I’ve heard of a few people doing it, mostly the Adbuster readin’ Negativland listenin’ crowd. Or the paranoid no tax-payin’ crowd. But really, what good does it do? And how can you copyright your name/yourself? AFAIK, copyrights are given to creators, and well, cause and effect dictates that you can’t create yourself.
And just to violate copyright: WAYMOND FRANKLIN TURNER, MARTHA JUNE PULS, and UMESH SANUJA HEENDENIYA.
Also, the paranoid people who are afraid that someone will clone them from their genetic material that they carelessly left somewhere. I forgot about them.
WAG: To let them initiate lawsuits against people to harass them into paying for use of their name. No link atm, but within the last month I read about some guy like this who sued a judge in his case for something like $20,000 because the judge had used his name a number of times in his judgement.
Back in the day, copyright required publication. Unpublished materials did not qualify for federal copyright protection. Common law copyright protected such works. Publication is no longer required, and the law has been changed to include prior-existing common law copyrights under the statute, so common law copyrights no longer exist.
So, the person’s name would be analyzed under standard copyright. Presumably, the guy’s name would fall under a “literary work.” Assuming his parents are not the “authors” (e.g., he changed his name), and assuming a court case did not already address this question (my guess is that one has), assuming he would be able to show his name has at least a modicum of creativity (I have no idea how common a name UMESH SANUJA HEENDENIYA is), and assuming he was able to register in the copyright office (I doubt it since they say here http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp that “Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans” are “generally not eligible for federal copyright protection”) he might have a valid copyright. However, even if he did have a valid copyright on his name, I am almost certain that using his name to refer to him would be a fair use.
Trade marks are source identifiers for goods or services, and requires some level of use. You can use someone elses trademark as much as you want, as long as you are not atempting to sell goods/services under that trademark. Xerox. Xerox. Xerox. See. Nothing bad happened to me for using someone else’s trademark.
Funny. Has about the same legal significance as me saying that everyone who reads this post must send me $1.00. The fact that I said it doesn’t make it so.
I’ve seen cases where people have registered their names as trademarks, Billy Joel being the most notable that pops into my mind, to protect their names from being misused, but I don’t see how people are thinking a copyright can do the same.
The use of the phrase “common law copyright” and the references to trade names and marks make me think someone got this weird idea in his head one day, threw a bunch of legalese babble together, and decided he could pull a fast one. I wonder if anyone is making any money selling “advice” on how to do this…
cstamets, you’re likely on the money with that guess.
The folks who publish these adverts tend to be the “sovereign citizen” / “de-taxers” / “freemen” types, who have some very bizarre notions of how the legal system works. They think that there are special, hidden rules that only a few people know about, and if they properly invoke them, along with eye of newt and toe of frog, then the laws won’t apply to them (especially tax laws, but also more mundane matters like speeding laws).
Where do they get the ideas? Often from someone who offers a special “course” where for a mere $100 - $200 - $500 etc., they’re prepared to share their secret wisdom.
It’s all nonsense, of course, and as PencilPusher notes, there’s the problem that the statutes governing copyright don’t allow the copyright of names except in unusual circumstances, and there’s no such thing as common law copyright anymore. The courts have consistently held that these notices have no effect.
okay, so maybe they don’t actually use eye of newt and toe of frog, but you get the idea - it’s law as magic words.
There are some very confused people out there. The notion that a trademark (which I assume is what is being confused with a “copyrighted name”, seeing as you can’t copyright a name) cannot be used by other people is ridiculous - it kind of defeats the object of having a trademark!
“Yeah, I’d like some… er, some of that soft drink there. Yeah, the one in the red-and-white can. No, not that one, the other one, with the name that starts with a ‘C’…”
It’s quite clear that the person claiming copyright/trademark on his name is clueless about copyright and trademark.
There is no such thing as “common law copyright” and especially no “common law trademark.” You need to apply for a trademark at the trademark office. If you don’t apply, you don’t have one. And while you do have some copyright protection merely by creating a work, this does not apply to title or names (if it did, Robert B. Parker would owe me for “Playmates”).
Also, as others have mentioned, you can’t be stopped from using a trademark. Indeed, it is perfectly acceptable to Xerox to say, “He made a Xerox copy” (though they frown on “He xeroxed the article.”) Trademarks only prevent others from using the trademarked name to sell a product. The point is to keep someone other than the Coca Cola Company from manufacturing “Coke.” So the only way a trademark would have any effect for this guy is if you wrote an article and signed his name. It would have no effect if you said “Waymond Franklin Turner is clueless.”
Well now, if I have correctly navigated my way through that maelstrom of subordinate clauses, what this person is saying is that since copyrighting their name, they are no longer responsible for the debts accrued by their former, non-copyrighted, self. WTF?
Welll, I actually deal with people who copyright their names regulalry in an attempt to prevent my company from publishing information about them.
In the credit reporting business, we are regularly notified by individuals that they have copyrighted their name and therefor they want us to stop publishing their names on credit reports, or in databases, etc.
In short, copyrigthting your name does not work. You can’t effectively copyright your name. Essentially, this is what we tell them and have been telling them for decades.
People go to desperate measures to walk away from their credit history. Some agencies actually dupe people into believing that copyrighting your name can help with such goals as preventing the distribution of your credit data.
I think that is part of the issue: People scam others into helping them copyright their name as a way to achieve something. It’s a scam because it is not at all very effective in all the cases I’ve seen.
While I agree that the person refered to in the OP seems to confuse copyright and trade mark law, there is in fact a specific legal concept of ‘common law trade mark’. It exists in British law.
Is this the case you’re referring to? It was in the news earlier this month. This particular loon was on trial and claimed that anyone who used his name in court without his written permission owed him half a million dollars per occurrence. Predictably, that argument didn’t get him anywhere, either at trial or on appeal.
I’d like to copyright my first name “Pete”. Then whenever someone uses the term “For Pete’s sake” or “For the love of Pete”, I could collect royalties.
There was a case a few years ago where Todd McFarland, creator of “Spawn,” was successfully sued for appropriating a hockey player’s name for one of his characters. However, McFarland came close to admitting he deliberately stole the name, which is a whole lot different.
I think that these are some of the people who believe that the US government has turned all US citizens into collateral for European banks when the US went bankrupt. These people believe that a name in all caps represents this collateral human. What these people then do is file a UCC-1 security interest in lower case letters (the individual human) securing an interest in the all caps person (the collateral). In this manner, they somehow believe that they own the assets that the collateral human represents. As luck would have it, I have a number of court filings in my right-hand desk drawer from one of their brethren. The documents are usually good for a chuckle.
Somehow, they are conflating two different areas of law and applying both to situations that these laws specifically don’t cover.
