Can I use a brand name in my book title? I want to publish a book, which will be sold at a modest price. I will be self-publishing. I'm in the US. My book is, by its nature, very specific. It is basically a "how to" guide for how to write in a certain voice. As an example, my book is basically something like, "How To Write The Simpsons" My question is, can I legally use this trademark (The Simpsons) in my book title? If not in the title, what about in my book's pages? The issue here is that the book is really focused on one show, not one genre, or even sub-genre. So, "How To Write Animated Comedy TV Shows" is not the focus of my book, and thus a somewhat inaccurate title. My book goes into considerable depth into writing for this one show, and exclusively this show. The book references quotes and dialogue from the show, but other than these bits, it is totally original. In other words, 95% of the text is my original writing. I have really put a lot of time into it, and I am not simply trying to "milk" a brand name for my own gain, and this is obvious to anyone who reads the book. If I can't use the brand name directly, am I safe if I am cheeky about it? For example, "How To Write For That One Show With Yellow Characters". Or what if I write on the back of the book or wherever, "Author is not affiliated with The Simpsons whatsoever"? I certainly will make no indication that I am in any way affiliated with The Simpsons (because I am not). In reality, do the rules still apply if I am not attacking a behemoth like 20th Century Fox and instead am infringing on a much smaller brand? (I'm asking this one out of curiosity.) I really hope I can use the name in my book title. Otherwise, my target market has pretty much nil chance of finding/reading my book. I know absolutely nothing about trademark law. Please advise.
20th Century Fox have a trademark on "Simpsons." They have trademarks on "Bart Simpson", on "D'oh", on "Duff Beer". I would assume that they take their trademarks seriously. What you can't do is to use someone else's trademark to make people believe your commercial product is related to theirs. It's quite reasonable to assume that someone seeing your book in a store would think it is written by the makers of The Simpsons show and therefore buy it. Even if you say that isn't your intention, it is what would happen. I'd try coming up with some different titles, maybe "How to write animated TV shows" with "Example: The Simpsons" (well, you are the writer so you should come up with something better), and take them to a lawyer. And then contact the makers of the show (again asking the lawyer for advice how to do this) because even if your lawyer says the title is fine, that doesn't mean you can't be sued.
If I lock you in a room without access to anything and tell you &quot;Write a novel&quot; and you write a novel with characters, you have copyright in the work. But it's not absolute: If you use your own characters, you own all the copyright in the work, but not in the idea, as ideas are not copyrightable, see Feist v Rural. If you use someone else's characters extensively (as in more than a short hommage/cameo), you very likely make a derivate. You own a copyright in your part, as in the expression of the story or pictures you created, but you do not gain property interest in the existing characters' expression. Since the copyright to the characters lies with the owner of their IP, you need their OK to release (and also to even make) your work - as with the owner of a copyright is the sole right to decide on distribution and creation of derivates under 17 USC § 106 (2). Also remember that making an unlicensed derivate work risks having nothing you can sue for in case the original copyright owner lifts your ideas and scenes-a-faire parts and adapts them for their own derivate, see Anderson v Stallone The strange case of fanfiction chains... Now, there is a strange situation when a work is based on a work which is based on a work... Then, publishers and editors start with red ink and the result is, that what people know as Twilight now has nothing to do with the fanfiction it started as (It wasn't Vampires in the original draft), and 50 Shades of Grey ended up striking any and all supernatural from it, despite it having been a Twilight fanfiction originally. By making own characters and own expression of the world, there could be no copyright infringement. US law vs Egypt law? Both Egypt and the US have signed the Berne convention, meaning that copyright is very very similar in the broad strokes that the right to allow or disallow derivates is with the copyright holder. Also, since Ben10's copyright owners are to the best of my knowledge in the US (Cartoon Network Studios &amp; Men of Action Studios), they will sue in a US federal court.
