Copyright

irregardless of what law is being referenced, if I am aware of it, whether I like it or not, whether it is justified or not, I try to comply. For a number of reasons:

for my practice of acceptance
because I may not enjoy the consequences
I care about the demonstration to those younger around me

that is my conscience and the way I experience the jedi way

the jedi religion does not stop me from freely moving about the universe

I guess someone ought to hurry up and scrub out the word "Jedi" on every page of this website :blink:

Streen wrote: I guess someone ought to hurry up and scrub out the word "Jedi" on every page of this website :blink:

Religion is often considered a "non-commercial use" as interpreted under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. Since we are a non-profit and quite obviously not making any money, it is unlikely that Disney/LucasArts/LucasFilms etc would have any reason to pursue legal action against us.

If you are making any profit, however, they have demonstrated that they will go after you in court. A perfect example would be the use of the word "Jedi" on TOTJO merchandise on CafePress or Zazzle. This could be considered a commercial use of the trademark and it would be in violation of the law.

It should also be noted that trademark and copyright, while similar, are not the same thing.

Tademark has to do with branding and applying a similar idea or same idea to something that is considered non-competitive (different industry) does not apply. The word "Jedi" is trademarked I'm sure. But "Force" in reference to an ambiguous permeating universal energy is not an idea that was invented by George Lucas. It predated his intellectual property by millennia. To attempt to apply TM law or intellectual property law to a group of people professing to believe in a religion based upon it, is a huge stretch. Consider that a religious organization is not considered a part of commerce, I don't think that there would even be a case. It's literally free advertising for them.

Senan wrote:

Streen wrote: I guess someone ought to hurry up and scrub out the word "Jedi" on every page of this website :blink:

Religion is often considered a "non-commercial use" as interpreted under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. Since we are a non-profit and quite obviously not making any money, it is unlikely that Disney/LucasArts/LucasFilms etc would have any reason to pursue legal action against us.

If you are making any profit, however, they have demonstrated that they will go after you in court. A perfect example would be the use of the word "Jedi" on TOTJO merchandise on CafePress or Zazzle. This could be considered a commercial use of the trademark and it would be in violation of the law.

It should also be noted that trademark and copyright, while similar, are not the same thing.

I would think that the CafePress and Zazzle shops would be immune as well, as proceeds fund the non-profit as well, and if you're referring to cafepress or zazzle themselves taking a cut, they would do that regardless of whether it has the work Jedi on it or not, they do it with all their merchandise, so I don't see how anyone is directly profitting from that usage.

A few more points in the spirit of continuing an engaging conversation, if I may...

• Copyright and Trademark law are generally about protecting the right of the intellectual property owner to any income generated by the use of said property. The idea is about giving credit where credit is due, but the law is all about who's allowed to make the money. These rights can be bought and sold. The Beatles had to pay Michael Jackson for permission to publish their own music until Paul McCartney was able to buy the rights back. Be careful who you sell your rights to.
• Copyright and Trademark law vary from country to country. What is illegal in the U.S. may not be enforced elsewhere. The "free enterprise" and international nature of the internet has allowed people to circumvent local law by hosting stolen content on servers elsewhere. It is extremely difficult to enforce U.S. copyright law currently because of this.
• As it pertains specifically to music, owning a copyright does not always mean you own publishing rights. Many musicians get caught up in the business of record labels and publishers and inadvertently surrender their publishing rights for a quick buck. Meanwhile, the publisher makes the real money in the long run. The radio stations I work for pay $40,000 a month to BMI and ASCAP (music publishers) for the right to air music they own for commercial purposes. How much of that money ever makes it to the actual writer or performer is hard to say.
• The medium matters! Streaming online is not the same as reading a book which is different from transmissions sent over the air and received by antennae. Using a protected image or photo in a magazine is not the same as using it online or in a video, and the price to use said image will be different. The rules are different for different media depending on how the copyrighted material is being distributed and whether or not someone is making any money off of it. I can watch NFL football for free in my house, but if I am broadcasting it to an large audience in a bar I own, the rules are different and I have to pay for it.

It's a tricky and changing environment when it comes to intellectual property rights. Rest assured, there are enough lawyers in this world to make sure that rights are retained and someone will eventually get paid.

Streen wrote: I would think that the CafePress and Zazzle shops would be immune as well, as proceeds fund the non-profit as well, and if you're referring to cafepress or zazzle themselves taking a cut, they would do that regardless of whether it has the work Jedi on it or not, they do it with all their merchandise, so I don't see how anyone is directly profitting from that usage.

It's not always about whether or not someone is profiting. It is also about whether or not selling these items would be damaging Disney/LucasFilms ability to sell similar products. Even if we aren't making any money, the copyright or trademark owner could claim that we are creating unfair competition using their own trademark to create a competing product and thus harming their ability to sell it themselves.

Senan wrote:

Streen wrote: I would think that the CafePress and Zazzle shops would be immune as well, as proceeds fund the non-profit as well, and if you're referring to cafepress or zazzle themselves taking a cut, they would do that regardless of whether it has the work Jedi on it or not, they do it with all their merchandise, so I don't see how anyone is directly profitting from that usage.

It's not always about whether or not someone is profiting. It is also about whether or not selling these items would be damaging Disney/LucasFilms ability to sell similar products. Even if we aren't making any money, the copyright or trademark owner could claim that we are creating unfair competition using their own trademark to create a competing product and thus harming their ability to sell it themselves.

