lawyers and pens

I received an angry e-mail claiming I've violated some sort of copyright. I
would like opinions on this...and keep in mind the item in question was never
sold for $ and thus I believe there is no commercial claim that is possible.

A very large pure platinum nib was made...and as it was made by a certain
fountain pen nut in Massachusetts near Hyannisport...and platinum is called
"Pt" for a marking....so naturally I put "109" on the other side of the nib. Is
this a crime???!!! What gives? How on earth is this simple act wrong?

I suppose I'll have to stick to these and never be able to show the platinum
version?

http://members.aol.com/repairpens/TE...zetriumpha.JPG

http://members.aol.com/repairpens/TEXAS/tx4aa.JPG

and as it was made by a certain
fountain pen nut in Massachusetts near Hyannisport...and platinum is called
"Pt" for a marking....so naturally I put "109" on the other side of the nib.

The Kennedys are into FPs now? Hey! I know! Ask Teddy!

PT 109. Good grief, I vaguely remember seeing that film in the cinema with
my mum! 1963?

I don't know anything about US copyright law, but in the UK I don't think
you could copyright a pennant code. (The number thingie on warships.) The
worst they could do you for is practising humour without a licence...

It made me laugh, anyway.

Cheers
KT



"so what" wrote in message
...
and as it was made by a certain
fountain pen nut in Massachusetts near Hyannisport...and platinum is
called
"Pt" for a marking....so naturally I put "109" on the other side of the
nib.

The Kennedys are into FPs now? Hey! I know! Ask Teddy!

Just make a settlement...say, tell them that if they back off, you won't use
it against them the way Joe Pesci used a pen in Casino.
Richard
"Scaupaug" wrote in message
...
I received an angry e-mail claiming I've violated some sort of copyright.
I
would like opinions on this...and keep in mind the item in question was
never
sold for $ and thus I believe there is no commercial claim that is
possible.

A very large pure platinum nib was made...and as it was made by a certain
fountain pen nut in Massachusetts near Hyannisport...and platinum is
called
"Pt" for a marking....so naturally I put "109" on the other side of the
nib. Is
this a crime???!!! What gives? How on earth is this simple act wrong?

I suppose I'll have to stick to these and never be able to show the
platinum
version?

http://members.aol.com/repairpens/TE...zetriumpha.JPG

http://members.aol.com/repairpens/TEXAS/tx4aa.JPG

In article , "Karen Traviss"
writes:

I don't know anything about US copyright law, but in the UK I don't think
you could copyright a pennant code. (The number thingie on warships.) The
worst they could do you for is practising humour without a licence...

The pennant code was "PT-109", whereas the movie title was "PT 109". Anyway,
these people need to have a sense of humor. Copyright violation over what
someone scribed in a pen nib? This sounds like legal busywork.

Dik

It is not the owner of the pen, just some litigious or complaining whiner who
examined the pen and claimed to want one, asked for my e-mail...and sent me an
"official" complaint about items related to the family as if they were owned in
some way. Isn't a former president so much a part of the public domain that
such an issue is laughable? They don't have any standing at all....or am I
wrong??

If it is a unique piece made for the sake of art...isn't that covered by
freedom of expression? Did Marilyn Monroe sue Andy Worhol? This is just a
number next to the symbol for platinum...that's it...nothing more.

On 09 Jul 2003 18:16:07 GMT, ospam (Scaupaug) wrote:

I'm not exactly sure what this is about & I am not a lawyer, but it
seems very bizarre to me.

It seems to me that any claim of copyright infringement must be made
by a party who has some legal claim to the infringed copyright.. If
this were not the case, we would have opportunistic lawyers hunting
down "copyright outlaws" at every turn of the road.

More practically speaking, this sounds like someone who desperately
needs a life.

To use the satrapian syntax, you might simply suggest he fets gucked.

Be well - Willie

I received an angry e-mail claiming I've violated some sort of copyright. I
would like opinions on this...and keep in mind the item in question was never
sold for $ and thus I believe there is no commercial claim that is possible.

