Tag: Ruth Carter

  • Arizona Fantasy Gaming Bill Fails

    Fantasy Football League 1 Draft by Jay Thompson from Flickr
    Fantasy Football League 1 Draft by Jay Thompson from Flickr

    Arizona lawmakers have, once again, shown how lame they are. Earlier this year they approved the anti-gay SB 1062 which was thankfully vetoed by soon-to-be-former Governor Brewer. This time they killed SB 1468, which would have legalized fantasy sports.

    Arizona is one of a handful of states where fantasy sports are illegal. Sometimes this means that Arizonans can’t participate in fantasy sports if they admit their true location or they’re allowed to play but they can’t accept prizes if they win – even if there’s no fee to play or the prize is as simple as a t-shirt.

    Here’s what’s super lame – Under federal law, fantasy sports are legal!  Under the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) fantasy sports aren’t gambling because each participant’s team is made up of players from multiple teams and the results are based on the participant’s knowledge and skill. I can speak from my limited experience playing in the Deadliest Catch fantasy game that it definitely takes knowledge and skills. Unfortunately fantasy gaming is regulated at the state level so each state has the option to say that fantasy games are illegal.

    Apparently SB 1468 was killed due to the influence of the Arizona Indian Gaming Association. They were afraid that legalizing fantasy games would negatively impact the tribal gaming compacts. I can understand that the tribal casinos want to have a monopoly on gambling in the state but I don’t see how fantasy sports would hurt them. I doubt that people will give up black jack and slot machines for a fantasy league. I think they’re afraid that people would start fantasy gaming businesses that could create competition for the casinos but I have serious doubts that people who love to hang out in casinos will give that up for fantasy gaming.

    Technically fantasy gaming is a Class 5 felony in Arizona, and anyone convicted could face at least 6 months in jail and up to a $150,000 fine. As far as I know no one has been charged or convicted of violating this law and law enforcement isn’t concerned with pursuing these “criminals.” So it’s a law on paper, but in reality it’s just lame. Hopefully lawmakers will legalize fantasy games next session.

    If you want to chat more about this issue, connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Can You Trademark & Copyright a Phrase?

    What's not wrong with PIPA or SOPA? by opensourceway from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    What’s not wrong with PIPA or SOPA? by opensourceway from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    I saw this tweet come through my feed over the weekend.


    It made me grin, and then my big dorky legal brain kicked in and had to analyze the possibilities.

    Can You Trademark a Phrase?
    It depends.

    If a phrase is being used as a tagline or slogan for a company or product – think “M’m! M’m! Good!” for Campbell’s Soup or “Just Do It” for Nike – then yes, you can trademark it. If it’s just a phrase that’s not connected to a product or service, then it’s not trademarkable.

    The purpose of the trademark is to differentiate similar products and services from each other so consumers know what they’re buying. When you register a trademark, you have to tell the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office what you’re claiming as your trademark (name, logo, slogan, etc.) and on what product or service you’re using it. A cool phrase without a product or service is just a phrase. It can’t be protected with a trademark.

    Can You Copyright a Phrase?
    Probably not.

    The purpose of a copyright is to entice authors and artists to create works by giving them the exclusive right to control where their work is copied, distributed, displayed, performed, and what derivative works can be made from it. They have these rights the moment the original work is “fixed in any tangible medium.”  A phrase is often too short to be original so it doesn’t qualify for a copyright, even if it is fixed in a tangible medium like on paper or a digital file. If a person had a copyright in a phrase, they could stop others from using it in their work and it would create a big mess.

    Think about Paris Hilton and “that’s hot.” She does have a trademark that phrase in conjunction with “multimedia entertainment services” and alcoholic beverages. She can stop you from using “that’s hot” as a slogan or product name in those industries, but she can’t stop you from saying “that’s hot” in general.