I was just going by what you said about them not going after non-profits like religious institutions when it is often viewed as fair use.

Got it. I'm overthinking stuff as usual Time to shut up again!

Senan wrote: A few more points in the spirit of continuing an engaging conversation, if I may...

• Copyright and Trademark law are generally about protecting the right of the intellectual property owner to any income generated by the use of said property. The idea is about giving credit where credit is due, but the law is all about who's allowed to make the money. These rights can be bought and sold. The Beatles had to pay Michael Jackson for permission to publish their own music until Paul McCartney was able to buy the rights back. Be careful who you sell your rights to.
• Copyright and Trademark law vary from country to country. What is illegal in the U.S. may not be enforced elsewhere. The "free enterprise" and international nature of the internet has allowed people to circumvent local law by hosting stolen content on servers elsewhere. It is extremely difficult to enforce U.S. copyright law currently because of this.
• As it pertains specifically to music, owning a copyright does not always mean you own publishing rights. Many musicians get caught up in the business of record labels and publishers and inadvertently surrender their publishing rights for a quick buck. Meanwhile, the publisher makes the real money in the long run. The radio stations I work for pay $40,000 a month to BMI and ASCAP (music publishers) for the right to air music they own for commercial purposes. How much of that money ever makes it to the actual writer or performer is hard to say.
• The medium matters! Streaming online is not the same as reading a book which is different from transmissions sent over the air and received by antennae. Using a protected image or photo in a magazine is not the same as using it online or in a video, and the price to use said image will be different. The rules are different for different media depending on how the copyrighted material is being distributed and whether or not someone is making any money off of it. I can watch NFL football for free in my house, but if I am broadcasting it to an large audience in a bar I own, the rules are different and I have to pay for it.

It's a tricky and changing environment when it comes to intellectual property rights. Rest assured, there are enough lawyers in this world to make sure that rights are retained and someone will eventually get paid.

I would agree up to a point... In a perfect world everyone would get paid for their stuff being played. The reality of the old Paradigm in music. Terrestrial radio (traditional radio) pays out to Performance Rights Organizations like ASCAP, SESAC and BMI. They collect on behalf of the writer. Not on behalf of the performer. There IS no system of collection in place for the performer for terrestrial radio. It's considered advertising for the recording. In cases where someone other than the performing artist wrote the song, the performer of the song DOES NOT GET PAID. Neither does the label. And the LABEL makes this deal. In the digital arena, SoundExchange (Digital PRO) pays out about 10% to the writer and 60% to the performer. There are more plays done on terrestrial radio than digital streams. Digital hasn't even hit a 50% market penetration yet. Add to this, WHEN Spotify pays (not as often as it should), that money goes to the label and the publishers. 50/50. The publisher splits that up 50/50 with the writer. The label removes distribution costs and other things... Statutory royalty fee is about $.09 per song. That is cut in half for the Label's cut of 50% ownership of the recording. Ok, 4.5 cents per recorded song. What about that advance the label gave you to get started and pay for you album and packaging and marketing? You have to pay that back BEFORE you get your 4.5 cents per song. Add on top of this that the labels often negotiate contracts to down to 75% of the statutory rate... 3.375 cents per song... Just under 34 cents for the average album. So you sold a million copies... You made $337,500. Out of the average 10-15 million in money that changed hands... It literally equates to 3.375% of the total sales... Oh wait... There's more. Have a manager? Take 20% of your earnings off the top. $67,000... $270,500. Four members of the band? Just over $50,000 each. If you rely on your recorded media as a performing artist to make your actual money, you're an idiot. Your money comes from writing and touring. As a writer you would get around $1.40 per album sold less $.28 to your manager. $1.12 million dollars for 1 million records sold. The digital market will eventually curb that because the PROs are hampered by federally mandated royalty statutes and no negotiations happen. If you look at an album cycle, artist put out an album every 3-4 years. Performers cannot maintain any lifestyle on the kind of money made from the recordings they appear on. So touring and session playing are their bread and butter. YouTube is digging into concert sales... Why go to the concert if someone in the audience shot the whole thing on video? Not to mention, people are tired of seeing just a band on stage. They want huge TV screens and lasers... The recording is advertising for the show. The show needs to be something that is lost on you unless you were actually there. Its a digital world. The old ways of doing things and thinking about things are obsolete. We have to figure out something new. If you want to see better live music and go see someone who is worth seeing and pay for the spectacle. If someone creates something and is irresponsible about how they release it to the public, it is as much their fault for not being responsible about it as it is anyone who acquire said media through nefarious means. The only expectations I have for people, is that they will take the path of least resistance. The economy sucks. No one has as much money as they once did to buy luxuries like art anymore. They will get what they want the way that the market presents it to them, even if illegal. Especially if there is little to no chance they will get caught. Thats base nature. Its reptile brain. Sure we can rise above that. But its a conscious choice. Not everyone is conscious of the choice they are making and how it affects the artists they listen to. They may even think that its a hobby (someone called my professional music life a hobby in a job interview recently). I politely replied that I make a $200 a day minimum when playing. Generally for 4 or less hours of work. They were shocked. If I played 4 gigs a week, I would be making really good money. There just aren't the gigs around here for that. We have to understand the market, which doesn't always follow the law. And adapt. I'm not saying that you should be okay with theft of your wares. That sucks for everyone. I'm saying that we should be brainstorming on how to put a new system in place that earns us the money we feel we deserve. Laws aren't always effective. And the legal process is slow. We can whine about it, or we can get off our asses and change the entire game.