Copyright does not Protect Names at All Names and book titles and other short phrases are never protected by copyright, whether they are common or uncommon. The US Copyright Office Circular 01 &quot;Copyright Basics&quot; states on page 2: Copyright does not protect: Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, or discoveries Works that are not fixed in a tangible form (such as a choreographic work that has not been notated or recorded or an improvisational speech that has not been written down) Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans Familiar symbols or designs Mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring Mere listings of ingredients or contents For more information, see Works Not Protected by Copyright (Circular 33) Circular 33 &quot;Works Not Protected by Copyright&quot; states on pGES 2-3: Names, Titles, Short Phrases Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combinations of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words. Examples of names, titles, or short phrases that do not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to support a claim in copyright include: The name of an individual (including pseudonyms, pen names, or stage names) The title or subtitle of a work, such as a book, a song, or a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work The name of a business or organization The name of a band or performing group The name of a product or service A domain name or URL The name of a character Catchwords or catchphrases Mottos, slogans, or other short expressions Under certain circumstances, names, titles, or short phrases may be protectable under federal or state trademark laws. For information about trademark laws, visit the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website or call 1-800-786-9199. Use of a name from a previous work can be one element that makes the later work a derivative work, but the name of a character alone will not m make a later work derivative. There must be significant and distinctive aspects of the source work (not merely common or generic aspects, or bare ideas) that are sufficiently original to be protectable, and those must be used in the later work to make the later work derivative. Even then a fair use defense may apply. Having giant spiders called 'aragogs' would probably not alone be enough to make a work derivative of a Harry Potter novel, but if the detailed description and behavior of those monsters was used, it might possibly do so. Failure to object to an infringement does not forfeit copyright, and later infringements can still have legal action taken over them. Distinctive Characters: Court Cases The OP asks: Are there any similar court cases? In Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) the famous Judge Learned Hand wrote: If Twelfth Night were copyrighted, it is quite possible that a second comer might so closely imitate Sir Toby Belch or Malvolio as to infringe, but it would not be enough that for one of his characters he cast a riotous knight who kept wassail to the discomfort of the household, or a vain and foppish steward who became amorous of his mistress. These would be no more than Shakespeare's &quot;ideas&quot; in the play, as little capable of monopoly as Einstein's Doctrine of Relativity, or Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species. It follows that the less developed the characters, the less they can be copyrighted; that is the penalty an author must bear for marking them too indistinctly.[Emphasis added] In he later case of Anderson v. Stallone, 11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1989) the court wrote: The precise legal standard this Court should apply in determining when a character may be afforded copyright protection is fraught with uncertainty. The Second Circuit has followed Judge Learned Hand's opinion in Nichols v. Universal Pictures, 45 F.2d 119 (2d. Cir. 1930), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 902 (1931). Judge Hand set forth a test, simple in theory but elusive in application, to determine when a character should be granted copyright protection. Essentially, under this test, copyright protection is granted to a character if it is developed with enough specificity so as to constitute protectable expression. Id. at 121. ... The Rocky characters are one of the most highly delineated group of characters in modern American cinema. The physical and emotional characteristics of Rocky Balboa and the other characters were set forth in tremendous detail in the three Rocky movies before Anderson appropriated the characters for his treatment. The interrelationships and development of Rocky, Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie are central to all three movies. Rocky Balboa is such a highly delineated character that his name is the title of all four of the Rocky movies and his character has become identified with specific character traits ranging from his speaking mannerisms to his physical characteristics. This Court has no difficulty ruling as a matter of law that the Rocky characters are delineated so extensively that they are protected from bodily appropriation when taken as a group and transposed into a sequel by another author. Names may be Protected as Trademarks A name may be protected as a trademark. This means that no one else can use it to promote or label a product or service of a similar type without permission. Trademarks do not expire as long as they remain in use. But trademarks only protect against uses &quot;in trade&quot;, that is uses that identify a product, or are used to advertise that product, or are used to imply endorsement, approval or sponsorship of a product. If a reasonable person could be confused as the the source of a product, or who endorsed it, then the use of the mark may be infringing. Trademarks are also country-specific. What is a protected mark in country A may be quite unprotected in country B. While trademarks do not expire if they remain in use, if a term becomes &quot;generic&quot; and loses the distinctive association with a specific brand or maker, then it may also lose protection as a trademark. At one time Xerox feared that its name would become a generic synonym for &quot;photocopy&quot; and that it would lose trademark protection. It undertook to discourage people from using the mark &quot;xerox&quot; in connection with photocopying using non-Xerox equipment. Similarly the maker feared that &quot;Kleenex&quot; would become a generic synonym for &quot;face tissue&quot; and took steps to avoid this. However, a single use would not cause this result, it would require widespread use amounting to a change in the language for such distinctive marks to lose protection. I strongly suspect that &quot;Harry Potter&quot; has been protected as a trademark in a number of countries. I am far more doubtful that &quot;aragogs&quot; has been, or even could be, protected as a trademark. The word &quot;aragogs&quot; is one fictional element in the HP books, but it is not used to label, identify, or advertise those books (or related products). Thus it is probably not protected. And even if it were, using such a term in the text of a work of fiction is probably not infringing I could write a mystery novel in which one of my characters has a Coke without seeking permission, and it would not be infringing the soft drink company's trademark. Unless the &quot;aragogs&quot; appear in the title, blurbs, or advertising of the fan novel, or are in some other way used to identify or advertise the novel, they would not infringe on a prior trademark of JKR's even if she has obtained one.
