|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 21, 2011 12:59:15 GMT -5
I read lots of stuff on the Innerwebs (way too much stuff, if you ask my wife!). So imagine my surprise to see this article: What Would You Name Your Lawyer Band?newey, it's time to break out the trademark application! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Jun 21, 2011 13:13:09 GMT -5
newey can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe that as we've already "published" songs, as in posted on SoundClick and SoundCloud, we have an "implied copyright" on the material and the Legal Fiction name, which established us as an entity two years ago. And the logo should fall under that, too, I believe.  I liked it, but newey nixed the this one...he said we'd get sued if we used my idea for an album cover...  Actually, this may be the only way the band makes a dime is through litigation...Tom Waits did alright... I will yield the floor to our distinguished counsel for further clarification. Happy Trails Cynical One |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jun 21, 2011 16:46:03 GMT -5
I liked it, too- but the little lawyer in my brain was screaming at me . . . Which reminds me, I still have to pull together a title track.  In my law school days, there were a couple of different bands around school. One had a non-legally-themed name, but the other was called "Moot Point & the Cardozos", which, if you're a lawyer, is really very funny. OK, so you'll have to trust me on that.  As far as the copyright stuff goes, what you want for a bandname is not a copyright but a tradename (for the band's name itself) and/or a trademark on the logo design together with the name. But prior use, as we have established, can trump over later registration. So we should be OK. Since the whole enterprise exists only in a virtual way, we can also definitively document when our first use occurred. This is a big difference from the old days, where at best you'd get testimony like: "Well, I think it was 1971 when my cousin and I started a rock band called "Nirvana". |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Jun 21, 2011 17:42:44 GMT -5
Actually, when I looked it up, it was rather amusing. Let me save you the Google time.
Moot Point:
The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant
Cardozos:
Justice Benjamin Cardozo was one of the premier judges of the first half of this century, serving on the New York Court of Appeals as Chief Judge, the most influential state court in the country, and then on the Supreme Court. On the New York Court of Appeals, Cardozo rewrote tort law with his stamp; his characterizations of negligence, proximate cause, and assumption of the risk still dominate law throughout the land 60 to 80 years after his original decisions.
Lawyers can be such clever fellows...
HTC1
|
|
|
|
Post by lpf3 on Jun 21, 2011 17:51:10 GMT -5
WE ? Whaddaya got a mouse in yer pocket?..........  lpf3
|
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Jun 21, 2011 18:01:42 GMT -5
WE ? Whaddaya got a mouse in yer pocket?.......... Oh yeah, that's nice...hiding behind the virtual drummer, heh... HTC1 |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 21, 2011 23:19:55 GMT -5
As far as the copyright stuff goes, what you want for a bandname ..... a tradename (for the band's name itself) Well, at least I said 'trademark', so I was only half-wrong, right? sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 21, 2011 23:33:26 GMT -5
Looking over the thread since I posted.....
Moot is actually defined outside of law as "something that's already taken care of, so further attention is unwarranted". The sentence "It's a moot point" is generally meant to say "Sure your argument is valid, but the question's already been decided, so why fight over it again?" In this construction, relevance never comes up, so no egos are bruised.
Within the law community, schools use moot in it's original (ancient) form, but most legal eagles I've dealt with seem to use the term in the more plebian manner. Perhaps it's a matter of courtesy, I can't say, but it is effective nonetheless.
However, applying either definition to a band name, particularly to a band of law students, is still funny in my book! ;D
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by JFrankParnell on Jun 22, 2011 13:57:41 GMT -5
hmmm...yes, I see your point, but maybe if you combed your hair differently, it wouldnt be as noticeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 22, 2011 22:27:20 GMT -5
JFrank, weren't you supposed to include the disclaimer "No PHBs were harmed in the making of this post"....  |
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Jun 23, 2011 6:21:27 GMT -5
....always wanted one of them Moot Synths...
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 23, 2011 12:01:57 GMT -5
....always wanted one of them Moot Synths... That actually took me two complete seconds to get - +1 for causing me to scratch my head. sumgai |
|
lpf3
