Jack Daniels, Mickey Mouse, and Andy Warhol Walk Into a Bar

In this month’s episode, we’re talking about Jack Daniels, Mickey Mouse, Andy Warhol, Jason Voorhees, Winnie-the-Pooh, Lizzo, and WallStreetBets … What do they have to do with patents you might fairly be wondering? Honestly, not much.

Patents are our focus in our business and in this podcast, so we devote a lot of air time to talking about protecting ideas and inventions, but in the realm of intellectual property, patents have some pretty close cousins. In thinking more broadly about creating the largest possible moat with your IP, you also need to be considering what our guest, Mallory King, refers to as “brand protection” – or the copyrights, trademarks, and contracts necessary to protect your brand’s rights and assets.

Copyrights and trademarks in particular have seen a lot of limelight this year involving some of the biggest brands and pop culture icons. At the same time, major IP rights questions are erupting around the use of generative AI systems like ChatGPT. In addition to covering the basics necessary to help get you booted up, we’re going to use these high profile topics and Supreme Court cases as a vehicle to get a deeper understanding of copyrights and trademarks and some of the sharpest corners you should be aware of when managing your own brand protection.

** Topics Highlights **'

⦿ Copyright and Trademark Basics
⦿ Work made-for-hire and Friday the 13th
⦿ Jack Daniels Properties v. VIP Products
⦿ Brand protection expiration, Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey, and Steamboat Willie
⦿ Lizzo's "100% That Bitch" trademark appeal
⦿ r/WallStreetBets trademark dispute with Reddit
⦿ Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith
⦿ Generative AI: Humans as authors and fair use implications

** Mossoff Minute **

This month's Mossoff Minute, featuring Professor Adam Mossoff, looks at the introduction of the 2023 Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, its biggest criticisms, and why it needs to be passed. 

** Connect With Our Guest **

Mallory King is the owner and attorney at Breathe Brand Protection, PLLC, a boutique law firm specializing in all things brand protection. Based in Traverse City, Michigan, Mallory is passionate about helping entrepreneurs and small businesses protect their most valuable brand assets, both locally and nationwide. You can learn more about Mallory and Breathe Brand Protection at https://www.breathe.law/

** Follow Aurora Patents **

⦿ Home: https://www.aurorapatents.com/
⦿ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuroraPatents
⦿ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/aurora-cg/
⦿ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aurorapatents/
⦿ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aurorapatents/
⦿ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@aurorapatents
⦿ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@aurorapatents/

Thanks for listening! 

---
Note: The contents of this podcast do not constitute legal advice.

Transcript

00:05 G'day and welcome to the Patently Strategic Podcast, where we discuss 
      all things at the intersection of business, technology, and patents.  
      This podcast is a monthly discussion amongst experts in the field of  
      patenting. It is for inventors, founders, and IP professionals alike, 
      established or aspiring. And in this month's episode, we're talking   
      about Jack Daniels, mickey Mouse, andy Warhol, jason Voorhees, lizzo  
      and Wall Street Betts.                                                
                                                                            
00:27 What do they have to do with patents, you might fairly be wondering?  
      Honestly, not much. Patents are our focus in our business, and in this
      podcast, we devote a lot of air time to talking about protecting ideas
      and inventions. But in the realm of intellectual property, patents    
      have some pretty close cousins that we'd like to discuss today.       
                                                                            
00:44 In thinking more broadly about creating the largest possible moat with
      your intellectual property, you also need to be considering what our  
      guest today refers to as brand protection, or the copyrights,         
      trademarks, and contracts necessary to protect your brand's rights and
      assets. Copyrights and trademarks, in particular, have seen a lot of  
      limelight this year, involving some of the biggest brands and pop     
      culture icons. At the same time, major IP rights questions are        
      erupting around the use of generative AI systems like Chat GPT.       
                                                                            
01:12 In addition to covering some of the basics necessary to help get you  
      booted up, we're going to use these high profile topics in Supreme    
      Court cases as a vehicle to get a deeper understanding of copyrights  
      and trademarks and some of the sharpest corners you should be aware of
      when managing your own brand protection. Since this is not our bread  
      and butter, we've enlisted some great help today. We're very pleased  
      to be joined by Mallory King, a good friend of the podcast, who's also
      helped us with some of our own brand protection, including copyrights 
      for our beloved Sonic the Patent mascot.                              
                                                                            
01:40 Mallory is the owner and attorney at Breathe Brand Protection Plc, a  
      boutique law firm specializing in all things brand protection. Based  
      in Traverse City, Michigan, Mallory is passionate about helping         
      entrepreneurs and small businesses protect their most valuable brand  
      assets, both locally and nationwide. Mallory received both her JD and 
      BA in Political Science from Michigan State University, but nobody's  
      perfect, so we don't hold that against her.                           
                                                                            
02:04 Go blue. You can learn about Mallory and her brand protection legal   
      practice at Breathe Law. We'll be sure to include that link in the    
      show.                                                                 
                                                                            
02:11 Notes. Before jumping into our interview with Mallory, we'd like to   
      take you to the second installment of The Mossoff Minute, a new       
      monthly segment that builds on our Patent Wars episode and features   
      short conversations with Professor Adam Mossoff, providing updates and
      quick takes on movements in patent reform, significant court rulings, 
      innovation policy happenings, and occasional Star Wars references.    
      This month, we discussed the introduction of the 2023 Patent          
      Eligibility Restoration Act, its biggest criticisms, and why it needs 
      to be passed.                                                         
                                                                            
02:39 First question is just we attended a recent US. Inventor. Call with   
      Judge Michelle.                                                       
                                                                            
02:45 Judge Michelle super generous with his time. It was a very long, super
      constructive call. And I don't know that U.                           
                                                                            
02:52 S. Inventors, like, officially taken a position on this yet. They     
      teased that they might be soon, but like I said, super constructive   
      conversation.                                                         
                                                                            
03:01 But there were some lingering concerns. So the judge said that I think
      his quote was, process is the tricky one. This version got rid of the 
      term non technological, which was definitely one of the bigger hang   
      ups that we talked about with the prior version.                      
                                                                            
03:16 Judge tried to clarify and he said that if a computer or machine is   
      involved, that it's essentially eligible. But if the process is done  
      with pen, paper or mind, that maybe not. The rationale he gave is sort
      of like trying to set aside things that are cultural, artistic or     
      aesthetic in nature and that they're really business with one, too.   
                                                                            
03:39 But they're trying to draw this line between things that are technical
      and non technological in nature without necessarily using that term   
      non technological because on the basis that the patent system was     
      historically meant to cover things that touch on technology. But there
      were some pretty reasonable concerns that were expressed around       
      potential for unintended consequences. Right.                         
                                                                            
04:02 The phrase keeps coming up with process language because things like  
      the BCD algorithm, this was an example of something that was highly   
      technological in nature, but that could be thought of in the mind and 
      done on paper. Right. So, just given the volume of discussion and the 
      questions that arose from US.                                         
                                                                            
04:23 Inventor members during this particular call, I think that            
      demonstrates that there's still some room left for interpretation     
      around these things. And we know that's where the courts have gone    
      wild in the past, it's a long lead up. But the question is, are these 
      concerns sort of just misunderstandings or are they really like just  
      sort of the inevitable casualties of compromise and getting to a      
      system that's infinitely better than what we have today? Yeah, that's 
      a really great question, and let me reframe it a little bit by first  
      recognizing and identifying that we have a serious problem in our     
      patent system.                                                        
                                                                            
05:10 The US. Supreme Court has turned our patent system on its head and has
      reversed decades, if not centuries, of a general approach within the  
      United States of securing new innovations in the cutting edge areas of
      the US. Innovation economy.                                           
                                                                            
05:29 Processes were part of that and a very important part of that in the  
      Industrial revolution and even in the biopharmaceutical revolution of 
      the 20th century. And they continued to be in the biotech revolution  
      and the high tech revolution of the late 20th and now 21st century. So
      we do definitely have a problem.                                      
                                                                            
05:49 It is a very difficult area to identify with analytical precision and 
      conceptual precision. Exactly. Well, if you're protecting steps that  
      do something to achieve something, which is a human innovation in     
      itself and as we've talked about in the past, was a improper          
      innovation of the founders to recognize as something that should be a 
      patentable invention as distinct from and refusal to recognize that in
      England and in other countries.                                       
                                                                            
06:24 It's important nonetheless to recognize that we should continue to try
      to protect these issues. And so people who are concerned about that   
      there might be some restriction or undue restriction on the ability   
      for people to obtain process patents, that's a legitimate concern if  
      they have that concern. But I don't think the concern in this context 
      is coming from the right place in the sense of legislation will never 
      be bulletproof.                                                       
                                                                            
06:50 You can't write a piece of legislation that can never be              
      misinterpreted by courts or misapplied by courts or even the US.      
      Supreme Court. At the end of the day, if that's your standard, we can 
      only enact a bill that will provide us with 100% certainty that a     
      court, whether a district court, whether the Court of Appeals for the 
      Federal Circuit or whether the US.                                    
                                                                            
07:14 Supreme Court, will never ever be able to misinterpret this, well,    
      that can never happen, and we would never have legislation. Now, maybe
      that's a good thing. Maybe people don't want Congress to be enacting  
      laws and frankly, I take that position with respect to a lot of areas,
      but we do need Congress to enact patent laws because there isn't any  
      patent law.                                                           
                                                                            
07:33 We don't have congress enacting patent statutes so they can't be our  
      standard with respect to know what you try to do is you try to address
      that and you try to cabin in as much as possible by writing precise   
      statutes and setting forth now what has become a normal practice,     
      which is findings in the statute, because that makes it very clear    
      what Congress and enacting the statute means in the actual statutory  
      language itself, which is really important because you don't want     
      courts engaging in shenanigans by picking and choosing pieces from    
      legislative history or offhand comments by particular senators or     
      congresspersons as to what they think the legislation meant. Because  
      congress enacts the legislation. And if the legislation includes      
      findings, then that is part and parcel of the public meaning of that  
      statute.                                                              
                                                                            
08:35 So I worry that there's kind of this concern about perfection in      
      enacting legislation that is driving some of the criticisms of patent 
      reform legislation more generally. And that kind of classic adage of  
      letting the perfect become the enemy of the good is really undermining
      the ability for us to actually enact legitimate, necessary patent     
      reform legislation because the Patent Eligibility Risk Restoration Act
      is really important. By and large, it is the best piece of proposed   
      reform we have at the moment, and I don't see any others.             
                                                                            
09:20 And unless someone has an alternative bill to introduce that actually 
      is better, then we need to go with the legislation that we have. And  
      the legislation that we have is pretty good. Now, are there aspects of
      it I don't like yet? I think it's a little too detailed, or more      
      precisely, I think it's too much detailed.                            
                                                                            
09:41 I prefer kind of more general, broad language like you see in the 1952
      Patent Act. But notice people could have the same criticisms of that  
      general, broad language that they have of the current Patent          
      Eligibility Restoration Act. Oh, that allows for shenanigans by courts
      because it's too broad.                                               
                                                                            
09:58 Right. And so you can kind of see how senators feel like they're      
      caught in a situation where it's no win for them, right. If they write
      legislation that's too broad, they get attacked.                      
                                                                            
