IP Briefing Note - Intellectual Property Law & Copyright

By: pete arkwright
Copyright is a key area of intellectual property law - it grants a right to prevent others from doing what the copyright owner has the exclusive right to do. IP is intangible property - that is to say that it is not physical property that can be touched. Intellectual property is a legal expression to cover such areas as copyright, design right, patents, trade marks, service marks goodwill and registered designs and is an area of ever-increasing importance to businesses of all sizes. In Britain's economy in the 21st century, arguably the most important areas of IP are copyright and trademarks since the advent of the Internet. What is Copyright? Quite literally, copyright is the exclusive right for the author or creator of a piece of work to copy or use that work. It arises every time an original piece of work is created. It gives the copyright holder the right to prevent other people using the work or to let other people use it on terms that the copyright owner is happy with. Laws governing this intellectual property right vary in different countries - in the UK copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years in most cases - after that anyone can use the work without having to get anyone's consent. The detailed laws are more complex, so do not consider using the material created by someone else, even 70 years after the end of the year the author/creator died, without getting expert advice. Acquiring Copyright ProtectionSo, what do you have to do you acquire copyright and protect yourself from being ripped off? Nothing. The most common misconception is that you have to take positive action to acquire copyright in the UK. In fact, you have copyright in the your creations at the moment the work is done. The problem is proving that it was your creation and not done by someone else earlier. However, it is important to note that copyright in material created during the course of your employment will automatically belong to your employer. Protection of Copyright MaterialThe following simple steps are all you need to do to prove when you created the IP work in question: put a copy or photograph of the work (possibly in digital format on disk or on CD-Rom) in an envelope; address it to yourself; mark the envelope so you can identify its contents without opening it when it gets back to you; send the envelope by "Special Delivery" mail; when it arrives by post, do not open it; store it somewhere safe from both theft and damage. Proving Ownership of IP Remember that the envelope will not help prove your case if it has been opened as anyone could have put anything in at any time. You have to decide how valuable your work could be and whether it is worth the further expense of either having your own fireproof safe or paying someone else to keep it for you (e.g. your bank). You have to put the question of copyright protection and other intellectual property rights in a practical context - there is no point in going to all the expense and trouble if it is unlikely that the work would have any value to someone else. It is also important to remember that protection will not give you copyright if you have copied someone else's material, however unwittingly, it is still copyright infringement - there is no innocence defence to copyright infringement.Contrary to popular belief, you do not need to register copyright and indeed there is no official public register but you can always register with the privately operated "UK Copyright Service" for a small fee: www.copyrightservice.co.uk (email: information@copyrightservice.co.uk). Clarifying Copyright Issues Although as a general rule copyright is retained by the author or creator of the piece of work, what happens where the work is created by an employee in the course of his/her job or a client commissions the work? In both cases, the issue of copyright ownership may become clouded. Copyright in Material produced by Employees In the case of an employee, certain terms are implied into the contract of employment but to avoid disputes later, it is vital that a contract of employment clearly sets out that copyright in all works produced by them will belong to the employer - this leaves the employer free to commit to contracts with clients which may run beyond the period for which the employee is employed and without it there would be contractual chaos. An example would be where an employee of a computer software company prepares a program for a client of the employer - clearly it would put the employer in an impossible position with the client if the employee left (or threatened to leave) and to take the copyright with him/her. In the case of work commissioned by a client, usually the creator will retain copyright but trade practices may dictate that it is passed to the client. In order to avoid expensive disputes, the terms agreed with the client should expressly deal with this point. If the terms state that copyright passes to the client, the client will then have the unrestricted right to reproduce the work. Copyright can be seen as a multi-layered cake that can be cut up and the pieces shared out. In other words, the copyright holder can retain copyright but allow (or "licence") someone else to use the whole or part of the copyright. The whole cake can be licensed or specific parts (i.e. rights) can be licensed - the parts may be defined by reference to time, purpose and territory. For example, a freelance graphic designer was asked to produce artwork for posters and fly sheets for a low-budget theatre production at a small theatre. He was asked to do the work on a reduced-fee basis to keep costs low. He was prepared to do so but was concerned that if the play transferred to the West End they would have had a real bargain that he felt was unfair to him. He was able to agree (putting the agreement in a short contract letter) that his client could only use the artwork for the productions whilst running at the smaller venue so that the client would have to negotiate for its use elsewhere. This meant that the designer could be given a more reasonable reward for his efforts if the play was successful. In fact, it was and transferred to the West End and the designer made money as a result. http://www.kaltons.co.uk
Article Source: http://www.articledashboard.com
Kaltons Solicitors Article Source: http://www.articleonlinedirectory.com