A very large pure platinum nib was made...and as it was made by a certain
fountain pen nut in Massachusetts near Hyannisport...and platinum is called
"Pt" for a marking....so naturally I put "109" on the other side of the nib. Is
this a crime???!!! What gives? How on earth is this simple act wrong?

I suppose I'll have to stick to these and never be able to show the platinum
version?

http://members.aol.com/repairpens/TE...zetriumpha.JPG

http://members.aol.com/repairpens/TEXAS/tx4aa.JPG

In article ,
ospam (Scaupaug) writes:

Isn't a former president so much a part of the public domain that
such an issue is laughable?

Indeed. A line of top selling paper shredders was the Shreddex Watergate
series. The Shreddex Watergate 1000 sold for $1,000 in the early 90's.

Dik

ospam (Scaupaug) wrote in
:

It is not the owner of the pen, just some litigious or complaining
whiner who examined the pen and claimed to want one, asked for my
e-mail...and sent me an "official" complaint about items related to
the family as if they were owned in some way. Isn't a former
president so much a part of the public domain that such an issue is
laughable? They don't have any standing at all....or am I wrong??

If it is a unique piece made for the sake of art...isn't that covered
by freedom of expression? Did Marilyn Monroe sue Andy Worhol? This
is just a number next to the symbol for platinum...that's it...nothing
more.


Just etch a picture of Marilyn Monroes mouth around the nib. Maybe just
the lips. Call it a political statement, Then send that lawyer a pen.

Then its art ...

Big Lou from Brooklyn

PS - You could also design a fountain pen in dark brown celluloid in the
shape of a cigar, and call it "The Monica". If you're gonna pee off
first familes, go for broke. :-)

Dear Nathan:

Some people just can’t seem to stay out of trouble

While I don’t practice copyright law, I did take several copyright classes
while in law school from Melvin Nimmer, the father of modern copyright law.
He literally wrote the book on copyright, Nimmer on Copyright, that is
frequently cited in Supreme Court decisions.
Some of the principles I recall from my classes with Professor Nimmer are as
follows:

1. The United States government can own no copyright. All intellectual
property of the United States government is in the public domain and anyone
is entitled to use it for free.

2. Titles generally aren’t subject to copyright. They may be registered by
the Writer’s Guild and subject to certain Guild agreements with signatories,
such as production companies, but generally they are too trivial to be
copyrighted.

3. This brings us to the overarching question of what is subject to
copyright. The brief answer is "writings" in the Constitutional sense. Ideas
may not be copyrighted, but the expression of them may be copyrighted. As I
believe Professor Nimmer used to explain: Boy meets girl/boy loses girl/boy
gets girl back can’t be copyrighted. Hamlet can be copyrighted (assuming it
were written today.)
Professor Nimmer viewed there to be somewhat of a continuum between an idea
or fact, on one hand, and the expression of it, on the other hand. Facts and
ideas such as the facts of Watergate or the boy meets girl idea are freely
available to anyone. Anybody can write a book about Watergate, for example.
However, once one writes a book about Watergate, no-one else is entitled to
expropriate the words used to express those facts. Tough issues are in the
middle, or balance point, where Professor Nimmer believed free speech values
were arrayed against the value of encouraging creativity.

How do these principles apply here? If PT109 is used as the name of a ship
in the U.S. Navy, the name probably belongs to the United States, and is in
the public domain. As the title of a book, it is probably not subject to
copyright protection on its own. A substantial taking from the book might
yield a different result.

Of course, there are other bodies of law which protect names and trademarks
and other intellectual property. There is the Federal Trademark Act which
protects the identifying marks people use for their products and services.
Violating this usually requires a showing beyond copying, such as public
confusion as to source. (I have a feeling you could sell a McDonald’s nib
and the hamburger chain would have a hard time proving that sort of an
element.) There are other laws dealing with mislabeling, but again,
additional elements, such as harm to the public, or reaping where you have
not sown, might have to be shown.

In conclusion, I suspect you may be able to wiggle of the hook this time.
And I don’t think you can get into any trouble saying "Remember the Maine"
either.

Bob