10:09 That doesn't actually cabin in the discretion of courts. So they try  
      to be more precise, and then they get criticism from people like me   
      saying, you're doing too detailed statutes and you're not covering it.
      And they still get the criticism from the people who are saying, this 
      still doesn't prevent courts from engaging in shenanigans because at  
      the end of the day, you can never fully prevent that from happening if
      judges really want to do it.                                          
                                                                            
10:33 But what you can do is, at the core, make clear what inventions are   
      patentable and are not patentable, and the Patent Eligibility         
      Restoration Act achieves that in the best way possible in our current 
      context. And so for that reason, I think we should support it. Until  
      or unless someone actually has introduced a piece of legislation that 
      is better actual legislation, introduced co sponsors that is better   
      and demonstrably better, that isn't susceptible to the exact same     
      criticisms that are being made against the patent eligibility         
      restoration, then I think we need to talk about why we should be      
      enacting the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act.                      
                                                                            
11:19 It's always easy to harp on and criticize on the edges. It's not the  
      edge cases that should be driving you. What should be driving you is, 
      does this address the core issue that you're concerned about? And what
      are we concerned about? You can't get patents in biotech right now on 
      DNA and on diagnostic tests and all the things that have wrought our  
      incredible biotech revolution and have made medical treatments that   
      were thought of as pure science fiction even just 20 years ago, that  
      are now standard today.                                               
                                                                            
11:33 You can't get patents on high tech innovations, on computer software  
      and CGI, and on AI. Now AI is starting to be held to be invalid       
      because, oh, that's just human thought. And meanwhile, you are getting
      patents on these things in China and Europe.                          
                                                                            
12:10 So where do we want to be as the United States? Do we want to be the  
      leader in biotech, in high tech and AI and automated cars and all     
      these things, or in five G or six G? Or do we want China and Europe to
      lead on these things by where they secure to their innovators these   
      types of new innovations? I think this is a fundamental choice that we
      have to face and recognize. And I think the Pura Act, as it's come to 
      be called, addresses this, addresses this quite well, at the end of   
      the day, we need to reform the patent system. We need this important  
      reform.                                                               
                                                                            
12:50 It's not going to come from the US supreme Court, which has now denied
      well over 50 cert petitions to ask it to reconsider its application of
      what we now refer to as the Mayo Alice or the Alice Mayo Framework.   
      And so the only last place it can come from is Congress. And Congress 
      is doing its job, just like it did its job in 1952 in overruling the  
      flash of creative genius tests that was manufactured by, I believe,   
      Justice Douglas, that made it impossible for people to get inventions 
      under what was then known as the invention test, and becomes known    
      after 1952 as the nonobvious inquiry.                                 
                                                                            
13:28 We're also publishing clips from the Mossov Minute as short form      
      videos on Instagram reels, YouTube shorts, and even TikTok, at least  
      until we're shut out by Big Tech or the Chinese government. You can   
      check out these shorts and follow us at Aurora patents on all three   
      platforms and be on the lookout next month for some great analysis on 
      the recently introduced Prevail Act. Now, without further ado, here's 
      our conversation on Brand Protection with Mallory King.               
                                                                            
13:52 Thanks for joining us today, Mallory. Thank you so much for having me,
      Josh and Ashley, it's a pleasure to join you. Didn't even fight back  
      on the you know, I would say go green, go white, but we can all be    
      friends, we can all be right.                                         
                                                                            
14:13 So, you know, we're hoping to cover a lot of ground today. You don't  
      get to say this often, but it's been a very busy and especially poppy 
      year for copyrights and trademarks. Lots of juicy topics to get into  
      with Jack Daniels, Andy Warhol, the Mouse, AI taking over the world,  
      all these things just really being the tip of the iceberg.            
                                                                            
14:32 But before we get into all that, we think it would be helpful to lay  
      down some groundwork on the basics of copyrights and trademarks to    
      help anyone in the audience who's newer to those IP asset classes.    
      Awesome. Thanks, Josh.                                                
                                                                            
14:44 So mallory I think it would be helpful and kind of was some of the    
      original inspiration for this episode was to kind of give everybody a 
      good 30,000 foot level view of what copyrights and trademarks are and 
      what they're designed to protect, what rights they give to their      
      creators. And then, obviously, some good examples of each of these.   
      Absolutely.                                                           
                                                                            
15:06 And I think starting with the basics is a great place, especially     
      because, as you know, with patent, the intellectual property phase can
      be quite complex. And so with copyright, this is what protects        
      artistic works fixed in a tangible medium of expression. So you're    
      going to think of books, plays, music, both the notes and the lyrics, 
      photographs, fashion designs, paintings, jewelry, graphic designs, TV 
      shows, movies, blog posts, social media feeds, et cetera.             
                                                                            
15:37 Anything that is being created physically and put out there           
      artistically, notably the one exception is that you can't copyright an
      idea because this is something that is intangible and not fixed in a  
      medium of expression. So with your copyright and as a copyright owner,
      you're given several exclusive rights to that work, which includes to 
      reproduce, distribute, display, perform and or create derivative works
      of that copyright. And conversely, trademarks protect words, slogans  
      and or logos that are used or intended to be used in association with 
      goods or services.                                                    
                                                                            
16:24 So a trademark in and of itself is meant to be a source identifier of 
      goods and services. So the trademark has to be used in association    
      with those goods and services. And so this is where a lot of people   
      can get tripped up and even some of my clients who come to me, they   
      don't quite understand that the trademark has to be that source       
      identifier.                                                           
                                                                            
16:44 So for instance, you can't just put a trademark on a shirt and have   
      that be protectable as a trademark. That would be what is called a    
      merely ornamental use of a trademark. Rather you have to establish use
      of that trademark in association with shirts.                         
                                                                            
17:01 So this is either by having a website where your trademark is featured
      and you're selling the shirts or sticking a tag on the shirt that has 
      the trademark so that they know the trademark is the source of that   
      shirt. This is what we call a specimen of use in the trademark world  
      and it's imperative to getting trademark protection. And like         
      copyright, as a trademark owner, you also are given exclusive rights  
      to the trademark specifically on a nationwide basis since it is       
      federal.                                                              
                                                                            
17:36 And also you have the right to prevent others from using a confusingly
      similar trademark in association with similar goods and services. So  
      as a trademark owner, it's actually your duty to enforce your         
      trademark rights against infringement. Otherwise you risk your        
      trademark becoming less strong in the marketplace.                    
                                                                            
17:57 And when you're looking at trademarks next to each other, comparing   
      whether there is confusion, the basis is likelihood of confusion when 
      comparing these marks. And this is a very fact intensive analysis.    
      There are several factors that can be considered such as the          
      dissimilarity and dissimilarity of the marks.                         
                                                                            
18:19 And this could be anything from sight, sound and meaning. The         
      trademark office has been known to even refuse translations of words  
      if they're used for confusingly similar services. And also they're    
      going to look at the nature of the goods and services, of course, the 
      trade channels used and things of that nature.                        
                                                                            
18:41 Essentially the question becomes, are consumers likely to be confused 
      about the source of these goods or services when they're looking at   
      the two trademarks? To give you some concrete examples, trademarks are
      everywhere in our consumer centric society. You can look at your      
      shampoo bottle in the shower, any of your products you use. Trademarks
      are amongst us.                                                       
                                                                            
19:05 So some obvious examples would be Nike, that's one of my favorite     
      ones. Nike has both the word and the Swoosh symbol trademarked in     
      association with a massive amount of goods athletic apparel, T shirts,
      you name it. They have a large portfolio.                             
                                                                            
19:24 Bath and Bodyworks is a trademark for skincare goods, beauty products,
      craft in association with food. So you think your mac and cheese, your
      salad dressings, anything that Kraft might distribute. Apple and      
      that's a big example, an association with technological goods.        
                                                                            
19:45 And this one is particularly strong because it's very arbitrary. It   
      has nothing to do with what it actually provides in association with  
      that trademark, which makes it stronger. And then you also want to    
      think like words we use every day, right? Google, Pepsi, Facebook,    
      Kleenex, Clorox.                                                      
                                                                            
20:03 These are all trademarks. So they're everywhere. Awesome.             
                                                                            
20:08 Thanks for that. Mallory and so you mentioned that you can apply for  
      these and that it's federally regulated. So can an inventor or creator
      get protection for these all in one spot, or are there multiple spots 
      that they can go? We usually think of the United States Patent        
      Trademark Office, but that's not really the one stop shop for things, 
      as you know.                                                          
                                                                            
20:33 Absolutely. So, yes, the USPTO is where you go to protect your        
      trademarks, just like your patents, but the copyrights are registered 
      through the Copyright Office, which is a federal agency that oversees 
      the organization registration of those copyright applications. And    
      it's important to note that it's not required to register your        
      copyright or your trademark.                                          
                                                                            
21:01 It's just extremely wise to do so under the common law, taking aside  
      registration at all. Under common law, copyright is actually          
      automatically created when it's fixed in a tangible medium for the    
      first time. So, say I sit down, I create a piece of music, I make a   
      painting, I have automatic common law copyright to that work.         
                                                                            
21:27 Trademark is similar in this regard. They do recognize common law     
      rights, but it's typically limited to geographically, where you       
      actually use the mark versus having the federal nationwide protection 
      with the registered mark. So an example that came to mind for me was  
      in law school, we talked about a Papa John's pizzeria that was local  
      in a know, and then the know, huge company of Papa John's that's      
      nationwide tried to prevent them from using it.                       
                                                                            
21:58 But this pizzeria had actually been there before the big Papa John's, 
      and they had those common law rights to their geographical area, so   
      they weren't know they could coexist. And it's noteworthy in that     
      regard on that is that the trademark law does recognize the first to  
      use versus the first to register when it comes to trademarks. So you  
      could have a common law trademark usage that's preexisting to an      
      application that could actually oppose that application right on the  
      grounds of being there first.                                         
                                                                            
22:34 But again, you're going to be overcoming hurdles of how prolific is   
      your use of this mark? Where are you using it? The Trademark Office   
      would want to see a lot of evidence that you're very well known by    
      that mark to have any sort of common law leverage. But overall, I     
      always recommend registration whenever possible. And this is for two  
      main reasons.                                                         
                                                                            
22:58 It is to put other people on notice that you own the copyright or the 
      trademark, and two, to enhance your enforcement options in general.   
      IP, as you guys know, can be extremely valuable asset for a business, 
      particularly in a mergers and acquisition situation. So if you're a   
      business, it's really important to think about acquiring registration 
      to your IP, so that if you did get bought, you can say, I have this   
      whole portfolio of registered intellectual property that is extremely 
      valuable to the company.                                              
                                                                            
23:33 And so when it comes to enforcement, in order to even for copyright   
      infringement under the Copyright Act, you must have a registration.   
      You can't have a pending application, has to be registered,           
      registration in hand. And this is something that the Supreme Court    
      actually ruled on specifically because they were getting a lot of     
      cases where someone would apply for a copyright and then sue, and then
      it would be TBD whether they even have a registered copyright and can 
      take advantage of this statute.                                       
                                                                            
