat remains a beloved and revered horse among horse-racing fans.  Not surprisingly, Secretariat's name and image are still a valuable commodity.[2]  Although a giant in horse-racing history, Secretariat does not stand alone when it comes to trademark exploitation, although his shadow is quite large.  The owners of fellow ATC-winner Seattle Slew (1977) possess seven registered trademarks for a variety of goods.[3] The owner's of ATC-challenger Smarty Jones (2004) possess one registered trademark for horse-breeding and stud services (having cancelled classifications for photos, posters, paintings, and apparel).[4] The owner's of another ATC-challenger Funny Cide (2003) previously owned two registered trademarks, but have since allowed the registrations to lapse.[5] However, trademark registration and commercial popularity are two entirely different considerations. Presently, Am. Pharoah stands as the first ATC-winner in thirty-seven years, and the spoils of such a triumph should be many, at least in the short-term. Whether Am. Pharoah endures as significantly as Secretariat remains to be seen, of course. Naturally, the owners of Am. Pharoah are in the midst of seeking various trademark registrations for the horse's name and likeness.[6] Humorously, in a geeky-IP-attorney kinda-way, the owners (Zayat Stables) filed an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application for the mark "American Pharoah Triple Crown" on May 18, 2015, the Monday following Am. Pharoah's Preakness victory, and almost three full weeks prior to the Belmont Stakes run (victory). ATC horse-racing fans had been starved and so painfully deprived of a triple crown winner for so long and in so many disappointing ways, the emotions surprisingly bubbled to the surface as Am. Pharoah dashed across the finish line.  As a marketable entity and/or brand, Am. Pharoah stands to capitalize because of this drought. As Leonard Nemoy's "Dr. Spock" might observe in understanding this human (over)reaction:  "Fascinating."  And to understand why, at least in part, Am. Pharoah's commercial viability might be greater than otherwise expected, esp. in the short-term, we must turn back the clock and take a look at the significant triple crown short-comings in ATC-racing over the last thirty-seven years. The Big Background of Belmont Disappointments Coming into 2015, the last ATC-winner was Affirmed in 1978, having staved off chief-rival Alydar in one of the most memorable trio of ATC-races in thoroughbred racing history.  Affirmed bested Alydar by just-under two lengths in total for the three races, including by a neck (Preakness) and by a head (Belmont).  In the thirty-seven years since Affirmed's three masterful circuits, and the high-drama generated by the Affirmed-Alydar rivalry, thirteen horses had won the Derby and Preakness, only to fall short at the marathon known as Belmont:  Spectacular Bid (79), Pleasant Colony (81), Alysheba (87), Sunday Silence (89), Silver Charm (97), Real Quiet (98), Charismatic (99), War Emblem (02), Funny Cide (03), Smarty Jones (04), Big Brown (08), I'll Have Another (12), and California Chrome (14).  Aside from War Emblem (02) and Big Brown (08), and the race-day scratch of "I'll Have Another," most of the other ten horses acquitted themselves well at Belmont despite falling short. Yet, there were multiple close, agonizing losses that seemed to illustrate the increasing difficulty and elusiveness of capturing the Belmont jewel.  In one of the great horse races of the last 35 years, Real Quiet (98) came the closest to winning the Belmont during this span, losing by a nose at the line to Victory Gallup (race begins at ~43:30 of video), a horse that had finished second to Real Quiet in both the Derby and Preakness (although a steward's inquiry would have also ended Real Quiet's ATC-bid with a disqualification).  Coincidentally, Real Quiet's march into history was cut-off by Victory Gallup jockey Gary Stevens, who had his own ATC-hopes dashed twelve months earlier on the back of Silver Charm.[7] During the most-recent drought, two other horses finished second in the first two legs before winning the final leg and denying fans of another ATC-winner:  in 1987 between Alysheba and Belmont-winner Bet Twice (race begins at 14:00 of video), and in 1989 with Sunday Silence and Belmont-winner Easy Goer (race begins at 11:00 of video). Alysheba's thwarted bid was particularly, if not poetically, painful.  Alysheba was horse-breeding royalty, the son of Alydar, the great-grandson of Native Dancer and War Admiral, and the great-great-grandson of Man O' War.  And, Alysheba was going to restore some of the luster lost by Alydar (having suffered three second-place finishes in the spring of '78).  However, at the top of the final turn, chief-rival and Derby/Preakness runner-up Bet Twice took complete control and trounced the field - to the audible groan of those in attendance.  Two years later, with Sunday Silence, the disappointment was similarly crushing.  As Sunday Silence and Easy Goer entered the final sweeping turn, Sunday Silence and Easy Goer passed race-leader Le Voyageur, with Sunday Silence in the lead at mid-turn, and Easy Goer pulling ahead coming out of the turn.  The crowd roared with excitement, anticipation, and encouragement for Sunday Silence to make one final charge.  However, Easy Goer pulled away, and by the time Easy Goer hit the line, the Belmont crowd had been reduced to a low, disappointed murmur, except for the New York partisans enjoying the "home" win by Easy Goer. From 1997 through 1999, ATC-fans were teased with three consecutive Derby and Preakness winners. In 1997, and in another great Belmont finish, Silver Charm (Gary Stevens), Touch Gold, and Freehouse battled shoulder-to-shoulder down that long front stretch.  With 65 yards to go, Silver Charm was ahead and practically snatching that final jewel off the pedestal; at 50 yards out, Touch Gold had just inched ahead; but Silver Charm had nothing left in the tank to make a final rush, and Touch Gold beat Silver Charm by half-a-length, as fans groaned in disappointment.  As noted above, in 1998, Real Quiet lost to late-charging Victory Gallup (Gary Stevens) at the line in a photo-finish (by a nose), forcing Belmont patrons to wait more than 120 seconds before the stewards posted the results to the audible exasperation of a 100,000+ patrons.  Providing more agonizing insult, in 1999, Charismatic, the great-grandson of both Northern Dancer and Secretariat, went to New York with a chance to win the Belmont carnations.  Like the two previous Belmonts, Charismatic was at-or-in the lead coming out of the final turn, and then in the lead about one-third of the way down the final front stretch run before ceding the lead to Lemon Drop Kid.  Memorably, at the wire, falling just short of victory, Charismatic fractured the condylar bone in the left front leg, ending the brilliant horse's racing career. In 2003, lightly-regarded Funny Cide and jockey were relative long-shots, with Empire Maker expected to make the ATC-charge.  Yet, by early June, Funny Cide stood at the precipice of history.  Coming out of the paddock, the Belmont fans roared for the horse like hadn't been heard since Alysheba. On a rain-soaked bog, Funny Cide and Empire Maker dueled for nearly three-fourths of the race with Empire Maker lunging ahead off the turn, and pinching Funny Cide near the rail coming down the stretch (in the most water-logged portion of the track).  As Empire Maker staved off Ten Most Wanted, Funny Cide was empty and drifted back to third, and the patrons once again left groaning. The following year, Smarty Jones was labeled as a favorite to break the ATC-drought.  After a comfortable win in the Derby (2.75 lengths), Smart Jones destroyed the Preakness field by a record 11.5 lengths.  Such domination naturally elevated Smarty Jones' popularity, and anticipation of an ATC-winner reached a fever pitch by early June as the pre-Derby favorite traveled to New York.  However, like the 2003 Belmont, the 2004 Belmont was ran in wet, sloppy conditions.  Despite the conditions, Smarty Jones broke well, seized the lead after the first quarter, and held the closest challenger at bay by one length in the middle of the race, before surging near the start of the final turn.  At the top of the turn, Smarty Jones had pulled ahead of the challengers, as eventual champion Birdstone was hanging back nearly seventh lengths off the lead.  Coming off the final turn, and into the stretch, 120,000 patrons roared with delight as Smarty Jones appeared to be putting the pedal to the metal and pulling ahead for good.  Calling the action for both Belmont and NBC's television broadcast, legendary announcer Tom Durkin's voice rose with excitement but carried the plaintive tone of horse-racing fans pleading for Smarty Jones to end the disappointment.  And like a bolt of lightning, Birdstone closed the gap down the stretch, catching Smarty Jones just inside the last sixteenth pole, and beating Smarty Jones by one length.  Deflation.[8]   2015 Belmont Stakes - Celebrating Am. Pharoah Am. Pharoah took control early, ran a steady pace through the back stretch, and started to slowly accelerate around the final turn.  Once in the stretch, Am. Pharoah shoved the accelerator down and headed for glory, to the deafening roar of 120,000 fans, the type of roar the broadcasters and reporters could not remember hearing at horse-racing event since Affirmed's Belmont victory.  Am. Pharoah was simply awesome.  The collective reaction to this victory was similarly impressive. My reaction - to a lesser degree - was similar to that of fans of Secretariat in 1973 post-Belmont. In ESPN's SportCentury feature on the 1973 ATC-winner Secretariat, former CBS and ABC sportscaster Jack Whitaker and novelist George Plimpton separately recall incidents of people weeping after Secretariat's annihilation of his rival Sham and the field at Belmont (video at 22:00).  Also on video, famed sports reporter Haywood Hale Brown recalls a conversation he had with golfing legend Jack Nicklaus sometime after the 1973 Belmont, with Nicklaus telling Brown he watched the race from home, alone, and as Secretariat stretched-out his enormous lead on the field, Nicklaus applauded and then cried at Secretariat's domination.  Sports columnist William Nack (depicted in the Disney feature-film "Secretariat") continues the Brown-Nicklaus exchange, noting the insight Brown had in explaining to Nicklaus (paraphrasing) "Don't you understand?  You've been pursuing perfection in your sport your whole life; at the end of the Belmont, you saw it." Indeed. In the wake of Secretariat's domination, and the three ATC-winners in the 70s, unfortunately, generations had grown accustomed to the Belmont disappointments.  At 42, I have no recollection of Secretariat, virtually no recollection of Seattle Slew, and only the foggiest of recollections regarding Affirmed (and Alydar).  My generation and younger generations didn't know what it was like and had a difficult time imagining what it was they were hoping for in these horses. As a friend noted, this was one of the first historically rare and significant sports milestones in this generation.  A Triple-Crown winner is a rarity.  Am. Pharoah is the twelfth since 1875.  The "droughts" are generally the rule and the ATC-winners the exceptions.  Which is why these type of victories are so publicly coveted and cherished, and why the disappointments are so discouraging. Whether Am. Pharoah's trademarks endure like "Secretariat" or "Seattle Slew" or experience only short-term recognition (like "Funny Cide" and aspects of "Smarty Jones" trademarks), at the least, the long, painful drought is over and horse-racing once again has a giant personality to build upon.

Footnotes

1. Belmont 2015 2. U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 1986605 and 3243678. Notably, these two different registrations are owned by two different entities, including an entity from Colorado (by registrant Helen "Penny" Chenery) and an entity from Illinois. Whether the two entities are affiliated is unclear. 3. U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 2831608, 3849764, 3834828, 3834830, 3834831, 3834832, and 3834834. 4. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3069248 (classes for photos, paintings, postcards, and apparel have been cancelled). 5. U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 2950703 and 2871639 (both registrations cancelled). 6. U.S. Trademark Application No. 86/633822. 7. Despite the victory, Stevens seemed fairly subdued in his post-race interview with ABC (Stevens at ~1:05:00 of video), apparently appreciative of the lesser history he made and the greater history he denied.

Welcome!

As an intellectual property attorney, and a fan of certain aspects of pop culture and sports, it is interesting to observe the intersection and/or the interrelatedness of these areas.  As such, I will use this forum to make observations and provide interesting information on these topics, sometimes intersecting in dramatic or notable ways. I hope you enjoy.