Copyright Law and Frankenstein guitars.

[xaminer]

Ok, if I remember correctly, if you change something at least 25%, it's not infringement of copyright laws. Ed cannot copyright red and white stripes, he can only copyright the specific order on the stripes of his frankenstein guitar.

So, how does the stripes, if they are different, protected under this copyright law? If Ed were to copyright any red and white stripes, then the American Flag would be a violation.

Does anyone know anymore on this copyright thing? Can Ed copyright any red and white stripes? I think it would be a hard battle to win.

[Brett]

Probably anything with red, black, and white stripes having to do with musical instruments or in reference to his band I would think. I wonder if this covers the black and yellow and black and white early paint jobs too?

[Olen]

Someone yanked my chain? LOL!!

xaminer:

(1) Copyright law does not have a rigid percentage that dictates what is and is not copyright infringement.

The legal test for copyright infringement is called "substantial similarity". This judicially created doctrine has developed into several varying permutations, depending on which federal circuit court your case is being heard by. The test may be stated "is X (the alleged infringing item) substantially similar to Y (the copyrighted item)?"

Simple to state, but quite hard to define in any concrete way. In essensce, the question asked is "would an ordinary observer view X as being substantially similar"? If so, then the burden is on the defendant to show that there is minimal similarity. This, quite often, is difficult for a defendant to do.

But, there is no percentage that automatically equates to infringement/not infringement.

(2)You are correct that Ed could not CR red and white stripes. Red and white stripes are an "idea" or "concept" and is not protected under CR law.

Although it is tough to define EXACTLY what Ed's CR on the candy-stripe is based on, it most likely is the red background with white/black striping. It is not confined to the exact placement as seen on Ed's guitars, per se. As Brett noted, the context of the striping (relating to music/instruments) is relevant, but is not completely confining. CR law still would prevent someone from copying or substantially copying the candy-stripe arrangement of Ed's and applying it to a different context. And, in CR law, there is a concept that often blocks people from merely reproducing a copyrighted idea in a slightly different arrangement (as you could probably guess from the infringement discussion above). The copyright office usually would catch something like that. If they did not, then that is why there is a court and the "substantial similarity" test of infringement. Acts as dual protection to the copyright owner.

(3) Thus, Ed, nor anyone else, could copyright red background w/ white/black striping b/c it is an idea, which is not copyrightable.

I hope this is helpful. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Brett]

Well Ed did copyright something called Frankenstein Artwork. Rol gave us the copyright number earlier, VAU505-308. I am going to try to look it up, and being that it is public record and I am curious what the hell Frankenstein Artwork exactly is. That seems to be the question, what has Ed exactly copyrighted.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Brett:
Well Ed did copyright something called Frankenstein Artwork. Rol gave us the copyright number earlier, VAU505-308. I am going to try to look it up, and being that it is public record and I am curious what the hell Frankenstein Artwork exactly is. That seems to be the question, what has Ed exactly copyrighted.

I ran a quick search at the web site for the U.S. Copyright Office, and this is the listing:

"VAu-505-308 (COHM) Title: Frankenstein.

Description: Artwork on guitar.

Claimant: acEdward VanHalen , 1955-

Created: 1997

Registered: 20Feb01

Miscellaneous: C.O. corres."

Unfortunately, that is the only information provided -- but it would appear that this particular copyright is applicable to the frankenstein artwork on the guitar only.

[Brett]

Well this I got from the US Copyright office on that number:

VAu-505-308 (COHM) Title: Frankenstein.
Description: Artwork on guitar.
Claimant: acEdward VanHalen , 1955-
Created: 1997
Registered: 20Feb01
Miscellaneous: C.O. corres.
Special Codes: 5/S

Created 1997? Dude I think Ed's argument is weak, I am going to start doing some more research into this.

[xaminer]

Ok... so that means, we could have red and white stripes on a website as long as they don't resemble a guitar? Even if we are talking about Van Halen, or no?

[Olen]

Brett: Another guess on my part. The "created in 1997" leads me to believe that the Frankenstein artwork in question relates most specifically to the Wolfgang model guitars.

The thing about Copyrights and Copyright protection is that the legal protection subsists in a work at creation, which is to say sometime in the late '70s or early '80s...whenever Ed candy-striped the original Franky. Registration is not a prerequesite for copyright protection. Federal registration, among other things, has a lot of teeth in dealing with intentional infringers of the criminal variety. A CR owner can get statutory damages, which is based on each infringing act, and can be up to $150,000 per offense, which adds up with just a few instances of infringement, but I digress.

In Ed's case, it would not be hard to prove that his candy-striping scheme existed well before the creation date listed ('97) and the registration date ('01). It just so happens that he finally registered the candy-striping in '01.

The fact that this CR is registered and labeled as pertaining to artwork for guitars is interesting. But I am fairly certain that such labels (CR Class is the technical term, I think) are not restrictive on the copyright. If such labels were that restrictive, a musician would have to have individual CR's for a song included in a movie (as played within the film) and the song as included on a CD/audio recording sold at retail. I wouldn't get to hung up on the labeling. Just a hunch from something I remember from law school and Copyright Law Class.

Xaminer: No, a website could not have red background w/ white/black striping if it closely resembled or directly copied Ed's scheme, regardless if it was a candy-striped guitar, or a candy-striped whatever. Simply changing the medium (guitar to whatever the new item is) would not absolve the person altering the medium from potential liability for CR infringement.

[ April 11, 2002 at 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Olen ]</p>

[hain23x]

I'm pretty fuckin' confused here!

how can someone corner the market on a red background with random white and black lines?

how can someone claim "5150" when that is a police code????

it seems to me that the ONLY thing they can claim(and that's the term I'm using cuz Iza STILL don't know the differnece between copyright and trademark! [img]graemlins/wtf.gif[/img] ) is the flyin' VH logo and the the Van Hagar wraparound thinggy!!!

I don't remember seeing a flyin vh logo on those guitars so I'm thinkin' that Eddie's lawyers just punked everyone and they all fell for it!

I guess I'm wrong on this since I'm just a dope smokin' beer drinkin' whiskey sippin' dude and not a moneygrubbin' lowlife weazly lawyer(no offense to the lawyers here that are honest )

[ April 11, 2002 at 10:07 PM: Message edited by: hain23x ]</p>

[dkcou812]

[img]graemlins/wtf.gif[/img] YOU KNOW HAIN THATS A FUCKING GREAT QUESTION [img]graemlins/wtf.gif[/img]