24:04 And the Copyright Act is important in this regard because you can get 
      statutory damages. So damages that are written out specifically and   
      limits are articulated in that statute. Whereas if you have your      
      common law copyright, you're only allowed to enforce under state law, 
      and you're going to have to prove actual damages based upon that      
      infringement.                                                         
                                                                            
24:28 So you have to gather sales data from them, articulate actual hard    
      evidence of the damage caused, which can be extremely burdensome. So  
      it's always good to have that benefit of the doubt, right? I have a   
      registered trademark, you're infringing it. I'm entitled to a certain 
      sum of money.                                                         
                                                                            
24:50 I think that was great. And I think to underscore the difference      
      between patents and trademarks and copyrights right, patents, you have
      to file first before ideally publicly using on the opposite side of   
      that copyrights and trademarks, you basically do need to create them  
      and you do need to use them before you can actually get them          
      registered. So I think that's a really nice contrast.                 
                                                                            
25:13 So where does Trade Dress fit into all of this? Well, Trade Dress is  
      similar to trademark, except it's going to protect the characteristics
      of the visual appearance of the product or packaging that signify the 
      source of the product to consumers. It can also protect things like   
      the layout and design of your website. So if you were to notice that  
      someone copied you and your design, you could use Trade Dress as      
      leverage to get them to cease and desist.                             
                                                                            
25:43 And while Trade Dress does fall under the umbrella of trademark law,  
      it's not super typical for brand owners to actually register and      
      protect the shape or visual appearance of the product with a          
      registration. Though there are exceptions, tic TAC comes to mind. They
      do have a registered trademark for the shape of the actual Tic TAC    
      dispenser so there are exceptions.                                    
                                                                            
26:09 It's just not super common. And trade dress is actually closely       
      related to consumer packaged goods, which in and of themselves have   
      unique legal considerations and requires all consumer commodities have
      to be labeled accurately. And so there are attorneys who actually     
      specialize in this particular area alone and advise clients,          
      especially like ecommerce clients or anyone in a product distribution,
      what their packaging must include, how it must include it design      
      factors, all of that.                                                 
                                                                            
26:43 So in some, trade dress is like a cousin to trademark perfect. And    
      then kind of thinking about marking to your point, you have to        
      register to kind of give notice. But you also should mark.            
                                                                            
26:56 You have to mark with a patent. Like this is protected by patent      
      number, whatever. So for trademarks, for example, you should also mark
      with ATM or an R. So when do you use them and is it okay to use either
      in some situations? Yes.                                              
                                                                            
27:11 This is a really good question, and again, one that is frequently     
      misunderstood by the general public. So the TM actually indicates     
      common law trademark, whereas the R indicates a registered trademark. 
      Interestingly, you're only legally allowed to use the R if you        
      actually have the registration.                                       
                                                                            
27:34 Otherwise it could potentially be considered fraudulent, both of them.
      But the R in particular is meant to put others on notice that the     
      trademark is registered and it's protected. I know a lot of brands    
      struggle with the fact that I don't want to put this on my logo.      
                                                                            
27:55 Do I have to put it there? Is it going to not make things look as     
      pretty? But am I sacrificing my rights? The answer is in some. It's   
      not absolutely necessary for you to do that. You're not like breaking 
      any laws.                                                             
                                                                            
28:11 You're not negating your registration or your right to that trademark.
      It's just from a brand protection standpoint, it's good to be         
      proactive. And something I've noticed because as a trademark nerd, I  
      am I'm looking at my shampoo bottles or my face wash, and some        
      companies choose not to at all, which is fine, and they have a        
      registration.                                                         
                                                                            
28:37 Others build it right in, like the Crest two bottle has the R right   
      next to the Crest. Same with Target's up and up little arrow logo,    
      which is pretty ubiquitous. They have the R there, but others will put
      the TM either because their trademark is too descriptive, it wasn't   
      worthy of actual protection, but they still want to say, hey, we have 
      common law rights to this or their pending registration, kind of like 
      patent pending.                                                       
                                                                            
29:07 They may put that there to say, hey, we have common law trademark     
      rights, but we can't put the R there yet. So really it's the brand's  
      discretion whether they want to or not. But it is recommended.        
                                                                            
29:20 I really appreciate that clarification, because the designer in me    
      really struggles with this from an aesthetic perspective. But the     
      person who's heavily invested in intellectual property rights         
      protection struggles with the other side of that, and so it's kind of 
      this massive dissidence bomb that I have to deal with whenever we're  
      rolling anything out publicly. So thank you for that one.             
                                                                            
29:43 Absolutely. Actually, quick question, quick follow up for clients that
      have products that are being distributed worldwide, where maybe they  
      have trademarks in some countries and they have trademarks in other   
      countries. I think we had a client a while back that had that problem,
      and I think they were advised at that time to do a TM on everything,  
      so they didn't have to change their packaging from country to country 
      to country.                                                           
                                                                            
30:10 Is that generally the recommendation or how do you usually just more  
      for my own personal curiosity? Yeah, I would say for a consistency    
      standpoint, that would probably be wise, especially because you can   
      use your US based trademark as a launch pad, basically for your       
      international trademark registrations. But once you send those out    
      there, you can face a litany of different issues with various country 
      IP offices, office actions, different timelines, all sorts of things. 
      So, I mean, it would be easiest and probably most cost effective to   
      just keep the packaging consistent and have the TM versus try to say, 
      I have VR in the United States, but I don't in the UK.                
                                                                            
31:01 Or I don't in Canada. It's probably good for keeping things           
      consistent. Perfect.                                                  
                                                                            
31:07 All right, awesome. Last question in our background, lightning round. 
      And so this is more from a growing curiosity of our own around the    
      genesis of everything.                                                
                                                                            
31:17 And so we just did a historical deep dive on patents for our last     
      episode, but copyrights have the same article one, section eight,     
      clause eight, constitutional basis as patents to promote the progress 
      of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors   
      and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and    
      discoveries. And they similarly have a 1790 act instituted by the very
      first congress. So they've been around since the beginning of time,   
      beginning of us.                                                      
                                                                            
31:49 But when did trademarks come into play? Well, in the United States,   
      trademark laws didn't really emerge into the late 19th century.       
      According to the USPTO. The first actual registered trademark was for 
      average, ready mix paint, and it was their logo, and it was registered
      in 1870.                                                              
                                                                            
32:12 And so then it wasn't until like, 1876 when trademark law continued to
      grow and there were penalties for trademark infringement. And the     
      lanham act, which is the trademark law now, wasn't enacted until 1946.
      So definitely compared to copyright and patent, trademarks are        
      relatively new, and the main reason that trademarks came into         
      existence was to fulfill public policy, and that was the objective of 
      consumer protection.                                                  
                                                                            
32:47 They want to prevent the public from being misled as to the origin or 
      quality of a product or service. And so I think personally that this  
      was probably not something on the radar when our country was formed   
      and the constitution was drafted, whereas the founding fathers were a 
      very. Inventive group of individuals, very artistic generation and so 
      I can see where they would specifically prioritize copyright and      
      patent and maybe not think about trademark.                           
                                                                            
33:18 Back then there probably wasn't as many sources of goods or you didn't
      have to worry about whether you were buying the right thing or not.   
      And so that is kind of why trademark came into existence. So less of  
      an artistic perspective, more of the consumer protection aspect.      
                                                                            
33:33 Perfect. That's helpful. Yeah, it's crazy to think how different in   
      time they were.                                                       
                                                                            
33:39 But it makes sense. You add the global economy or even just the       
      national economy really took off, became more of an issue. Well, it's 
      also sort of interesting because in doing this I'm starting to see a  
      lot more parallels between the two systems than what I realized or    
      three systems than what I realized existed.                           
                                                                            
33:57 And with patents and copyrights there's a very clear quid pro quo     
      between the individual and society. And it wasn't ever super clear to 
      me what that was for trademarks. But the consumer protection side of  
      that is that societal good piece of it.                               
                                                                            
34:14 So that makes a lot of sense and it's sort of consistent with the     
      broader ecosystem. Absolutely awesome. So I know that contracts are   
      another big aspect of brand protection and kind of out of scope for   
      today's conversation, but it's super important.                       
                                                                            
34:32 And so I think it's especially important for those of the audience    
      newer to them copyrights and anyone considering outsourcing or working
      with contractors. So this is something we've spoken about at length as
      a sharp corner to avoid in our prenuptial patenting and our top three 
      inventor mistakes episodes. And we're going to do that again here     
      because it's that important and we've seen some problems when people  
      don't pay attention to this.                                          
                                                                            
35:00 So could you talk about who owns a copyright by default in both       
      employment and contract scenarios and the importance of a work made   
      for hire agreement? Yes, absolutely. Because this is super important, 
      like you said. And it's something that a lot of new business owners   
      definitely don't consider when they're taking on employees or         
      independent contractors.                                              
                                                                            
35:23 So under the law, in a traditional employee employer relationship, the
      employer automatically owns any and all copyrights to work created by 
      that employee pursuant to their employment. But conversely, when a    
      creator is an independent contractor, the general rule is that the    
      independent contractor automatically owns all of the copyrights       
      created by that individual pursuant to their relationship with that   
      business. So businesses should always utilize work made for hire      
      agreements which are meant to articulate copyright ownership between  
      the independent contractor and the employer.                          
                                                                            
36:08 So with all of my clients, I always advise that they include a        
      workmate for hire clause in their general independent contractor      
      agreement so that it's known up front that anything that that         
      independent contractor creates pursuant to this relationship is owned 
      by that business. And so that business can then go and seek copyright 
      registration free and clear. Not have to worry about the independent  
      contractor disputing ownership.                                       
                                                                            
36:36 And this way, again, it's a good way for the business to build up     
      their valuable copyright assets without getting into the weeds on who 
      actually owns that. Yeah, this is so real. We've seen software deals  
      busted up where code ownership issues became a concern because the    
      code was developed by contractors and they didn't have a work for hire
      provision.                                                            
                                                                            
37:01 And so the contractors sort of owned the copyright to all the code.   
      And this is kind of another one of those broader ecosystem pieces. You
      sort of learn both in patents and copyrights that the system is very  
      intentionally biased towards protecting creation and inception of     
      these ideas.                                                          
                                                                            
37:19 And so it's not necessarily paying for or rewarding the payment of the
      creation, but the actual inception or creation of the idea or the     
      work. And sort of a bonus pop culture piece that wasn't sort of really
      on the agenda. But it came to mind the other day.                     
                                                                            
37:35 There was a dispute a couple of years ago over the Friday the 13th    
      franchise and Jason Voorhees. So the script for the first movie was   
      written back, like, in the late, late 70s. They released the movie,   
      the first movie in 1980.                                              
                                                                            
37:50 It was written by this guy named Victor Miller. And as you know,      
      copyright law sort of changed in the late 70s around some of these    
      things. And in 2021, Miller basically served notice to the production 
      company for Friday the 13th that he was terminating the copyright on  
      grounds that he created the script as a contractor and not as an      
      employee.                                                             
                                                                            
38:14 And so the producers countered that, no, you were an employee under   
      some Screenwriters Guild provisions. And the courts took a look at it.
      It bounced around and ends up in the Second Court of Appeals, and they
      terminate the copyright for one of the four Mount Rushmore of horror  
      films.                                                                
                                                                            