Australian Franchise Law Affecting Economy

By: Lance Winslow

Well the Australian Government is allowing the Franchise Attorneys in their country to ruin the franchise model and so are the Canadians too. Australian Franchise Law is affecting their Economy, as Australia does not export enough and needs to export more.
It is amazing the linear thinking that goes on in our own government with over regulation, but what is even worse is when other nations copy us and our mistakes right along with it. If other governments of the world continue to copy our over regulation and allow lawyers to come in and ruin their countries then they will be throwing away the true value and true meaning for capitalism and free enterprise, but for what in return?
Level playing fields are important in life and business however over regulation does not help any consumers it only provides a greater advantage for the larger companies with the most political pull and most experienced high priced lawyers. Yet in such a game who wins in the end?
Not the government, not the protectionist corporations and certainly not the consumer. The only winner is the lawyers, Dah! So, if Australia was really smart rather than calling in for advice on their franchise regulation, they would call in Caesar. Consider this in 2006.
Lance Winslow
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow
Article Source: http://www.articleonlinedirectory.com

The FTC Purports and Misrepresents Their Law Enforcement Experience as It Attacks Business

By: Lance Winslow

We should all give much kudos to the Federal Trade Commission. We sincerely compliment you on your misdirection, smoke screams and use of self-aggrandizement to further justify the on-going ability to govern, lead, legislate, regulate, and enforce law in the franchising industry. Many of the fear tactics and public relations ploys at the Federal Trade Commission show tactics straight out of the Machiavellian Play Book. Therefore we believe some sort of award is deserved for such strict adherence to that methodology.
The Federal Trade Commission has very well executed these plays time and time again. There is a significant problem however with all of this. That problem is the franchising industry is on the same team of those ideals you claim to be promoting. Truth, Justice and the American Way at the Justice Department and Free Markets, Free Enterprise, Competition, Consumer Rights at the Federal Trade Commission. However, in reality what we find being done at the Federal Trade Commission is a systematic blocking off of lanes during rush hours, when there has not been any franchising roadwork on the highway in ten years? Where no major accidents or pile-ups have been caused by franchisors. Yet we as franchisors are treated like Islamic HazMat drivers under the influence with bogus ID. The franchising company leadership is nothing close. Unless you consider under the influence as being under the influence of innovation, capitalism and entrepreneurship. Last time I checked that was what built the country in the first place. Well it appears that being feared and respected has always been runner up to being loved and respected as per the Prince.
The patch work of federal and state franchise rules reminds me of this I-95 corridor and Mixing Bowl where all your laws come together along with all the state registration laws for a complete quagmire of debris in rush hour. During economic expansion periods franchising must flourish and under times of economic uncertainty franchising can pick up the slack in the job markets while lessening the blow of economic hardship. Attacking the franchising model and setting up roadblocks is not law enforcement although it does create criminals out of hard working folks who are holding up the economy. Franchisors are better suited at law enforcement, enforcing natural laws; such as law of the fittest through direct competition and enforcing standards for consumers based on their desires and purchases for such. How on Earth can a government agency, which does not have to turn a profit or uphold any sense of ‘market-reality’ of consumer supply and demand in the market place expect to do that from afar, by merely putting words on paper? What about the laws of free markets, free men, right of contract, supply and demand, competitive industries or consumer choice? Are those not laws? Are those laws any less serious than the Federal Trade Commission’s words on paper of rules and regulations which have no basis or market reality and are written by those who have never had to make a paycheck and discussed by attorneys who make money manipulating the laws of the market and those on paper for their own personal gain, without contributing to the perfect system of franchising and those of free markets?
Isn’t it time that the Federal Trade Commissions law enforcement experience include a ‘reality check’ and follow the natural laws of our own capitalistic system? Enforcing laws, which are of detriment to the economy, jobs, capital flows, industries, franchising is not helping anyone, as a matter of fact as I have shown it is hurting everyone. If this is the law enforcement experience that the FTC purports it is a very sad day for the Free World and those who participate in the greatest market place of all, yes I speak of the United States of America, where all things are said to be possible.
The Federal Trade Commission creates unworkable scenarios, rules and over disclosure and then waits for society to deliver them a criminal. Then promotes the fact that they have now found a criminal “Exhibit A” to justify their case for further rules and regulations. That is not law enforcement that is just ‘left’ of a very bad joke of the direction and trend in America. Finding criminals and filing cases is wonderful and perhaps if you stretch the definition you could purport; law enforcement experience as they so tactically did in their crafted report on franchising. Yet the criminals you pick as targets are merely entrepreneurs, business men and women or fast moving comets of commitment, dedication, perseverance who believe in country, capitalism and freedom. I find it fascinating in the conclusion of this report that the Federal Trade Commission on franchising that it interprets all the incoming comments from 1995 and 1997 as proof of further need to provide more disclosure to franchisees. I find in summary of reviewing all those comments the exact opposite.
I think the Federal Trade Commission’s Franchise Division ought to be shut down and return the monies of their ill-gotten gains to the franchising industry. Although the economic loss to this county would be in the 100’s of billions of dollars and right now the entire Federal Government cannot come up with that amount of money that it owes in damages to the business community. Think about it you moronic Bureaucrats.
"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/Article Source: http://www.articleonlinedirectory.com
Total Views : 1 Word Count Appx. : 947 Date :2005-05-26