Siyu Zhang

Case 2

Feb.22

Paperback writer

The professor’s book title, Criminal Intent, does not have any kind of legal protection. In order for literary or artistic expression to be protected from copying it must meet three requirements by law. The requirements for obtaining legal protection on this kind of material include the following: it must be original, it must be fixed in a durable medium, and it must show some level of creativity. In this case, Criminal Intent was obviously published in a durable medium; however its level of originality and creativity are minor at best. On the other hand, the titles of the Rolling Stones songs are entitled to legal protection. First of all, titles such as Honky Tonk Woman and 19th Nervous Breakdown would probably be considered more creative and original than in the case with Criminal Intent. Therefore, the Rolling Stones song titles meet all three requirements for protection of artistic expression.
Also, this protection would be largely due to the popularity the songs achieved when they were released. The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 aims to protect trademarks from unauthorized uses even when it is unlikely to confuse consumers. Under Trademark law, an expression may be given protection if it acquires a secondary meaning, meaning that the term or expression has become closely associated with a particular company (in this case, these specific song titles being associated with Rolling Stones). For these reasons, my professor’s use of Rolling Stone song titles for his books would not be considered a legal use.
Raymond Chandler’s “idea book” would be considered a trade secret. Trade secrets are the only type of intellectual property where an “idea” can be protected. A trade secret must meet the following requirements: the information must not be generally known, it must have economic value that stems from the information not being known, and the owner must take reasonable steps to keep it secret. In this case, all three requirements have been met; t is suggested that the great-nephew and possibly the soon-to-be publishing company are the only people who know the contents of the “idea book,” there is obvious economic value in having the information kept confidential, and the great-nephew is taking great care to keep it secret by locking the “idea book” in a safe. Trade secrets are legally protected from wrongful acquisition, and my professor has clearly acquired this information in an underhanded way; therefore, the content of his newly written books is stolen property. The Economic Espionage Act also made theft of trade secrets a federal crime.
My professor changing his name to William Bernhardt would constitute infringement against a trade name. Trade names have the same protection under law as a trademark. Infringement is defined as the unauthorized use of a mark that would likely confuse consumers as to the origin of goods and services. My professor’s obvious intent was to use a popular author’s name in order to promote the sale of his own books; this caused confusion in the market, and, therefore, his actions were illegal. Had my professor simply changed his name and not published any books using it, there would have been no confusion and no legal infringement.
There are protected uses of copyrighted material under Fair Use guidelines. Under these guidelines, we consider the nature of the protected work, the purpose/nature of copying, the extent of copying, and the effect on the market. Education is one purpose that is protected under Fair Use. Typically, the extent of copying should not exceed 150 words or 10 percent of the total work; therefore, the extent to which Fink is copying the books for his classes would probably ultimately determine whether or not his use of copyrighted material is legal. Exceeding copying a certain amount of the work would also have a negative effect on the market, as students would benefit from the work without having to purchase it.