38:33 Right? That's how significant this is. We're talking about one of the 
      biggest Hollywood franchises of all time sort of is falling into this 
      snag. And now it's like it's really going to kind of muck things up   
      for them going forward because we'll get into kind of like the whys on
      some of this later.                                                   
                                                                            
38:50 But these rulings can kind of be narrow and split things apart, where 
      he doesn't have the copyright to the title, he has a copyright to the 
      camp and the mom. But the mask, the hockey mask that's iconic that    
      came later, doesn't have the copyright to that. The adult version of  
      Jason didn't come until later, doesn't have the know to that.         
                                                                            
39:09 So now we've got this franchise that's sort of like split completely  
      between two entities because of this level of contractual provisions. 
      It's like you can't overstate the significance of this for folks. It's
      such a little hidden thing that you just can't undo later.            
                                                                            
39:31 And it does break up that film series, especially because in the first
      film, jason's mom is the killer. So as far as canon goes and with     
      horror movies, you get further and further away from the original. You
      know, that was a big deal in the first film that Jason wasn't actually
      the original killer.                                                  
                                                                            
39:54 And so how does that look moving forward in new iterations? I saw that
      there's going to be a Camp Crystal Lake show come. They can they even 
      include Jason's mom after that. And so you're right.                  
                                                                            
40:10 Not doing this upfront, not having a work made for hire can completely
      undo the decades of work and presumed IP ownership. So it's definitely
      crucial to get ahead of it. Valerie, as not being a horror film       
      person, you should have said spoiler alert, because I didn't know that
      Jason was the killer.                                                 
                                                                            
40:33 Now I'm not going to watch it because Jason doesn't even show up until
      the very last scene of the first movie. Don't worry. I'm not I wasn't 
      going to watch it.                                                    
                                                                            
40:48 Yeah, well, that's good. That's like a classic trivia. Who was the    
      killer in Friday the 13th? And people often think Jason, but it's not.
                                                                            
40:58 It's his mom. But he is afterwards. Oh, now we know why.              
                                                                            
41:03 Clearly. Yes. I'll be sure to put a spoiler alert tag in the show     
      notes for any other Ashley's out there just in case.                  
                                                                            
41:12 I don't want to ruin it for no, no. Well, thank you so much for those 
      great explanations. I think that gives us a super solid footing to    
      help us kind of dive into some of these current events and some of the
      recent court rulings that I think are going to help bring some of     
      these legal concepts to life, and some of them are also pretty damn   
      funny.                                                                
                                                                            
41:32 So the first SCOTUS ruling that we'd like to talk about, because some 
      of this was hilarious, hearing the Supreme Court justices try to      
      address potty humor with straight faces is Jack Daniels Properties    
      versus VIP products. Can you tell us a little bit about this case, how
      it collided with claims around First Amendment freedom of expression  
      and parity, how the Supreme Court ruled, and what the lasting         
      implications could be for trademarks. And in doing so, feel free to be
      very detailed on the infringement specifics of the dog toy.           
                                                                            
42:07 Oh, this is a great one to talk about, not only because everyone knows
      Jack Daniels, but dogs are an extremely important part of American    
      life. And so this is super relevant to not only culture, but also     
      copyright and trademark law. So high level, right, because all of     
      these cases are extremely dense, but high level is that VIP products  
      created a bad spaniels squeaker dog toy that looked visually similar  
      to a Jack Daniels whiskey liquor bottle.                              
                                                                            
42:42 Specifically, VIP products created a squeaker toy that mimicked the   
      shape, color and design of your traditional Jack Daniels bottle with  
      the black and white font and the shape, but also replaced Jack Daniels
      bottle phrases such as old number seven brand Tennessee sour smash    
      whiskey and 40% alcohol by volume with comedic alternatives like the  
      old number two on your Tennessee carpet and 43% poo by volume. 100%   
      smelly. 100% smelly, and then there's a dog on it.                    
                                                                            
43:26 It's hilarious. And I agree, it's always hilarious to try to see super
      professional supreme court justices grapple with something like this. 
      So very so in know, as we touched on earlier, trade dress is a        
      protection.                                                           
                                                                            
43:47 So, I mean, Jeff Daniels has trade dress rights to that whiskey       
      bottle, right? The look, design, everything. But that wasn't what they
      ended up specifically suing for because they actually own trademark   
      registrations to their whiskey bottle label and design of the bottle  
      itself. So they have a very wide portfolio of trademarks.             
                                                                            
44:10 So they took issue with VIP product usage of the whiskey bottle and   
      sued for trademark infringement and trademark dilution, which is a    
      similar claim. It's also under the lanham act. And it is instead asked
      whether the defendant harmed the reputation of the famous trademark as
      opposed to whether they infringed the famous trademark.               
                                                                            
44:34 So that they pursued both those avenues when suing. You know, my      
      inclination is that they were probably upset that they wanted some    
      revenue, but also they could think, wow, I don't want them disparaging
      our brand by having 100% smelly on a bottle that looks like our       
      whiskey bottle. So in defense, VIP products main argument to the claim
      of trademark infringement was that the dog toy was an expressive work 
      and didn't designate a source of a good or service.                   
                                                                            
45:14 And so they were insulated from infringement and the standard of      
      likelihood of confusion didn't apply. So very quick backstory. When   
      courts are considering whether trademark infringement exists, if there
      is an issue of whether it is an expressive work, there was a different
      precursor test called the Rogers test that they often applied to know,
      is this even being used as a trademark right, or is it just           
      expressive? And if they found it was just expressive, oftentimes      
      courts would stop the analysis there, foreclose the claim, not even   
      consider the likelihood of confusion test that I mentioned earlier.   
                                                                            
45:57 So that's a big part of this case. And in defense to Jack Daniels     
      claim of know, VIP products has argued that it was a parody, the      
      toy's, a parody of Jack Daniels and therefore fair use. So both of    
      these defenses in and of themselves resound in the first amendment and
      what expressive uses can and cannot be made of trademarks right? And  
      so what the supreme court ultimately did here was that first they     
      determined VIP products was using bad spaniels as a source identifier 
      for their dog toys.                                                   
                                                                            
46:37 And indeed, VIP products conceded this in their pleadings that this   
      was their trademark, they were using it to pile dog toys, et cetera.  
      So the supreme court said, well, this is a source identifier, this    
      isn't expressive. There's no threshold first amendment inquiry needed 
      here, and therefore only likelihood of confusion needs to be          
      considered.                                                           
                                                                            
46:59 So is bad spaniels confusingly similar to and, you know, skip the     
      whole expressive portion. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that when a
      trademark is used as a source identifier, as they believed bad        
      spaniels is the statutory exclusion for dilution, which parity is one 
      statutorily included, you could be found not liable for trademark     
      dilution if you're using it as a parity. However, this was a source   
      identifier, and therefore those exclusions don't apply.               
                                                                            
47:34 So the Supreme Court really took those First Amendment defenses off   
      the table and redirected them, but also clarified, what does it mean  
      to really use a trademark as a source identifier versus what's        
      expressive, and how do we analyze that? So, moving forward, my        
      takeaway was that there's no blanket rule for what, unauthorized use  
      of a trademark. And when that is parity, and when that's fair use,    
      just because it expresses a humorous message, right, you're not going 
      to be insulated automatically. You should anticipate that a           
      traditional likelihood of confusion analysis will always be engaged by
      the courts.                                                           
                                                                            
48:19 You shouldn't assume that just because you're using it expressively   
      that you can get away with it, and you're not going to be subject to  
      traditional trademark infringement. But overall, those who make       
      parodies off of trademarks should be treading lightly, moving forward 
      and cognizant of potential liability because they just don't know     
      where that line is going to be drawn. And also, this conversely, gives
      trademark owners probably more leverage against infringers.           
                                                                            
48:51 They could cite this case and be like, well, this parody wasn't found 
      to be parody even, and therefore this is trademark infringement or    
      trademark dilution. So that's really the big takeaway is that there's 
      no rule for what is or what isn't expression in First Amendment       
      protection when it comes to trademark infringement, and you should    
      always be prepared for that liability. Yeah, source identification    
      piece of this one was really huge.                                    
                                                                            
49:22 Going back to the kind of the fundamental stuff that you laid out     
      earlier. I think they said that in the majority of the opinion, they  
      said that the cardinal sin under the law is to undermine that ability 
      to indicate the source of a good right. When it came to freedom of    
      speech, kagan said, we hold that it's not appropriate when the accused
      infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own     
      goods.                                                                
                                                                            
49:50 In other words, has used a trademark as a trademark right. That kind  
      of use falls within the heartland of trademark law and does not       
      receive special First Amendment protection because it's that brand    
      confusion misleading the consumer about where the product is coming   
      from. That's where they really fell into a big VIP, fell into a big   
      trap on this one, and rightfully so with parody too.                  
                                                                            
50:17 They said they should be amused by parody, but not confused by it.    
      Right. It's sort of like hearken to that thing.                       
                                                                            
50:25 It should make you think about that thing, but it shouldn't make you  
      think that that thing came from its original source. These things     
      should be clear on its face. I thought it was funny, too.             
                                                                            
50:39 Lawyers can try to do whatever they want to do, but VIP tried to argue
      that this was like a non commercial expression. Yeah, which is        
      hilarious. Kagan says, this is a standard commercial product.         
                                                                            
50:53 This is not a political T shirt. It's not a film. It's not an artistic
      photograph.                                                           
                                                                            
50:56 Right. It's not like a thing that hearkens to a, uh and then Justice  
      Thomas, who's always really great for pithy one liners, he says, could
      you just elaborate a bit on why a product that you can buy online or  
      at Petco is non commercial? I mean, it's like it's absurd on its the  
      argument was kind of absurd on its face, but yeah, that is absurd. And
      like you said, this goes right to what we talked about, why trademarks
      are created in the first place, right.                                
                                                                            
51:24 Protecting the consumer. They don't need to be confused about whether 
      Jack Daniels made this dog toy, even though I'd like to give consumers
      a more benefit of the doubt than that. But it's important for the     
      purpose of the law to uphold that.                                    
                                                                            
51:43 Yeah, well, I mean, Jack Daniels does make dog products, though, and  
      sells licensed merchandise in the same market, so they do actually    
      compete actively in that space on remand. That will probably be       
      something that the lower court considers when they're analyzing       
      likelihood of confusion, especially if Jack Daniels has a registered  
      trademark for dog toys, then it's really going to get interesting.    
      But, yeah, definitely.                                                
                                                                            
52:15 That'll be a huge consideration. The overlapping use and the          
      commercial aspect will be huge. And my opinion, I think Jack Daniels  
      will come out on top here.                                            
                                                                            
52:28 Yeah, it seems like it. And, I mean, this was pretty resounding       
      decision for a court that tries to stay away from IP things in        
      general, and then tries to not make very bold, assertive claims about 
      things related to IP, and then it was a unanimous opinion. I think    
      you're right.                                                         
                                                                            
52:50 All right, for the next question I love this one. I think things are  
      just starting to get interesting, but could get really freaky in the  
      not so distant future strictly for podcast research purposes. And     
      maybe that's a little bit of a lie.                                   
                                                                            