    What about “Terminally Soulless Douche Canoe?”
    “Terminally Soulless Douche Canoe” is an awesome phrase. You could use that as a company name, product name, or slogan if you want, but you have to be able to identify what industry that company or product is in. Unfortunately, even though I think it’s highly creative, it’s too short to get a copyright by itself. If it was part of a larger work – such as an essay, blog post, poem, book, or integrated into a work of art – the artist would likely have copyright protection for the larger work, but probably not for the phrase alone.

    For more on the difference between trademark and copyright:

    If you want to chat more about trademarks and copyrights, connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , ,

  • I’m Doing a Google Hangout On Air at ABA TechShow 2014

    Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers for blog postI’m excited to announce that I’ll be doing a Meet the Author talk via Google Hangout On Air at the ABA TechShow 2014. I’ll be talking about my new book, The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers.

    My talk will be on Friday, March 28th. It officially starts at 8:15 a.m. Pacific Time (10:15 a.m. Central Time) and will last for 45 minutes.  (We’ll be on starting at 8:00 a.m. making sure everything is ready to go.)

    Because I’m doing my presentation via Google Hangout, anyone can attend – even if you’re not attending the conference. Here’s the link for the event. I hope you can join us!

    I’m usually asked to do a lecture when I speak at events, but this time I want to talk about what you want to talk about and answer your questions. There will be a button on the Hangout where you can ask a question or you can tweet questions at me using the hashtags #RuthBook and #ABATechShow. (Feel free to tweet questions in advance too!)

    If you are attending TechShow, my book is available at the ABA bookstore booth in the exhibit hall. I’ve heard all books are on sale for 15% off and your shwag bag has a coupon for additional savings.

    This will be my first time doing a presentation at a conference remotely and my first experience leading a Google Hangout On Air. I look forward to chatting with everyone at TechShow any everyone else who will be watching from sunny Phoenix.

    If you’re looking for other ways to connect with me, you can do so  on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , ,

  • Book Special for Captain Kirk’s Future Birthday

    Dave Checking out the Perseid Meteor Shower at 10,000 Feet by Dave Dugdale from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Dave Checking out the Perseid Meteor Shower at 10,000 Feet by Dave Dugdale from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    For anyone who hasn’t seen my YouTube channel, I’m a geek. In particular, I’m a great big Trekkie. I love the show and the movies. I have a uniform and I wear it at conventions (and whenever I want). And I try to do something special every year in honor of the future birthdate of Captain Kirk (March 22, 2233).

    Legal Side of Blogging Book CoverEarlier this year, I enrolled my ebook – The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed – in KDP Select on Amazon. This is a program that’s available to people who only publish their work on Amazon. One of the perks is it lets you run a promotion on your book. I’ve never run a special on my book before so I thought I’d give it a whirl and see how it goes.

    I had to make the arrangement weeks in advance so I decided to run my book special in honor of Captain Kirk’s future birthday. If you’ve been looking for an excuse to get your hands on this book, here it is – from March 17th until the 23rd, my book will be on sale for $1.99, down from its usual $3.99. If you want a copy for yourself or if you want to gift a copy to the blogger friend in your life, now is the time to do it.

    This book covers common questions related to blogging including copyright, trademark, privacy, and defamation. It’s written in an easy-to-understand style expressly for serious bloggers with as many direct answers as possible (which is hard to get out of a lawyer). All of these lessons apply equally to other social media platforms so it’s a must-read for anyone involved in blogging, content creation, or online marketing.

    I hope you enjoy it!  If you want to chat more about the legalities of blogging, you can connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , ,

  • New Book – The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers

    The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers
    The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers

    Having a blog is still awesome. Getting in trouble because of your block isn’t. When you’re lawyer, staying out of trouble when you have a blog is a little more complicated.

    I became interested in the legalities of blogging when I started my personal blog, The Undeniable Ruth, in 2010. I have a lot of friends who are outspoken online and I wanted to know how far we could push the envelope before one of us crossed the line. That became a blog series, which inspired a paper for my Cyberspace Law class, and became the basis of my first book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. I tried to write as a blogger for other bloggers – in English instead of legalese. I tried to give as many straight answers as possible in an arena where the law hasn’t kept up with technology.