The following answer is based on US-law. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. If the book you read is in the public domain* you should be fine. Otherwise what you are doing is copyright infringement and probably not protected by fair use**. One of the rights granted to copyright holders is to control derivative works, and transference to different mediums, which is what your recordings would be. Under US law, whether an instance of copyright infringement is fair use is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, weighing four points: the purpose and character of one's use the nature of the copyrighted work what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of the copyrighted work In my non-lawyer evaluation, point 1 depends on what you do in your video (unless you monetize your Youtube video, in which case it is likely to be decided against you), but if you are merely reading the book out aloud, it is unlikely to be in your favor (although it may not be against you as an &quot;educational tool&quot;). Point 2 depends on what is being read, with a informative work (e.g. a textbook) being more likely to be fair use than a creative work (e.g. a novel). Point 3 depends on how much and what proportion of a work you use; since you are presumably reading a whole book, this would most likely be ruled against you. Point 4 would almost certainly be decided against you, as you are essentially creating an unauthorized audiobook. In summary, you can read a book aloud. You can record your reading of it for your personal use. You should NOT upload it to Youtube, or other sharing sites. *Note that different countries have differing rules on when a book enters the public domain, and since the internet crosses borders, multiple rule sets may apply.
Presumably you are referring to works commonly called "fan fiction." Under copyright law these might be considered "derivative works" and therefore subject to the rights of the copyright owner. However, they might also qualify for exemption from copyright enforcement under "fair use." It appears that the legality of fan fiction is not settled law, and the outcome of legal challenges have turned on facts specific to each case. Decent background on the question is summarized on wikipedia.
Yes, this could become an issue Trademark infringement occurs when you use another’s trademark in a way that could cause confusion to the consumer. Is it possible that people will be confused that your company produced a game of the same name? Yes. Is that trademark infringement? Possibly. Would a company like Bethesda take you to court to find out? Possibly. Can you avoid this risk by choosing a different name? Yes. Does this cost anything? No, as a new business your ‘brand’ has zero value right now. Should you choose a new name? Well, it’s your business - make a business decision.
Fair use does not apply to Trademark Fair Use is only available for copyright material. Trademarks are solely for determining the source of goods or services and not subject to Fair Use. Trademark allows Nominative Use Nominative use is naming the mark. It does not allow to use the mark itself. A flashlight for a Gameboy may say &quot;For GameBoy(TM)&quot;, akin to the NAKI Action Light: A replacement oil filter may say &quot;Fitting for Nissan Almera Tino (v10) 2000-2006 115 PS Diesel&quot;, or rather, they usually specify the exact OEM numbers and car models, like in the following excerpt: NEITHER may use the Nintendo, Gameboy, Nissan or Almera picture marks for the advertising. Do note, that NAKI didn't cover up the marks on their model Game Boy, which might or might not be a problem.
First, copyright means that permission from the author is generally required. The courts find three sorts of such permission: direct author-to-recipient explicit licensing (typical in the case of a book author to publisher relation), indirect licensing arising from platform usage (in using Stackexchange, you probably unknowingly click-agreed to allow me and everybody else to copy and redistribute your creations), and implicit licensing – where permission to use is reasonably inferrable, though not explicitly stated. Since the latter doesn't involve written-out statements of the conditions under which you are licensed to copy text, the courts don't rely heavily on implicit licensing. But implicit licensing is what makes it possible to legally read a web page without first signing an agreement. If we assume in your scenario that the author is fully aware that their responses are automatically distributed to various servers, then even in lieu of a platform license, an implicit license can be found. Second, irrespective of the desideratum of having permission, one is in the US allowed to copy without permission, for certain purposes known as &quot;fair use&quot;. This is a complicated area of legal analysis, where one has to weigh factors such as whether the content is artistic vs. factual, whether your use simply re-propagates vs. makes a comment, whether the use is for profit vs. free and educational, and whether the use has a negative effect on the market for the original work.