53:07 Back in February, I went to theater and I watched a movie called      
      Winnie the Pooh blood and Honey. This was a low budget horror movie.  
      It featured a now feral Pooh Bear and Piglet.                         
                                                                            
53:18 They've been abandoned by a grown up, Christopher Robin, and they're  
      now out for blood, trying to fend for themselves. Some college kids   
      are vacationing in the 100 acre wood, christopher Robin's returning   
      with his girlfriend, and they get tangled up in Pooh and Piglet's     
      murderous rampage. There are exes chloroform hot tubs.                
                                                                            
53:39 Pooh learns how to Drive a car. I mean, it's a disaster. Disney owns  
      the rights to Winnie the Pooh.                                        
                                                                            
53:47 And for added context here on the lengths that Disney has gone to to  
      protect its IP. Here is a tour of some headlines. Disney forces       
      Florida Daycare Center to remove unauthorized Minnie Mouse mural.     
                                                                            
54:01 Disney tells Stonemason that carving Winnie the Pooh into child's     
      gravestone would violate its copyright. Disney affiliate charges      
      elementary school $250 for showing The Lion King at PTA fundraiser    
      without permission. Why aren't films like Blood and Honey feeling the 
      full weight of the fury of the Mouse? Yeah, first of all, I'm really  
      happy you brought up Blood and Honey because if my trivia knowledge of
      Friday the 13th didn't give it away, I'm a huge horror movie fan,     
      unfortunately have not had the pleasure of seeing Blood and Honey yet,
      but it's on my short list and the sequel was already greenlit.        
                                                                            
54:42 So you need to make sure that you yeah, I'm thrilled as a Winnie the  
      Pooh fan from my childhood. It's like a beautiful mashup of two of my 
      favorite things and I'm really excited about and I'm also excited you 
      asked because it's a prime example of avoiding copyright infringement 
      by using copyright protected material after its expiration. So in     
      general, and there are exceptions that the general rule is that the   
      term of a copyright is the life of the author, plus 70 years after the
      author's death.                                                       
                                                                            
55:21 So thereafter, the copyright falls into the public domain and it      
      belongs to the public for the public to use how they see fit. So this 
      means Disney, as you noted, Josh, a company that is notoriously       
      aggressive at enforcing its intellectual property rights. Yeah,       
      graves, Daycares, you name it, there's no boundary they won't cross.  
                                                                            
55:47 And so they can't prevent a film like Blood and Honey from using      
      Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. And specifically, it was the first Winnie 
      the Pooh book, which includes ten stories that entered the public     
      domain in January 2022. So that means any of the characters really    
      featured in there pooh, Piglet, Tigger, Eeyore, Owl, Kanga Rue, all of
      them, they're free game and people can use them.                      
                                                                            
56:14 And I actually thought I read that there was even another Winnie the  
      Pooh horror movie or something, not necessarily a sequel, but people  
      are using this and they're allowed to. And I think it is interesting, 
      though, to note that when copyrights have a natural life expectancy,  
      right, trademarks aren't the same way. They can expire, but they don't
      necessarily have to.                                                  
                                                                            
56:43 Only if they're purposely abandoned, say they decease using it, right?
      They can't show use so it dies or it isn't renewed in a timely manner,
      accident and it just lapses. But for instance, trademarks have to be  
      renewed between their fifth and 6th year, their 9th and 10th year, and
      then every ten years after that. And the USPTO wants to see an updated
      specimen of proof that you are using that trademark for the goods and 
      services you registered it for to begin.                              
                                                                            
57:15 So but in theory, especially if these are owned by businesses, which  
      is a good idea to have rather than as an individual. It's good to have
      like an IP holding company of some sort, but it could go in           
      perpetuity. There are trademarks that are probably 100 years old      
      because the company is still in business and it still uses that       
      trademark for those goods or services.                                
                                                                            
57:39 So those are not prone to the same public domain situation that       
      copyrights are. Yeah, and just like we saw the Jack Daniels case too, 
      as long as it's not perceived as coming from these companies, that's  
      another key element to it. Too right.                                 
                                                                            
58:00 Can't be any of that brand source confusion. Still have to occupy     
      those lanes safely. But from having watched Blood and Honey, I don't  
      think there's any confusion at all that that came some there's some   
      other notable interesting ones that are coming up soon from my        
      research.                                                             
                                                                            
58:20 So Mickey, who market researchers have acknowledged is more well known
      than Santa Claus, is going to be coming up for one of these himself,  
      actually, later this year. There's the Steamboat Willie version, the  
      little short cartoon that's appearing at the front of the intros of   
      some of the Disney cartoons. Apparently that's going to be public     
      domain later this year.                                               
                                                                            
58:43 And then early versions of Popeye, King Kong, Donald Duck, Flash      
      Gordon, Porky Pig and Superman are all going to be entering into the  
      public domain at various points over the next decade. I think to your 
      Friday the 13th Jason thing. Again, it's that and you were kind of    
      saying it, too.                                                       
                                                                            
59:01 It's the early version, right, keeping within the confines of what was
      actually at that time. So I think Josh, the Winnie Pooh of old didn't 
      have the red shirt, for example, right? Correct. The Steamboat Willie 
      version is the version of Mickey Mouse that's coming out, but that    
      didn't have the rounder, kind of more playful approachable version    
      with the red shorts and the white gloves.                             
                                                                            
59:26 Like all of those elements were added later on. So that stuff's going 
      to be safe for Disney for an extended period of time. Yeah.           
                                                                            
59:35 And as I think we discussed, even with Steamboat Willie, with the     
      copyright falling into public domain, they still have a trademark for 
      that little short snippet that they'll play at the beginning of some  
      of Disney movies. And so I'll be interested to know, hypothetically,  
      someone tries to make a use of Steamboat Willie. I'll be intrigued if 
      Disney tries to take the trademark infringement angle instead.        
                                                                            
60:06 The answer is probably yes. Right? 100%. They'll do everything.       
                                                                            
60:10 They'll try it all. Clearly there is precedent. Yeah.                 
                                                                            
60:16 I think this is going to get really interesting, too, with creator    
      culture, know, the likes of Instagram and TikTok combined with        
      increased superpowers that were being given with these generative AI  
      and deep fake tools. Disney's not going to be able to go after        
      everyone, right? At least in theory. But more on that in a little     
      teaser there.                                                         
                                                                            
60:37 So next up, we're going to talk about another important aspect of     
      trademarks. Makes them unique when compared to other creative         
      expectations around things like patents and copyrights. So this one   
      centers around a trademark trial and appeal board, or TTAB decision   
      from earlier this year around musical artist Lizzo's trademark for use
      of 100% that bit on apparel.                                          
                                                                            
61:04 She has a line in a song called Truth Hurts that goes, I just took a  
      DNA test and turns out I am 100% that bit. She admitted that she      
      didn't create the phrase, but had seen it in social media, in a social
      media meme about being 100% that ever said, I'm probably going to     
      bleep it out, so it's all good. First link laughing a little and then 
      added it to the song she was writing.                                 
                                                                            
61:32 So her original registration was refused on the grounds that it was a 
      commonplace expression and a well recognized sentiment. But she won   
      her appeal with the TTAB. So on what grounds did Lizzo win the appeal?
      And how is she able to get a registered mark even though she didn't   
      create the phrase and the phrase was preexisting? Well, as you        
      mentioned, Lizzo was denied initially by the examining attorney       
      because they felt 100% that was just a commonplace phrase, as opposed 
      to, again, a source identifier of apparel like shirts that Lizzo was  
      trying to sell.                                                       
                                                                            
62:09 And so Lizzo appealed to the TTAB, which for those unfamiliar, it is  
      essentially the trademark office's internal tribunal. In Know,        
      trademark disputes can be adjudicated beyond just going back and forth
      with an examining attorney with an application. So Lizzo is allowed to
      appeal by right.                                                      
                                                                            
62:37 And that's important even if you don't think you could not have a very
      strong argument for appealing a final refusal. But anyone can do it,  
      right? So if anyone who has a trademark application, if they receive a
      final refusal, you have a certain amount of time where you can appeal 
      that decision to the TTAB and have them determine whether or not that 
      refusal stands or should be overturned. But she appealed, basically   
      arguing that fans and consumers associate 100% that with her and not  
      just with the commonplace phrase.                                     
                                                                            
63:18 Relatedly I find it very interesting that up until very recently,     
      there was a prohibition on immoral and scandalous trademark           
      protection, and so words like weren't allowed to be trademarked. At   
      Know, this actually came before the Supreme Court with a trademark    
      called, you know, it sounds like one word, but it's spelled so. But   
      the Supreme Court ruled that that prohibition actually violated the   
      First Amendment, therefore opening the gates to swear words being able
      to be trademark registered.                                           
                                                                            
63:58 So before 2019, Lizzo wouldn't have been able to get this trademark at
      all just on the face of it being immoral. But now she did get over it 
      being a commonplace expression and what the T tab ultimately did, they
      looked at all the evidence that Lizzo had provided, which was 100%    
      that being used on clothing, keychains, mugs, stickers, all sorts of  
      goods, and all of them referenced Lizzo in some way all of it was     
      connected to Lizzo. It wasn't just 100% that big floating around on   
      its own.                                                              
                                                                            
64:39 Like it's commonplace. It was Lizzo's 100% that. And so that is how   
      ultimately the TTAB said, this isn't a commonplace phrase.            
                                                                            
64:50 People associate 100% that with Lizzo and therefore she is entitled to
      trademark registration. And even though she didn't coin the phrase    
      herself initially, she is still allowed to do this. She did give      
      writers credit to the individual who initially coined 100% that she   
      gave writing credit on.                                               
                                                                            
65:10 Truth hurts to her. So in essence, Lizzo is associated with Lizo and  
      she is allowed to register it. It'd be a really interesting exercise  
      to look at how many profane marks were registered post 2019.          
                                                                            
65:28 That would be I would like to see the statistics on that. I bet       
      someone has run them too. I bet it was like flooded.                  
                                                                            
65:36 Also, in my research for this one, I saw that Supreme Court decision  
      referred to as the fucked decision, which I've never laughed so hard  
      in preparing for a podcast episode in my life as I did for this one,  
      because you could argue that a lot of their decisions could be called 
      that. But this one actually got that designation. So that made me very
      happy.                                                                
                                                                            
66:00 So also I found this one particularly interesting because we're sort  
      of juxtaposing some things against contrasting with patenting. We're  
      obtaining and defending patent centers so much around the first       
      claimed, the creation around the existence of prior art, things like  
      that. Trademarks in this case are really about consumer perception    
      versus creative endeavor.                                             
                                                                            
66:29 And that was just sort of like a thing I learned. I would like to     
      shift our attention next to where mine often goes anyway, and that's  
      Reddit. But more specifically, what can happen when the lines around  
      where your brand begins and ends aren't clear.                        
                                                                            
66:47 So I suspect a lot of people listening, even if they're not on Reddit,
      have probably heard of Wall Street Bets subreddit and if they haven't,
      sure they've at least peripherally aware of the meme stock craze that 
      it gave rise to an individual by the name of Jamie Rogozinski. He     
      created this subreddit back in 2012. It got wildly popular during the 
      pandemic when its members sort of banded together and employed some   
      aggressive trading strategies to squeeze hundreds of millions, if not 
      billions out of short sellers.                                        
                                                                            