    When I signed on to write The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers, I wanted to address all the common legal questions any blogger would have and also address some issues that are specific to the legal profession.  I added sections about the type of disclaimer every legal blogger should have on their site and under what circumstances lawyers can blog about their own cases. Lawyers also have to be mindful of their state’s ethical rules about lawyer advertising. This shouldn’t be that big of an issue because if your blog constitute advertising, you’re probably doing it wrong.  The book also includes practical advice on how to respond to people who leave comments on your site that ask for legal advice – despite the fact that your disclaimer clearly states that anyone in that situation should schedule a consult with a lawyer in their community.

    I also added three appendices that list the state and federal laws that apply to blogging, online resources related to the legalities of blogging, and a list of recommended books about blogging and social media marketing.

    One of my favorite parts of this book is the afterward written by anonymous legal blogger The Namby Pamby – a man who has personally experience blogging about his cases with the added burden of keeping his identity a secret. His blog is hilarious, and I loved hearing his take on my work.

    After the book came out, I had the pleasure of talking about the book on the JD Blogger Podcast. Host John Skiba said that he liked the book can be used as a resource for lawyers with cases that are related to the internet because it’s filled with citations to the applicable cases and laws.

    If you want your own copy, The Legal Side of Blogging for Lawyers is available through the American Bar Association.

    If you want to chat more about the legalities of blogging, you can connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , , ,

  • How to Register a Trademark with the USPTO

    USPTO Seal by cytech from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    USPTO Seal by cytech from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    I’ve had several people ask me what is involved in registering a trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Your trademarks include the names, logos, tag lines, and anything else you put on your products and services to inform customers about the source and quality of what they’re buying.

    Once you have a trademark registered with the USPTO, you have the exclusive right to use your trademark on your goods or services anywhere in the U.S.  If anyone tries to start similar business or sell a similar product with trademark that is too similar to yours, you can make them change it. The only companies that can have the same trademark as you are companies who were using the same trademark before you registered yours with the USPTO (i.e., the Burger King situation) or companies that use a similar trademark but on a product that is so different from yours that no one would think that they are owned by the same company (i.e., Delta Faucets, Delta Dental, and Delta Airlines).

    Here is the process that I go through to register a client’s trademark with the USPTO:

    1. Clarify what the trademark is and what products or services it’s being used on. You can only claim rights to a trademark that you’re using in commerce or expect to use within six months.

    2. Determine if the desired trademark is trademarkable – not every trademark is. Your trademark can’t be the product itself.

    3. Check the USPTO database to make sure no one else has registered the same trademark on a similar product as my client’s.

    4. Evaluate if others are using the same trademark without registering it with the USPTO. Once your have a registered trademark, these companies can keep using it in their established geographic market, but they can’t expand without rebranding.

    5. Complete the USPTO trademark application which includes determining the best description of the product and which class(es) of products we’ll be applying for. The USPTO charges a fee for each class of products you register the mark for.

    6. Submit the application to the USPTO with the filing fee.

    7. Wait three or four months for the USPTO to get around to reviewing your application. Yes, their backlog is that big. Once I submit an application, I typically check on it at the beginning of each month to see if it’s been assigned to a reviewing attorney at the USPTO.

    8. Respond to any Office Actions if we receive any from the USPTO. An Office Action is a communication from the reviewing attorney that says that there’s a problem with the application. They may request clarification, a disclaimer, or claim that the desired mark can’t be registered. Depending on what the USPTO and my client wants will determine how I respond and how much work will be required.

    9. Once the USPTO approves the mark, they will publish it on its official gazette. This puts everyone on notice that your mark is about to be approved. If no one objects within thirty days, your trademark will be registered.

    You should expect the entire registration process to take at least eight months, but it could be longer. Once you have a registered trademark, you can use the ® next to it. You will continue to have your trademark rights as long as you’re using it in commerce. The USPTO requires that you send in update affidavits periodically that verifies that you’re using the trademark. If you don’t use your trademark for three consecutive years, it will be considered “abandoned” and anyone can use it.

