This is from Access Copyright's "new and improved" (and, as of now, even less informative than before) website.
Access Copyright is an aggressive Canadian copyright collective that, despite its name, effectively restricts and charges for "access" to literary and artistic works.
Believe it or not, Access Copyright is claiming "™" trademark (i.e. monopoly) rights in the ubiquitous and universal "©" symbol.
For once, I must say that words fail me....
All the comes to mind is that old Latin legal adage about "Res Ipsa Loquitur" (The Thing Speaks for Itself).
HK
PS - while the use of the "™" beside the green "©" symbol" on the upper left is ambiguous and questionable in the context, the use in the orange portion by the "©" on the lower right is simply absurd
Access Copyright has promptly undone the "typo" as its communications manager describes it in his comment below. Interestingly, there's a tiny little indecipherable dot remaining.
Was it Freud who said "There are no accidents"?
Most people, however, would interpret it as assertign a trademark in the use of the copyright symbol with the word "Access". There is plenty of precedent for trademarks of that kind.
ReplyDeleteThank you for pointing out the typo on our website with respect to the copyright symbol. Feedback is always appreciated.
ReplyDeleteJohn Provenzano
Communications Manager
Access Copyright
You'd think a company whose whole raison d'être is licensing of intellectual property would be especially careful in its use of symbols that assert intellectual property rights.
ReplyDeleteI don't think most intelligent people would interpret it that way. The original copyright symbol in question, which has now been changed, was in the side bar. You can see it in the picture above.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Paul C. Bryan, please don't use the term intellectual property. It confuses the issue for people who don't realize copyright, trademark and patent law are very distinct and shouldn't be lumped together.
so I guess this means that we can't claim copyright? :D
ReplyDeletedo they even realize what that would mean for the rest of the would? Wouldn't that technically trump RIAA's copyright, for example?
The Trademark is on the entire design, not the copyright symbol: http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/trdmrks/srch/vwTrdmrk.do;jsessionid=0001k4arQU1IDkEI75hCj8SW0eb:2IILP9AC4K?lang=eng&status=OK&fileNumber=1301252&extension=0&startingDocumentIndexOnPage=1
ReplyDeleteOh dear...
ReplyDeleteFreud said "We have long observed that every neurosis has the result, and therefore probably the purpose, of forcing the patient out of real life, of alienating him from actuality."
ReplyDeleteHe probably wasn't talking about feverishly obsessed lawyers who see copyright bugaboos in every corner, but it seems he could have been.
Goldfish...One would assume that anyone on this blog would have a good idea of the difference between a copyright and a patent. At least that much knowledge can be assumed.
ReplyDeleteOn the symbol, the trademark seems to be perfectly valid...It's just ironic and kind of funny considering it's AC.