67:19 Big win for the little guys by pumping up the value of stocks like    
      GameStop. Rosinski published a book called Wall Street Bets and also  
      filed for the trademark. Reddit responded by booting him as a         
      moderator, citing that he was attempting to monetize a community and  
      then immediately filed for competing registration applications for the
      same mark.                                                            
                                                                            
67:44 Proceedings are pending before the TTAB. And Rogazinski is also suing 
      Reddit in federal court for infringement of his unregistered mark     
      violations of contract, all the things along that line. This matter is
      clearly unsettled, but folks out there should what, in fact should    
      folks out.                                                            
                                                                            
68:03 There be thinking about when they're depending on big platforms like  
      these, and even when considering smaller partnerships where brand     
      ownership and monetization lines can very quickly get blurred. Yeah,  
      this is a great question and one that I think primarily resounds in   
      contract. And my advice, if you are planning on using a major platform
      to grow your brand or to monetize in any way, is to read the Terms of 
      Use.                                                                  
                                                                            
68:33 And that sounds like a joke because they're humongous and it's a joke 
      that's been played out by South Park as far as Apple's Terms of Use   
      and Black Mirror made fun of Netflix Terms of Use. So you know it's a 
      joke because they're huge, but it's actually important. And I'm not   
      saying you need to scour every nook and cranny of these Terms of Use  
      agreements, but you do want to look for important provisions such as  
      content ownership and things of that know, and there are several      
      reasons why these Terms of Use are important in this regard.          
                                                                            
69:11 When you're using, say, a Reddit, a Facebook, a Twitter, an Instagram 
      of threads, et cetera. So first, when you're using a platform like    
      Reddit, that is primarily built upon user generated content, meaning  
      users can post content, create subreddits, contribute all on their    
      own. There are moderators, but it's pretty much you can upload it and 
      it's there.                                                           
                                                                            
69:35 And so in that situation, you're almost always granting the platform a
      license to use your content that you upload to the platform. So while 
      you may own the copyright to your content, for instance, the Copyright
      Office recently did introduce a new copyright class where you can     
      register your whole thread of your whole scroll of your Instagram     
      posts and you can have a copyright registration to that, or like your 
      blog posts, for instance. Instagram can't own that, but they can use  
      it.                                                                   
                                                                            
70:12 And probably in their Terms of use, there is a license to obviously at
      least display your content because that's what the platform does,     
      right? But you'd be surprised, some of them, it may be it's a royalty 
      free license to use, display, do whatever they could, most likely use 
      you in some sort of advertising. There are multiple scenarios that    
      could unfold, so it's important to know that aspect also. Second,     
      there are always community guidelines when you're on a platform like  
      this.                                                                 
                                                                            
70:48 So with rules, restrictions that surround your posts and interactions 
      with others. And so my understanding is Reddit is claiming they axed  
      this individual because he violated the Terms of Use. And so that is  
      something that a platform will definitely use if they feel you're in  
      the wrong, they can boot you, they can block you, et cetera.          
                                                                            
71:11 So when it comes down to this, I always recommend to not actually     
      build your brand on these platforms, but just use it as a brand tool  
      to grow your brand, right? For instance, if you're going to start     
      something, it's always a really good idea to start with a website,    
      start with a website, have that be the basis of where your brand is   
      born, and then take it to the other platforms so that there's no      
      question that it belongs to you. Right. And I haven't scoured Reddit's
      Terms of Use in particular, but my guess would be they are saying they
      own the subreddit titles or, you know what I mean, all these things.  
                                                                            
71:55 And so I'll be super intrigued to see how this pans out because it    
      could really impact how brands are established moving forward,        
      especially if this goes against Reddit. Yeah, I mean, it's going to be
      a big precedent setter, for sure. And also, thank you.                
                                                                            
72:12 I didn't know we were going to get to work South Park in today, too.  
      But now I'm going to have the human centipede stuck in my which you   
      can't unsee that. You can't unsee that.                               
                                                                            
72:28 No, but anytime I click through, I'm like, oh, gosh, what am I        
      agreeing to with these guys? It definitely made you think, but it was 
      really interesting when I don't know if you've seen the most recent   
      Black Mirror, but Netflix made fun of itself calling itself           
      Streamberry, and it happened. So that the girl that the story is      
      about. Netflix basically appropriated her life and made a show about  
      it.                                                                   
                                                                            
72:56 And she's like, you can't do this. And they're like, you agreed to    
      this and the Terms of use when you signed up, that we could do        
      whatever we want with you and your image, your likeness, your life. So
      she had no recourse at all.                                           
                                                                            
73:09 And so it's unfortunate. They're huge. But if you're thinking about   
      who owns what, when it comes from an IP standpoint, the Terms of use  
      are imperative.                                                       
                                                                            
73:19 Yeah, and like most things, Black Mirror, it sounds terrifying, but   
      also not too unlike what you'd expect to come out of reality. So,     
      yeah, there's no no, it walks that fine line and it actually spooks.  
      It's like, yeah, definitely eye opening.                              
                                                                            
73:35 For all these reasons, I'm really surprised this didn't become a      
      bigger issue sooner. Right. Like, massive brands are being created by 
      these influencers on these platforms, and there's this inherent       
      symbiotic relationship between the platforms and the creators.        
                                                                            
73:49 But what that means for brand ownership feels like it's going to get  
      pretty sticky and could be huge topic of debate going forward. So next
      up is another of the three landmark Supreme Court cases on IP this    
      year, and it centers around a conflict involving one of the biggest   
      music legends of all time and the best known painter of the pop art   
      movement. Like we discussed earlier, copyrights protect original works
      of authorship.                                                        
                                                                            
74:19 This includes things like photographs and paintings. And this         
      protection also extends to the author, the exclusive right to create  
      what are called derivative works. Before we get into case specifics in
      Warhol versus Goldsmith, because I feel like this one is a little bit 
      heavier than some of these other cases, could you explain what        
      constitutes copyright infringement, what derivative work means, and   
      briefly, what the infringement exceptions are under fair use doctrine.
                                                                            
74:50 I'd love to, because it is especially relevant here, as we did mention
      earlier, right as a copyright owner, you're given exclusive rights to 
      your copyrighted work right to reproduce, distribute, display, perform
      and or create derivative works. As you mentioned, Josh. And copyright 
      infringement occurs when one or more of these exclusive rights are    
      infringed without permission of the copyright owner and in general to 
      establish copyright infringement.                                     
                                                                            
75:21 Again, in federal court, if you have your registered copyright, the   
      copyright owner, I e. The plaintiff must prove, one, they have        
      ownership of a valid copyright recall, you have to have your          
      registered copyright to sue and two, they must prove copying of the   
      protected elements of the work by the infringer, which is the         
      defendant. So if there's no direct proof of copying, which is most of 
      the times the case, it's hard to prove, it's hard to say, I know for a
      fact that you copied this right.                                      
                                                                            
75:53 Instead, the question becomes the plaintiff must prove the defendant  
      had access to the copyrighted work, which is very easy, especially if 
      it's proliferated widespread media and two, that there was a          
      substantial similarity between the general ideas and expression when  
      compared to the copyrighted work, and that multiple factors can come  
      into consideration with substantial similarity. But that high level is
      the standard for copyright infringement. So because copyright owners  
      have the right to creating derivative works, that is something that   
      comes into play.                                                      
                                                                            
76:32 So in a derivative work is an expression or creation that includes    
      major copyrightable elements of the first previously created original 
      work or the underlying work. So the derivative work becomes a separate
      second work, independent from the first, but it's still related in    
      heavy copyrightable elements to the first. So we're thinking          
      translations say your book is translated into Spanish, that's a       
      derivative work, and you own that copyright as the copyright owner, or
      cinematic adaptations, musical arrangements, et cetera.               
                                                                            
77:08 I saw a good example that especially in this day and age of comic     
      book, can be the underlying work of a copyright and then they can spin
      off into movie, a TV show, all sorts of different related derivative  
      works to that original comic book. And so that is an exclusive right  
      that the copyright owner has. So it's important to know that you can  
      create those derivative works.                                        
                                                                            
77:34 But as we touched on briefly with Jack Daniels and Trademark,         
      copyright law also recognizes fair use as an exception to             
      infringement. So a lot of times the question will become is this a    
      derivative work or is this fair use? Fair use generally includes      
      things like criticism and parity, comment, news reporting, teaching,  
      scholarship research, all those types of things. And when considering 
      whether fair use applies, courts are always going to consider four    
      factors and that includes the purpose and character of the use,       
      including whether such use is of commercial or nonprofit educational  
      purposes.                                                             
                                                                            
78:17 The nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of  
      the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and  
      the effect upon the use, upon the potential market or value of the    
      copyrighted work. So, big picture, the question a lot of courts ask is
      whether the use is transformative and essentially transforms it into  
      something new, that in of its right is a fair use of the original     
      copyright. Yeah, and that turns out to be pretty key to this one.     
                                                                            
78:52 With that baseline down, could you talk about the Andy Warhol         
      Foundation for the Digital Arts, Inc. Versus Goldsmith case, what the 
      Supreme Court ultimately decided and what the lasting takeaways could 
      be for fair use and derivative works? Absolutely. So this is hits     
      right on the head of fair use, particularly the first element, which I
      will explain in a little more detail, but high level facts, because   
      facts are everything when it comes to these cases.                    
                                                                            
79:23 Backstory here is that Andy Warhol had created a series of 16 works   
      featuring prints, the Prints series as they were called, which were   
      all derived from one copyrighted photograph taken in 1981 by Lynn     
      Goldsmith, who was a professional photographer. So originally Andy    
      Warhol only paid a license to Goldsmith to create the one purple      
      silkscreen portrait of Prince called The Purple Prince, which was     
      featured in Vanity Fair's 1984 issue. So after Prince died in 2016,   
      vanity Fair's parent company, Conde Nast, approached the Andy Warhol  
      Foundation, since Andy Warhol had since passed away as well about     
      recreating the image for a special issue to commemorate Prince.       
                                                                            
80:16 And the AWF had all 16 of these that Andy had created back in the     
      early eighty s. And so the magazine ultimately featured orange prints,
      which was one of the 16 he created. And instead of being a purple silk
      screen, it was an orange silk screen over the image.                  
                                                                            
80:38 Goldsmith was unaware that all of these 16 derivatives had been       
      created. So when she saw the orange prints in Vanity Fair, she took   
      issue with this, considered it copyright infringement because she had 
      not licensed this particular use. So the primary issue before the     
      Supreme Court here was the first factor of fair use meaning the       
      purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is       
      commercial or nonprofit, and whether the work was transformative.     
                                                                            
81:09 So the Andy Warhol Foundation argued that Orange Prince was           
      transformative because the silkscreen images of the photograph have a 
      different meaning or message than the original photograph did. But the
      Court ultimately disagreed and found that this factor weighed against 
      Andy Warhol Foundation because Warhol had originally paid a license to
      the photograph to create purple prints and therefore the use was      
      commercial. Right.                                                    
                                                                            
