One of the most famous American and iconic works of art with a love theme – Robert Indiana’s  – Love (1966)  – was denied copyright protection as copyright protection is generally not afforded to short phrases or titles – even if it was executed in a distinctive font and design.

And finally a list of reasons from the Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center on why you should love fair use.

Prince and the Revolution Album Cover courtesy Wikipedia

How can we forget songs like Purple Rain – you probably sang it in the shower this morning. But lately Prince has been kind of a jerk by filing a copyright infringement lawsuit against 22 individuals (fan websites) and requesting damages of one million dollars against each of them for posting links to his music on the Internet. Now before you scramble to get that illegally downloaded copy of Little Red Corvette (See note below) off your phone – hold on there – the pint size pop star inexplicably dropped the lawsuit without prejudice – meaning he could file it again if he wants to make his fan base even angrier.

One distraught fan had this to say:

“Yes, bootlegging is wrong, but … who is next? Dude will even go after regular ass fans … really sad. Prince will be remembered for making some of the most beautiful music ever created and for hating his fans.”

He may have decided to drop the suit after his lawyers realized that one does not infringe copyright by linking to songs or other materials on the Internet. A link does not create a copy of the material it just takes you to it – the link is like the road that takes you to the bank – you could drive to a bank and rob it – but it wasn’t the road’s fault you robbed the bank. To date no decision in the United States has found that linking would constitute an infringement of copyright – in fact just the opposite has been found. Only the Dutch Courts have found linking to constitute a copyright infringement. And this is what we think of that decision. Now some decisions have held that an individual may be liable for contributory infringement if they post links to material that is clearly a “bootleged” or pirated – which is probably the case here but this is still a gray area of the law.

The lesson to remember is linking in 99% of cases is fine – probably not a good idea to link to something like this shaky video of the musical Wicked.

Note: Yes, I had to link you to a cover version of Little Red Corvette because Prince has done such a good job of keeping his content off the Web – way to go Prince now you got everyone listening to one of your most famous songs performed by Sarah Bettens – a Belgian for crying out loud. Also, you will need something called a mechanical license if you intend to cover one of Prince’s songs yourself.

 If I were a betting man I would not wager against the corporate caffeinated behemoth in what will probably be one of the most quickly filed lawsuits in history. (Disclosure: I’m having one of their delicious brewed coffees right now which may be affecting my disposition on the matter).

 The dispute between Starbucks vs. Dumb Starbucks will most likely be determined under Trademark law under what is called the Lanham Act. The Lanham Act (Named after Tex. Rep. Fritz Lanham) is the federal law that governs federal trademark law (Note: Unlike Copyright you can register a trademark with a state government or with both the federal and a state government) While fair use is a concept in trademark law it isn’t likely to help Dumb Starbucks out too much – since one of the standards under the Lanham Act is that the use of the logo would not cause confusion amongst consumers – here that certainly is a possibility even if slight.  The other main concern a court would have is that the operators of Dumb Starbucks are using Starbucks Logo to turn a profit and compete in the same business. The operators may be subject to claims for dilution or tarnishment – this is especially true where a logo is already famous when a party begins to use the logo as is the case here.  Another story from USA Today – with better pictures here.  A history of the Starbucks logo through the last four decades is located here.  

Update: It appears the Dumb Starbucks store was a hoax put on my Comedy Central comdeian Nathan Fielder.

The Center for the Study of the Public Domain have released their annual list of titles that would have entered the public domain as of January 1, 2014 but did not due to extensions in copyright terms that will keep such works locked up for an additional 56 years. Read more here from the Center’s website.