    If you’re looking for more information about what a trademark is and the benefits of registering it with the USPTO, I made a video about it.

    If you want to chat more about trademark registration, you can connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , , , ,

  • Arizona’s Latest Anti-LGBT Attack: HB 2481

    rainbow flag : banner, harvey milk plaza, castro, san francisco (2012) by torbakhopper from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    rainbow flag : banner, harvey milk plaza, castro, san francisco (2012) by torbakhopper from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    There was much rejoicing last week when Governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062. This bill would have allowed anyone to refuse to do business with a patron based on their religious beliefs. The ultra conservatives said they were trying to protect their freedom of religion but most of us saw it for the bigoted attack against the LGBT community that it was. The outcry from the business community was fast and severe which is why I think this bill was shut down.

    But now the Arizona legislature is at it again! Now they’re trying to pass a law (HB 2481) that would allow clergy members and justices of the peace to refuse to perform marriages if it violates their “sincerely held” religious beliefs. This is obviously a bill that is aimed at allowing officiants to legally refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

    This bill is fucked up on so many levels. Let’s start with the fact that we have the separation of church and state. To be legally married, you need a valid marriage license and a marriage ceremony performed by a legal officiant. If you get married in the church without a license, that’s outside the realm of state-recognized marriages and has nothing to do with this bill.

    A member of the clergy can already refuse to marry a couple in their church, synagogue, temple, etc. if the relationship violates the religion. And there are plenty of religions and clergy members that say homosexuality is wrong. Besides, why would you want to get married by someone who doesn’t approve of your relationship? Logically speaking, this situation will rarely happen and if it does, the clergy already have a valid reason to decline. We don’t need a law about this.

    Remember same-sex marriage is not legal in Arizona so no state official can perform a legal same-sex ceremony anyway.  This law is nothing but a pre-emptive strike against the expectation that same-sex marriage will be legal in Arizona some day and there may be judges and justices of the peace who are asked to perform legal (non-religious) marriage ceremonies that they disagree with. I’m sure they think there are straight couples who go to City Hall to get married where they disagree with what the couple is doing, but they suck it up and do their job.

    When a judge or justice of the peace is asked to officiate these marriages, they are a state actor, not a clergy member. If they are uncomfortable with this part of their job, they should suck it up or quit.

    And in case you didn’t know, Arizona allows people who are ordained online to perform legal marriages so you can have the friend of your choosing perform your ceremony.

    Please contact your representative and tell them to vote No on HB 2481. We’ve already told our legislature once that we don’t want them to legalize discrimination. Let’s hope they get the message this time and stop trying to pass discriminatory legislation. And remember the names of the elected officials who are voting in favor of these bigoted laws so you know who not to vote for when they’re up for re-election.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , , ,

  • Be Leery of Free Image Sites: You May Inadvertently Commit Copyright Infringement

    Palm Sunset by Lawrence Rayner from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Palm Sunset by Lawrence Rayner from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    I cringe every time I hear people says they use Google Images to find pictures for their websites because I know most of them are using anything they find in the search results without adjusting the settings to only show images that give them permission to use them. And I love it when people, especially entrepreneurs, use Creative Commons, seek out other sources for free images, or purchase a license to use images from iStock. Unfortunately, there are times when business owners think they are doing everything right, and they don’t realize they’re not until they’re threatened with legal action.

    I have heard about a few situations over the years when someone has stolen images from a photographer and made their work available for free without the artist’s permission. Sometimes the person who steals the original image cuts off the photographer’s watermark or signature before posting them online. These photo thieves may post these images on their own site as free images or wallpaper. You might download this work and use it on your site, thinking that you are acting within the limits of the law.

    When the photographer realizes that their work has been stolen, they’ll probably be angry – and they might send letters than demand payment or threaten legal action to every site where their work has appeared without their permission. And rightfully so – as the copyright holder, they have exclusive right to control where their work is copied and distributed. The fact that you didn’t know that you were doing anything wrong will not absolve you. If you’ve used an image where the watermark or other copyright notice was removed, they could accuse you of committing copyright infringement (punishable by up to $150K in statutory damages per violation) and removing the copyright management information to facilitate the infringement (punishable by up to an additional $25K per violation).

