Must be Aware of Copyrights! Let’s Know About Copyleft Now!!

In the present Internet age where it has become ever-easier to infringe on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), you must have heard about copyright. Most of us know that copyright is an exclusive right that enables the creator to use his original work while preventing others from stealing it.

As a creator, you need to safeguard your unique and creative Intellectual Property (IP) assets. For instance,

  • Photographers should copyright their photos,
  • Software developers should use appropriate licenses,
  • Bloggers should issue DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notices.

However, this can be a headache, specifically if you are prolific and your work is famous. That’s why many creators are adopting copyleft. Here’s everything you should know about the copyleft license.

Copyleft

Copyleft is all about a concept by which you can share your work to third parties with some rights such as copying, modifying, etc. Under copyleft license, people are free to use, change, or distribute the work as per their need in exchange for just one condition of preserving the same freedom in the modified versions of the work. It encourages more and better publications. However, copyleft obliges people to distribute the modified work on the base of providing the same or similar copyleft license to others, but it isn’t necessary to make copyleft work free like in the public domain.

3 Key Concepts Related to Copyleft

  1. Copyleft is About Users Freedom

Despite what the name implies, copyleft is not about abolishing copyright. Instead, it is a subset of the copyright license and functions on an objective to provide freedom to the users.To understand this concept, we need to recall copyright that bestows the owners of the original work with legal rights to dictate how others can or cannot copy, reform, and distribute their works. If someone uses the original work in a way contrary to how its creator allows, the owner is entitled to take legal action, i.e., file Copyright Infringement case. It means the creator with Registered Copyright holds power to restrict what others can do with his work. Although copyleft licenses exist within the legal structure of copyrights, their core notion is that the users should be allowed to copy, modify, and distribute works as they want, with only one crucial clause: all derivative works offer the same freedom of use to other users.

  1. Copyleft Is Much More Than Just Permission

Copyleft license is not like a permissive license, which grants users the freedom to do anything they want. Copyleft gives freedom but imposes some demands as well. The most noticeable requirement of the copyleft license is that the users must distribute derivative works under licenses that offer rights, which are either the same or similar to the original work.

For example:  Suppose a photographer gives you a copyleft photo. As a user, you have the right to modify and share that photo however and to whoever you want, but you would also need to permit anyone else to use your work as he wants. It is known as the ‘share-alike’ clause.

Copyleft is beyond just allowing freedom; it demands freedom.

  1. Copyleft Isn’t Always Free

As mentioned above, a copyleft has two aspects:

  • The freedom for users to copy, modify and distribute derivative works
  • The “share-alike” clause to maintain liberty in derivative works.

Nonetheless, there is nothing that makes copyleft work available at no charges. In other words, you may not be able to get a specific copyleft work without paying for it. However, once you do pay for it, you’re free to use it as long as you maintain the same freedoms in the derived work.

Difference between Copyright and Copyleft

Since the concept of copyleft springs out from that of copyright, there can be hardly any comparison between copyright and copyleft. Nevertheless, copyright is restrictive in terms of forbidding third-parties from using rights reserved for the author without his permission whereas copyleft allows third-parties to use the rights liberally but while ensuring that the liberality will not cut off and reaches to every user of the work. In simple words, copyright emphasizes restriction and originality of work of an author, whereas copyleft proffers as well as demands freedom.

Copyright or Copyleft

People often have queries; whether they should go for copyleft, is it right for them, etc. Well, solutions to such questions lie in the author’s will; whether to share the rights with third-parties ready to do the same with others or keep them to himself/ herself. If you go for copyleft licensing, you may sometimes find it a bit harder to make expected money. Besides, even if you succeed in making earnings, they would be significantly less in comparison to that you could have made by traditional copyright rules. Hopefully, this article has given you a better idea about copyright and copyleft that can aid you in making a fair decision. Nevertheless, if any doubt is bothering you, be smart and consult an experienced attorney who can assist you in understanding these legal terms better. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Starbucks Enters Trademark Dispute with a Small Alaska Company

Starbucks is clashing with a small Alaska company named Mountains & Mermaids over a trademark term. The former who is a Seattle-based coffee giant said that Siren’s Brew for which the later filed a Trademark Application is too similar to its branding.

As the Anchorage Daily News reported, Starbucks wants the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to reject the application filed by this small Wasilla-based Mountains & Mermaids Company. Applied late last year, the Alaska business has been seeking to get Trademark Registration for the term ‘Siren’s Brew’ for its products since that time. It has branded its apparel with the image of a siren or mermaid holding a cup of coffee and recently began using the design on coffee.

Starbucks in an opposition filed in August this year said that it applied to trademark ‘Siren’s Blend’ for its coffee products in February 2019, but the USPTO has refused the application as of May, based on a possibility of confusion with Siren’s Brew.

Starbucks continued by saying that the long-time use of siren in its branding doesn’t end up with its famous green logo. Instead, it has extended the brand’s use of the term as per its filing. Employees use the word to refer to its business and products, added Starbucks.

Starbucks further in an emailed statement announced that for near about half a century, it has invested in establishing a relation between a siren and coffee. Besides being an integral part of the Starbucks’ logo since the brand got established in 1971, the siren is the face of the company to the world.

On the other side, Monica Hamilton owning Mountains & Mermaids along with her daughter named Sarah said that they were shocked to know about Starbucks’ opposition in regards to their trademark application. She added that there is no confusion at all. They are neither interested in interfering with Starbucks’ business nor want them to interfere with theirs.

Launched in 2017, Alaska Company is an online retailer with many of its products sporting nautical imagery. The term ‘Siren’s Brew’ of this company applies to the products such as hoodies mugs, stickers, etc., that include the design of a siren or mermaid holding a coffee cup. The quote incorporated in the design asserts that a siren needs her morning coffee before a day of wrecking ships and drowning men.

Eric Pelton, a lawyer on behalf of Mountains & Mermaids, said that whatever term Starbucks’ workers use within the company to describe their business is not the same as a Registered Trademark. Mr. Pelton also said that he plans to submit a response to Starbucks’ opposition to the USPTO next week. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Michael Kors Files a Lawsuit against New Haven Flea Market

Fashion house Michael Kors LLC has recently sued the operators and vendors of The Boulevard Flea Market on Ella T. Grasso Boulevard over counterfeit sales of the products carrying the company’s brand name for years, and that the practice hasn’t creased even after many repeated warnings.

The plaintiff, in the filed lawsuit, named the flea market operator C.G.C. Enterprises and its owner, Charles Cheslock, Landlord Digsby, Taylor and Hobbes, and Vice President Richard Lebov, and 100 “John Does” as defendants who are believed to have sold fake Michael Kors products.

Attorneys for Michael Kors LLC have noted that New Haven police had reportedly seized more than $2 million worth counterfeit products from the market in November 2013. As per the complaint, an inspector working on behalf of the company purchased counterfeit goods from 31 vendors in June 2018 and in December 2018, the company then sent cease-and-desist letters to those vendors of the flea market. The inspector in August 2019 had not just returned to the flea market but also purchased more counterfeit items. On every visit, as the complaint showed, the inspector saw more than 500 counterfeit goods offered for sale.

In the complaint filed, the attorneys for Michael Kors have noted that these conducts harm the brand’s reputation, branding efforts, and those who purchase the products expecting them to be the real products. As per the attorneys, Michael Kors has expended an enormous amount of resources to combat the sales of fake items at the Flea Market. Despite several efforts to restrict sales, the brand has met with uncooperative landlords and owners who have refused to take appropriate actions. The irresponsible conduct of the operators and vendors is also raising irreparable monetary and other types of damages to Michael Kors and its products’ customers.

The complaint claims that by conducting the illegal act of counterfeiting and falsely defining the origin of the items sold, the operators and vendors of the flea market have committed Trademark Infringement. With many other requests, Michael Kors is looking for a legal order that prohibits vendors and operators from selling counterfeit products, requiring them to turn over all the false merchandise for destruction, along with monetary damages, punitive damages, and statutory damages. For more visit: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/