81:39 He paid to use the photograph and then sold the photograph to Vanity  
      Fair. It's all commercial. So the Supreme Court actually know such    
      licenses for photographs or derivatives of them are how photographers 
      like Goldsmith make a living.                                         
                                                                            
81:58 And so they provide an economic incentive to create original works,   
      which is the goal of copyright. So in the ideal world, the Andy Warhol
      Foundation should have also gotten a license from Goldsmith to create 
      all 16 but especially orange prints if they were going to be providing
      it to Vanity Fair for publication. And so ultimately the Supreme Court
      ruled that Andy Warhol Foundation use of orange prints was not fair   
      use and therefore it was copyright infringement, which know a big deal
      because the Supreme Court doesn't always take hard stances with       
      intellectual property cases.                                          
                                                                            
82:38 And so this is interesting that they are saying this isn't            
      infringement as opposed to we're going to remand this to the lower    
      court for you to determine if this is infringement or not. Right?     
      Sometimes they don't engage in that analysis. But the majority opinion
      essentially opined that tohold otherwise would potentially authorize a
      range of commercial copying of photographs to be used for purposes    
      that are substantially the same as those of the original.             
                                                                            
83:07 As long as the user somehow portrays the subject of the photograph    
      differently, he could make modest alterations to the original, sell it
      to an outlet to accompany a story about the subject and claim         
      transformative use. So they're saying this is going to be a slippery  
      slope where maybe you don't even pay the license or you just get one  
      license and you perpetually know, you change the color of it and then 
      you claim this is fair use. And so the Supreme Court is taking a      
      stance where they're protecting the original creator here.            
                                                                            
83:39 And that is a major takeaway of the case is that this will give Cote  
      Gray owners more leverage for infringement, know, especially if it's  
      something know simple as a color change or slight modifications to the
      original. But it will make it much more difficult for other creators  
      to navigate what they can and cannot do with preexisting copyrights   
      and fair use. And it's never been a bright line but there was a case  
      once upon a time where changing of the colors and slight variations   
      like that were enough for fair use.                                   
                                                                            
84:17 And so now that's not going to be the case and so it does will help   
      set that precedent and guide it a little more. But I think it's       
      definitely creator favorable. But there were dissenting judges in this
      case and they basically went to the point that this would impede the  
      creation of new art and music, support the expression of ideas and    
      attainment of new knowledge because part of art in of itself know     
      inspiration, right? And this is something that actually is going on   
      with the music industry as well right now.                            
                                                                            
84:54 Robin Thick and Pharrell got sued several years ago for Blurred Lines 
      by Marvin Gaye's estate and essentially Marvin Gaye pharrell indicated
      that we've heard it, we're maybe inspired by it, but it wasn't like we
      sat down and copied it. But they were found to be copyright infringing
      and there were a ton of briefs submitted from people in the music     
      industry that basically said this could create dangerous precedent for
      the music industry because where is that line drawn? Sampling is      
      abundant. Using similar tunes and rhythms.                            
                                                                            
85:40 That's abundant. What is copyright infringement? What is not? And so  
      there's been just like a proliferation of major artists like Katy     
      Perry, Taylor Swift, lizzo getting sued for copyright infringement    
      based upon works that pre existed them, which often they never even   
      heard before. I think the court put some really important nuance in   
      their wording on this one that's going to hopefully keep that from    
      being an issue because not a lawyer.                                  
                                                                            
86:10 But my read on this is they said, look, if you're not doing something 
      that's substantially different than the original, and it's of         
      commercial nature. Okay, we need to put up the flags and give this a  
      close look. Because in the majority opinion, they said those sort of  
      fair uses don't supersede the original objects or supplant them.      
                                                                            
86:31 Rather, they work to serve a different end. So it's almost like the   
      trademark of a trademark thing in the Jack Daniels case. It's like    
      you're almost sort of overriding another brand or another use.        
                                                                            
86:43 You block the original artist's ability to use that thing that was    
      uniquely theirs. You're not hearkening to it with a parody. You're not
      bringing it to someone's imagination.                                 
                                                                            
86:52 You're literally overriding it and stamping out their ability to      
      commercialize their creative work. And that's a huge distinction. And 
      layman read on that.                                                  
                                                                            
87:03 I feel like they were pretty clear on that because, like they said,   
      the consequence of this would have been huge, right? Allowing small   
      alterations to sort of change. The fair use application would I think 
      the words they used it would swallow the rule and make it so that the 
      exclusive rights to prepare derivative works would just basically be  
      eviscerated. And to the extent, like, if you wrote you talked about   
      books being adapted to the big screen when movies hit the big screen, 
      they're significantly different than the books we read.               
                                                                            
87:41 But you can't argue that that's transformative enough to take that    
      right away from the author of that book or that script is a I feel    
      like this is a really important ruling. I like that they offer        
      distinction around the Campbell's soup can pieces that Warhol had also
      done because now we're talking about the same artist, we're talking   
      about another commercial application. But they this is this is an     
      entirely different like Warhol is not selling soup, right? This is    
      like commentary on consumerism.                                       
                                                                            
88:21 So where sometimes I feel like they leave these big, wide open        
      questions that do more harm than good. I felt pretty good about this  
      one, actually. You do make a good point in that regard.               
                                                                            
88:37 And in my opinion and experience, the first factor in the             
      commercialism versus non commercialism has always been one of the     
      biggest tipping factors when it comes to fair use. And I agree. Right?
      This will knit a lot in the bud as far as am I using it commercially  
      and just basically only altering it slightly.                         
                                                                            
89:04 I more think it's always kind of fluid as to how much is enough, how  
      much isn't enough of a change. Right. But I think that this will at   
      least give that guidance that silk screen color over the photograph   
      isn't enough to change it and you're using it commercially.           
                                                                            
89:23 And you're absolutely right. The Campbell Soup distinction is big     
      because right, Lin Goldsmith was doing the same thing as Andy Warhol  
      was is selling the photo. Right.                                      
                                                                            
89:33 Andy wasn't selling think, yeah, I think it'll, know, dampen a lot of 
      potentially infringing activity that could have occurred otherwise.   
      But I'm always interested to see more parameters get established      
      around how much is enough change to make it transformative. Yeah, and 
      then what the lower courts do with the dicta and all that stuff.      
                                                                            
89:58 Yeah, exactly, exactly. Because almost all the case law is created in 
      lower. The Supreme Court only hears a very small fraction of all the  
      cases that tried to get in there.                                     
                                                                            
90:13 My one nitpick with the mental gymnastics that happened in this one,  
      though, was they tried to justify their Google versus Oracle ruling on
      fair use earlier last year. Ish time, is not. I don't know.           
                                                                            
90:30 But they said know, Google copied a ton of Sun's code in sort of      
      replicating the Java interface. And the court reasoned that it was    
      created for use in desktop and laptop computers only insofar as it    
      needed to include the tasks that would be useful in smartphone. That  
      is, Google put Sun's code to use in a distinct and different computing
      environment of its own Android platform, a new system created for new 
      products.                                                             
                                                                            
91:01 And that's like pretty garbage reasoning if you ask me. Because that  
      would be like, oh, if Andy Warhol had done this online instead of in  
      newspaper or in a been, it would have been okay. So anyway, I felt    
      like there was sort of some similar ends justify the means mental     
      gymnastics required to get to that conclusion that they put into the  
      original case.                                                        
                                                                            
91:22 But just a plug here season two. We did an entire episode on the      
      Google v. Oracle case and its implications on fair use for software.  
                                                                            
91:31 So not going to relitigate all that today, but highly encourage folks 
      to go and give that one a listen if you're curious on the specifics of
      that one. All of that said, I'm sort of like a little bit more        
      passionate about this one, I think probably than some of the other    
      ones. I personally find this fair use step to be the most kind of     
      confusing and paralyzing aspect of copyright law from a creator's     
      perspective.                                                          
                                                                            
92:02 So we try to keep our content fun, entertaining, culturally relevant. 
      Sometimes that means trying to tie in elements of pop culture where we
      can right like to use memes and gifs and blog posts. And sometimes we 
      like to do screenshots of movies and webinars and sound bites in the  
      podcast, but we consider this podcast to be news reporting,           
      commentary, criticism, hopefully educational in nature.               
                                                                            
92:28 I don't think it would create any brand source confusion. And while   
      we're in the top 25% of podcasts across all categories, I don't think 
      we're going to adversely affect anyone's potential market for their   
      copyrights. But that threat still looms large and it can for sure     
      stifle the creative process.                                          
                                                                            
92:50 And the Warhol case definitely seems clear to me, but I think in a lot
      of cases seems like the bright line almost. Maybe like it doesn't     
      intentionally exist because I think that would make it easier for     
      people to cheat. But it also makes it really hard to comply when you  
      can't possibly know how to follow the rules.                          
                                                                            
93:10 And as long as the price of getting it wrong is Disney going after    
      daycare centers, you have to care. That's not a question, that's just 
      me on a soapbox. I am an intellectual property attorney and I get     
      nervous about what I'm using and where and how when it comes to my    
      website and graphics, I pay a license for business purposes, which is 
      important.                                                            
                                                                            
93:42 And also I want to share memes, I want to share music on Instagram    
      stories, for instance. But I'm like, am I infringing the copyright by 
      doing that? Because I'm a lawyer and technically this is promoting my 
      business. Is it commercial? I agree.                                  
                                                                            
94:00 It's very paralyzing from a creator standpoint, especially because I'm
      like, am I going to be the joke of an IP attorney that gets popped for
      copyright infringement because I thought I wasn't crossing the line   
      and I am. It's almost impossible as a creator, as anyone these days,  
      to avoid it altogether. I mean, at least every business should        
      anticipate some sort of DMCA digital Millennium Copyright Act.        
                                                                            
94:29 Takedown getting sent to them for an image on their website unless    
      you're just like completely tight shit bottled up. It happens to      
      everybody in some capacity, probably, but I agree and that's why it's 
      a fair use factors, right? It's always going to be that balancing     
      analysis and until someone gets sued that's in a similar position as  
      you or the case law continues to get carved out and more defined,     
      those parameters are going to continue to be very blurry and scary at 
      times. So the most you can do is just be very cognizant of it.        
                                                                            
95:06 And like I said, the amount and substantiability of the copyrighted   
      work used is a factor considered. So if you're using like a really    
      small part of something and it's part of your much bigger creation,   
      then you have much less to worry about. But the flip side is there's  
      almost always an argument why you're using it fairly.                 
                                                                            
95:30 I'm a lawyer. My husband goes crazy. I'm always like, well on one hand
      on the other and I'm like, I can't help it.                           
                                                                            
95:36 I'm programmed to think this way. I always think there's always       
      probably unless you're just so egregiously infringing, there's almost 
      always an argument why you could be using it fairly. Absolutely.      
                                                                            
95:51 In any case, it's hard to imagine this decision not having an impact  
      on our next topic. Next and final topic, especially as it pertains to 
      what it means to be sufficiently transformative and especially in a   
      commercial context. Perfect.                                          
                                                                            
96:07 Thanks Josh. So generative AI systems like Chat GDP to me seem like   
      the next gold Rush. We dealt with clients in AI and ML for the last   
      decade, but this whole large language model and how ubiquitous it is  
      now, I mean it seems to me like the next gold rush in terms of        
      technology and it's going to be probably a legal IP minefield for a   
      lot of companies and developers.                                      
                                                                            