    So what do you do if you receive one of these demand letters? Contact a copyright lawyer immediately. You want to verify that the claim is legitimate and strategically plan your response. If the claim is legit, the artist likely wants you to pay their licensing fee and/or stop using their image. It’s probably best to let your lawyer respond on your behalf but if you choose to respond to the letter yourself, it’s a good idea to have your lawyer at least review your response before you send it to make sure that it’s thoughtful and reasonable.

    What should you do to avoid this type of problem in the first place? Be leery of free wallpaper sites. I have more faith in images I find through Creative Commons – though it is possible that someone could steal another’s image and make it available with a Creative Commons license. You can always run the image you want to run the image through the Google Image search engine to see where else it is being used online. That may help you determine if the image might be stolen. If there ever is an image that you want to use on your site and you’re unsure if you have permission to use it, explicitly ask the artist for their permission.

    If you want to learn more about copyright issues on the internet, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. It has several chapters dedicated to copyright. You can connected with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , ,

  • New Trial in Crystal Cox Defamation Case – What Does It Mean for Bloggers?

    First Amendment to the US Constitution by elPadawan from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    First Amendment to the US Constitution by elPadawan from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Crystal Cox will get a new trial for the defamation lawsuit that was filed against her. Cox calls herself an “investigative blogger” and she wrote a blog post where she accused Oregon bankruptcy attorney Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC of committing “fraud, corruption, money-laundering and other illegal activities.” Padrick sued Cox for defamation and an Oregon court awarded him $2.5 million in damages.

    In general, defamation requires a false statement about a person communicated to a third party that hurts that person’s reputation. Based on this definition, it’s easy to see how a blogger could be accused of defamation if someone suspects the blogger is lying about them in a post. The court applies different standards for different situations involving situations which will affect whether the author has committed defamation and what damages can be awarded.

    A court may award compensatory damages to make up for the person’s damaged reputation and punitive damages to punish the person who committed the defamation.

    Here are the three standards that can apply in a defamation case.

    • Defamation of a public person: The alleged victim must prove that the author knew or should have known they were lying when they made the statement in question – only compensatory damages available.
    • Defamation of a private person regarding a manner of public concern: Punitive damages are available in addition to compensatory damages if the alleged victim can prove that the author was negligent in making the statement.
    • Defamation of a private person regarding a matter that is not of public concern: Compensatory and punitive damages are available if the alleged victim can show that the statement was false and damaged their reputation.

    It appears the lower court applied the standard for defamation of a private person regarding a matter that is not of public concern and the court of appeals ruled that they should have used the standard for defamation of a private person regarding a manner of public concern because the public has an interest regarding whether an attorney is corrupt and committing fraud. So the parties will have to settle the case between themselves or have a new trial and use the correct standard. But note, there is no dispute about whether the statement in question was defamatory, only what standard the court is supposed to use to decide the case.

    Some people are calling this ruling a huge victory for bloggers because it states that the same defamation standards for journalists apply to blogging – and I’m going to respectfully disagree.  The landmark defamation cases may have started with journalists, but we don’t have different defamation laws for journalists and everyone else. (If this were a Shield Law case, it would be different.) There have been other defamation cases against non-journalists where the court applied the same standards. The fact that this might be the first time a court has said that bloggers can write about matters of public concern is an indicator of how few defamation cases go to trial more than anything else. No real new information has come out of this ruling by the Ninth Circuit.

    This case is a good reminder about where you can be sued because of your blog. If you do something wrong via your blog and you get sued, the alleged victim is going to sue you in their state and under their state’s laws. In this case, Cox was living in Montana when she made the original statements and she had to travel to Oregon to defend herself under Oregon’s laws.

    If you want more information about internet defamation, please check out my book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. It has an entire chapter dedicated to online defamation. You can connected with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , , , , ,