Check out this cool Rand merchandise site!

The letter from Peikoff's lawyer claims trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. As trademarks, Peikoff can have rights under US law to the use of specific words and phrases in particular contexts -- as the letter describes it, "in connection with various products and services." Although Peikoff can't stop someone from naming their child "Ayn Rand" -- he doesn't have blanket control over the name as such -- he very well might be able to stop someone from selling t-shirts with the phrase, "Ayn Rand rocks!" if he has a trademark on the use of her name for that type of merchandise.

Using characters or situations from Rand's fiction produces a potential copyright problem in the form of "derivative works" -- you couldn't legally produce Francisco and Ragnar action figures, for example, because that would make use of characters created in Rand's copyrighted work -- but that does not seem to be alleged in the letter.

All that said, a few specific claims in the letter seem overly broad, such as claiming that an item with 'KANT' in a crossed circle is an infringement. But expansive claims by intellectual property lawyers are hardly unusual.

--
Richard Lawrence
Webmaster, Objectivism Reference Center

Post 21

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:12pm

Marvin:
"Another thing that seems odd to me is the issue of the Atlas image that is similar to the image on the cover of the book. Wouldn't the copyright owner for that image be the artist, Nick Gaetano? Regardless, I actually can understand the objection to that particular image."

Huh...I didn't think it looked anything like the book cover...I'm looking at it again, and the only resemblanceI see is the familiar "Atlas" silhouette, but that's about it.

Thanks for the positive words on the issue, though. I'm going to re-think the whole "give it up" conclusion.

Bed time!

Teresa

Post 22

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:30pm

"The letter from Peikoff's lawyer claims trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. As trademarks, Peikoff can have rights under US law to the use of specific words and phrases in particular contexts -- as the letter describes it, "in connection with various products and services."

OMG, you're right, it does say that! I'm confused...Peikoff has actually "trademarked" the character's names in Rand's novels?? Or he's trademarked specific products that carry those names? It's got to be a pretty special teeshirt for him to trademark the thing! How can that occur? The "specific words or phrases in particular contexts" have to be connected to an actual _product_ don't they? Is a novel a "product?" Is theory a "product?" I think not.

Trademarks are given for specific, physical products. Coke, General Motors, IBM, Barbie, and Turtle Wax are trademarked _products_. When he comes up with a "Dagny Barbie" then I'll bow out. But for now, I'm thinking I'll get back in.

Now I'm REALLY going to bed! :)

Teresa

Post 23

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:41pm

Thanks Richard. Interesting- if you do a search in the U.S. government trademark database for Peikoff and the Ayn Rand Institute, the only active phrases filed are "ayn rand" and "the objectivist".

Post 24

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 8:33pm

I.....WANT....A.....COOL....".BLACK"....RAGNAR.....T-SHIRT....NOW!!!!

MAKE IT SO!!!!!!!!!

gw

EDIT: If I put the above in print and placed it on my bumper, it is my opinion, and it is of no matter who invented "Ragnar" it is still my opinion and therefore it is "free" speech!!!

Sue away!!!

(Edited by gary williams on 8/11, 8:43pm)

Post 25

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 2:12am

They are just trying to bully you out of competition. Copyright they have by default, though as you present it here it would be fair use and not infringement. A symbol like Atlas is a common symbol, and your work will need to be extremely close to the artwork done by others to be in trouble, the artist that made the Atlas images used by ARI will by default hold the copyright to that work, though he/she may well have transferred his rights to the Estate of Ayn Rand. (As Advertising Agency i hold the copyright to anything i make for my clients, but since i prefer to keep my clients based on trust rather than force, i automatically transfer all rights to them - they did after all pay for the materials).

Copyright is normally a question of proof - who came first - so if the estate of AR haven't registered theirs you can just as well claim that you made yours first and that they are the ones infringing your rights.

IF they have protected Ayn Rand as as trademark - as text or graphic - and they may very well have, then you can't use Ayn Rand to help sell your products, but they mention specifically Ms. Rand, and that is yours to use as you please. Like you are free to Discuss Walt Disney as a person, just not free to use Disney to let it seem like they, the company, endorse you to help selling your products.

The mentioning of Kant et al is simply wild. Danneskj�ld / Danneskjold are normal danish names (danish for 'Danes Shield') if anyone would have a right to the name it would be the danish nobility holding that name but even they may not have protected it, under any circumstances the estate of AR does not own it.

I would take them up on it, modify the site a little to meet some of their wishes, send it to the lawfirm representing the rand estate and ask if they can accept it in that form, or what specifically they would object to. Give them a fair deadline for returning. Chances are they can't do much, but at least you will get rid of a potential problem while keeping your site.

Humor them to some extend, accept to lose a battle in order to win the war, but don't just give in, respect their right to do business and let them respect yours.
(Edited by S�ren Olin
on 8/12, 2:19am)

Post 26

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 4:57am

Now there's an idea, Soren. I thank you.

Gary, consider it done. ;)

Thanks to all -

Teresa

Post 27

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:27am

Re: Peikoff vs.Summerlee, I would ignore the letter. I certainly would not grant them the sanction of attempting to comply.

Unless you are a lawyer, you have no idea how to deal with this. I have worked as a consulting expert in some cases and I was surprised at how easy it is to get something thrown out for lack of jurisdiction or applicable statute or whatever.

I have sent "lawyer letters" like the one Summerlee got. They cost about a hundred bucks and they generate some attention, like clearing your throat with an (ahem!) when you hear something you don't like. If the person you are aheming takes off their coat and rolls up their sleeves, you have to make a decision. If the person you are aheming ignores you, then your decision actually may be harder to make.

I like the needleproducts. In fact, the original site mentioned in this thread www.johngaltgifts is pretty cool, though I see that the "Dagny" cartoon has proliferated on its own. If that were my work, I would feel that I had cause for complaint.

I cannot be the only person in the world to have seen this:
http://www.photohome.com/photos/new-york-pictures/new-york-city/atlas-1.html

I think that this is in Barbara Branden's book Passion, but when Atlas came out, there was a rather obvious cartoon in the NYT based on that statue.

Post 28

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 7:38pm