96:34 So some AI experts are arguing that as soon as 2025, 90% of online    
      content could be generated by AI, which is crazy and stifling. So this
      is no longer the stuff of academic research, it's not science fiction 
      anymore, although it harkens to it. And the biggest players in tech   
      are pouring billions into it in an arms wraith to reshape the         
      internet.                                                             
                                                                            
96:57 And it's already raising some really serious concerns around content  
      ownership. So just from a brief background, these generative AI       
      systems use large language models which are trained on massive public 
      data sets that include websites, books, images and articles. And then 
      the chat bots are then able to create an unlimited amount of new      
      content, which is quite impressive, including articles, essays,       
      images, lyrics, video code, you name it.                              
                                                                            
97:24 And they're doing so at a level of quality and artistry that it's hard
      to distinguish it from human created content. So when prompted, at    
      least in earlier versions, chat GTP admitted that this training data  
      included copyrighted material, but claimed this work was okay because 
      of fair use. So the content it's producing is certainly the kind of   
      content that people have traditionally sought copyright protection    
      for.                                                                  
                                                                            
97:50 And so can generative AI output be copyrighted? Is it really legal for
      these generative AI companies to be training their models with these  
      mass volumes of unlicensed copyright protected material? And what does
      it mean for the average consumer who's taking the generative output   
      and using it without a license? That was thick? Well, you're right, AI
      is definitely probably the gold mine of technology. Kind of scares me 
      a little bit, especially as a content creator know, I like to so and  
      I've seen a lot of lawyers talk about how they're using Chat, GPT or  
      Google to draft their blog posts know things of that nature. So it's  
      relevant in every sector of so as of right now, baseline, no          
      generative AI output cannot be copyrighted.                           
                                                                            
98:55 And so currently the copyright law only recognizes copyright for human
      creations. Only humans can get a copyright registration. Indeed, there
      was a case that held that a photograph taken by a chimpanzee couldn't 
      be copyrighted because the chimp is not a human.                      
                                                                            
99:13 So with that as the baseline, it would be a very large stretch to say 
      that a machine of any sort could be the owner of a copyright. However,
      it is a big question. By scraping libraries of content that include   
      copyrighted material, are these AI companies committing copyright     
      infringement? They could be especially.                               
                                                                            
99:42 But it's difficult then when the output is you can't decipher what    
      comes from where and how much is a copyright infringement or not. So  
      this could turn the fair use analysis on its head for the average     
      customer, say someone who's like create me a blog post, right? Are    
      they exposing themselves to copyright infringement potentially in some
      capacity, if that AI is using copyrighted material. So this is all    
      extremely dense and complicated.                                      
                                                                            
100:19 And a lot could hinge on whether as AI continues to proliferate,      
      whether the Copyright Office ultimately decides to recognize a        
      mechanism for AI generated content, either specifically excluding it  
      from trademark protection, saying no, this store is closed forever, it
      is still just only human creations that can be protected or are they  
      going to allow where? So when you do say for instance, you create     
      something that uses part of a copyright of another, you do have to    
      disclaim that. So it's like, do people have to note on their copyright
      registration application, oh, I used AI to create this? Is AI somehow 
      still an owner of that? Or I don't own what the AI created, but how do
      you know what amount it created? Or they could ultimately change it.  
      Yeah, like where AI is, authors, like the AI itself actually gets     
      credit for the copyright.                                             
                                                                            
101:19 It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out, because I'm no AI  
      expert, but if you're using copyright protected source material, I can
      only imagine that some sort of copyright issue will arise here        
      eventually. Yeah, I think it's going to be, you know, the patent      
      system is grappling with this and I think it's going to be continuing 
      to know that the whole Davis case that started in Europe and whether  
      AI could be an inventive entity from a patent system perspective. So I
      think it's far from resolved in the patent world and also just        
      starting to be dug into in the copyright world.                       
                                                                            
102:03 Yeah, regulators tend to be pretty slow to catch up to these things,  
      but this one is especially tricky because it's potentially obfuscated 
      infringement. Right. Like you've got these models are consuming the   
      collective of human knowledge, including a lot of unlicensed          
      copywriting material.                                                 
                                                                            
102:24 They're synthesizing new answers from that material these companies   
      didn't create. But then these answers, this new content is being hid  
      behind a chat interface doesn't have to cite any of its sources.      
      Right? So it's like this big black box.                               
                                                                            
102:40 It's just sort of magic. I don't know. It's going be to hard to       
      regulate this stuff.                                                  
                                                                            
102:45 It's gonna be hard to know, it's gonna be hard to prove some of from  
      a, from a usage perspective. We looked at chat GPT's terms just for   
      our own. Internal use because we were trying to figure out how it     
      could potentially impact us in terms of content generation especially.
                                                                            
103:06 And one of the things that I found to be particularly eye popping is  
      that the terms say that it's okay to use the content for commercial   
      purposes, but what sort of viral transference of infringement could   
      come from this? Right? Because the terms say that explicitly say that 
      you own the output, right, and that you can use it for commercial     
      purposes, but it also shifts any infringement liability to the owner  
      of the generated content. So they're assigning rights that they don't 
      have and then they're saying, well, you own the input, you own the    
      output, and it's on you to make sure that this complies with local    
      laws. So by using the interface, going back to the whole contract     
      thing, the terms of use, you are explicitly inheriting the            
      infringement liability that come as a user.                           
                                                                            
104:04 Which not a big deal if it's just your little chat assistant on the   
      side, but if you're using this for marketing material and blog post,  
      this is a whole nother potential can of worms and it's going to be    
      interesting. Yeah, well, I mean from GPT's perspective, it's genius.  
      That's genius contract writing for them, hey man, we're not liable for
      anything, it's all you.                                               
                                                                            
104:33 And that's great for them, but I would suspect something is going to  
      come up with them specifically involved in the IP sector and maybe    
      whether those terms of use are legal to do that. It'll be very        
      interesting. I agree.                                                 
                                                                            
104:51 Josh, I think your point too about assigning rights that you don't    
      own, right? And so to think that I think, again, not being in that    
      world as much, but in the patent world, it happens right where you    
      have to have a good chain of title and if there's a break in it and   
      then rights are being assigned from an entity that didn't have the    
      rights to assign in the first place. Right. And so I could see that   
      being a huge chink in the armor.                                      
                                                                            
105:21 Well, it's like if you didn't own the rights to begin with and now    
      you're giving them to whoever, the person who's using Chat GTP, well, 
      maybe you shouldn't have been given those rights away anyways because 
      they weren't yours to give. So anyways, interesting. Yeah.            
                                                                            
105:37 And sort of going back to some of the Warhol stuff and fair use       
      commercialism and all that, there's Getty Images, they have this      
      massive database of images especially used in the media. They're suing
      stable Diffusion right now, saying that stable diffusion trained their
      image generator on getty's 12 million images without getting          
      permission or providing compensation. And if you want to talk about a 
      work that's designed to supplant the work of someone else for         
      commercial purposes, as in the case of warhol, I think you can start  
      making pretty strong arguments to that.                               
                                                                            
106:23 Sure, for sure. And it is seriously a new frontier for everyone from  
      every angle mean, I'm just long for the ride to see how it works      
      because I'm still hesitant to use it myself. So I would be looking at 
      the terms just like you two.                                          
                                                                            
106:41 It'll be interesting. The one thing that I think is sort of           
      interesting from an authorship perspective though and not being able  
      to credit AI as an author, one of the arguments they're trying to make
      is that the Office is basically saying like hey, you can use AI tools 
      for creating original works. It's just like using you can use         
      Photoshop to edit an image as a photographer and you can still get a  
      copyright for that.                                                   
                                                                            
107:15 Sort of some of the logic driving that distinction is saying that it  
      matters to the extent that the human is involved in the creative      
      process. And they're saying that because Chat GPT is this like you put
      a prompt in and then you get an output that you're not sort of        
      involved really in authorship. Right? And so this is like this AI     
      generated thing that's not eligible for copyright.                    
                                                                            
107:40 But where I think that starts to fall apart a little bit from a logic 
      perspective is that not everyone uses these interfaces the same way.  
      Right. There's sort of a lot of developing science around getting the 
      best possible answers and outcomes from these systems.                
                                                                            
107:58 And there's an Iterative, these generative AI systems, they have      
      memory. You can sort of make them smarter as you go through this      
      Iterative process of prompt crafting and it's hard to imagine that    
      there's not some artistic expression in that. Right? Like you and I   
      are not going to get the same thing out of Chat GPT.                  
                                                                            
108:21 So I think again, some of these arguments, I don't think they're      
      really going to stand the test of time once the regulators truly      
      understand what these things are capable of and how people are        
      actually using them. Definitely. And I was thinking that too.         
                                                                            
108:38 It's user controlled, right? You have to prompt it, you have to       
      explain to it what you want. Right. I would argue that that's some    
      sort of human contribution.                                           
                                                                            
108:52 So wow, that would definitely probably could be angle that's explored 
      in the case law because how much is enough? Again, it'll probably be  
      perhaps a factor based analysis or a sliding scale of some sort of did
      you have enough human contribution or was it all just the machine?    
      It's a fully loaded topic and I have no clue exactly how it will all  
      pan out. But yeah, for right now it's pretty set in stone that only   
      humans can create copyrights and own them. Whether having AI as an    
      assisted tool in that creation, just like you say, Photoshop or any   
      sort of other music editing software, is that the same, is that akin? 
      And then just to shake things up and play devil's advocate because AI 
      probably is the devil, I was thinking models are trained on the       
      collective of public human knowledge.                                 
                                                                            
109:59 These LLMs, they make connections and they generate new works. When   
      does that depart from how humans learn, become inspired by, and       
      synthesize from protected works, as we have no doubt done today? Well,
      similar. And that was the argument that was made in the patent case   
      that the AI, the debut system had come up with, solved its own problem
      by itself and engaged in inventive activity, but still wasn't enough  
      from the court's perspective across multiple countries.               
                                                                            
110:34 But that might change. All right, well, I think that covers it and    
      then some. Thanks, Mallory, for joining us today and making our very  
      own greatest hits tape of 2023.                                       
                                                                            
110:47 Copyright and trademark news. And hopefully you'll be able to         
      represent us if the mouse comes after us for the graphic I'm going to 
      let Dolly generate for this episode's promotional materials. I got    
      your back, Josh, and it was so much fun being on the podcast today.   
                                                                            
111:05 Thank you both, Josh and Ashley, for having me and letting me engage  
      in this discussion on brand protection with you. Thanks, Mallory.     
      Awesome.                                                              
                                                                            
111:15 All right, that's all for today, folks. Thanks for listening, and     
      remember to check us out@aurorapateents.com for more great podcasts,  
      blogs, and videos covering all things patent strategy. And if you're  
      an agent or attorney and would like to be part of the discussion or an
      inventor with a topic you'd like to hear discussed, email us at       
      podcast@aurorapatents.com.                                            
                                                                            
111:33 Do remember that this podcast does not constitute legal advice. And   
      until next time, keep calm and patent on our channel.