[Politech logo]

Politech is the oldest Internet resource devoted to politics and technology. Launched in 1994 by Declan McCullagh, the mailing list has chronicled the growing intersection of law, culture, technology, and politics. Since 2000, so has the Politech web site.

Copyrighting cease and desist lawyer nastygrams?

[Yes, the C&D letter is copyrighted; the real question is (or should be) 
  whether copyright law extends so far as to prevent the recipient from 
redistributing it freely. ChillingEffects.org gets around this problem 
by providing a modicum of commentary with the nastygram. --Declan]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Copyrighting Cease and Desist Letters?
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:43:38 -0800
From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com>
Reply-To: joehall@pobox.com
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>

Hi Declan, Dave,

I thought either or both of you would be interested in this.
Attorneys for a resort are claiming that a cease and desist letter
that they sent in a trademark issue is covered by copyright and,
therefore, not forwardable.  (The below is written in [Markdown][0]
format.)

best and happy new year, Joe

[0]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/

----

http://pobox.com/~joehall/nqb2/index.php/2005/01/05/copyrighting_candds

### Copyrighting Cease and Desist Letters? ###

*Can attorneys claim copyright in cease and desist letters they send
(to prevent them to be forwarded)?*

[TechDirt][1] has an interesting story up, ["Since When Is It Illegal
To Just Mention A Trademark Online?"][2]

The trademark issue between [Urinal.net][5] and the [Marco Beach Ocean
Resort][6] is not what I find interesting (that is, it's clear that
the site is using it in a descriptive sense, and in terms of trademark
jurisprudence, this is [fair or nominative use][7].)

What interests me is the following (from the TechDirt post):

> I asked the maintainers of the site if I could see a copy of the
   cease & desist, but apparently **the lawyers claim that the cease &
   desist is copyrighted to them and that the recipient is not allowed
   to forward it to anyone.** I wonder if that means they can't even
   forward it to a lawyer? So, as far as I can tell, the [Marco Beach
   Ocean Resort][6] seems to think that [...] any cease and desist is
   to be some sort of "secret" cease & desist that can never be shown
   to anyone, which seems to go a bit beyond what rights copyright
   gives them.

This is pretty silly and, if true, would have major implications for a
site like [ChillingEffects.org][8] (created by w00t! [Wendy][9]).

First, to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against
[Urinal.net][5], [MBOR][6]'s attorneys would have to register the
copyright in the C&D with the copyright office, and there's a small
but real chance that it would not be issued (sometimes, under a "rule
of doubt" the Copyright Office will issue the registration but send a
letter saying that the work may or may not be copyrightable. A court
would have to determine this for sure.).

Attorneys claiming that they have a copyright in a C&D? Well, lets
check the four factors of fair use that would be weighed in a
copyright infringement lawsuit:

   * **purpose of the use** - (I was trying to avoid having to go to or
     link to [Urinal.net][5], but I just did.) The only thing
     commercial about this website is the Google AdWords at the bottom
     (they do have a sad-if-true and funny-any-which-way ["Career
     Opportunities" page][10]: "Throw your career in the toilet! -
     Urinal Dot Net is Hiring!").

     It would seem that this site's use of a C&D - likely for display
     purposes, if any - would more than likely be non-commercial (I
     can't imagine that they'd start to sell viewings of the C&D letter
     or start selling t-shirts of the C&D!).

   * **nature of the work** - Unless these attorneys are damned
     creative, I can't imagine that there's much in the way of
     creativity in a trademark-related C&D letter. It would seem that
     most of the text would be factual and legal prose (that they
     likely ripped off of other attorneys within or without of their
     firm).

   * **amount of work taken** - Well, to publish the C&D, they'd want
     to publish the whole thing, like a scanned image.

   * **effects on market for the work** - The idea of attorneys selling
     their carefully crafted C&D letters is hilarious. I can't imagine
     anyone would buy them, much less how they'd advertise them for
     sale.

So, in short, only one of the four factors (amount) would seriously
weigh against [Urinal.net][5]. They should post the C&D to let the
world see what ridiculous claims the lawyers for [Marco Beach Ocean
Resort][6] are making.

[1]: http://techdirt.com/
[2]: http://techdirt.com/articles/20050105/0132239_F.shtml
[3]: http://tygar.blogspot.com/
[4]: http://www.bloglines.com/blog/tygar
[5]: http://urinal.net/
[6]: http://www.marcoresort.com/
[7]: http://www.publaw.com/fairusetrade.html
[8]: http://www.chillingeffects.org/
[9]: http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/
[10]: http://urinal.net/jobs.html



-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
http://pobox.com/~joehall/
blog: http://pobox.com/~joehall/nqb2/


Posted by Declan McCullagh on Jan 06, 2005


Get a Politech feed through RSS or Atom [RSS] [Atom]

The Politech general information pages and photographs are copyrighted by Declan McCullagh. Original posts distributed to the mailing list are licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Creative Commons License