DAN CRUIKSHANK wrote:
I have started a new series of photographs that I hope to one day be able to show in galleries and possibly use in a coffee table art book.

I want to give the series a title, which would also end up being the title of the book. I decided on a one word title that fit the series perfectly. I just did a google search and I found that there is another art photographer (located in the US, while I am in Canada)who has a collection, including a book, that he has given the same title to. The work is in no way similar to mine, but the title is the same word I want to use.

Is this a major issue? Can a single word be copyrighted when being used as a title? I’m just wondering if anyone here has dealt with this.

Thanks.

As always, I cannot understand why people ask for legal advise in forums. It is best to contact a lawyer who specializes in these matters, and you can usually get a first consultation for free.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
1. copyright must be for a object uniquely created. there must be some creative act

2. trademarks are unique identifiers for a product, service or brand

3. a book title does not fall under either definition. the title is not an unique object, the title is not a product, service nor brand

4. a slogan, song or combination of words maybe trademarked or copyrighted

5. Apple is a trademark, but you may absolutely title a book "apple". you cannot start a chain of coffee shops named "apple" (without getting sued) there is no copyright on the word, but there is a trademark on what products and brand it represents

I think you might be wrong on the coffee shop thing. I think the manufacturer of I-pods and computers would be hard pressed to prove that your coffee shops are an infringement.

I have a trees in my backyard. They bear fruit. I sometimes sell them by the bushel. I call them "apples" and never had a problem. However, if I made cell phones in my basement, I probably shouldn't try to label them "apple". There's a big difference between coffee shops and anything Steve Jobs' company makes.

Kent Art Photography wrote:
I don't know about Canadian law...

Actually, I don't know much about UK law, either.

I don't think you can copyright a book title, as such, and there are lots of examples of books, and films, tv shows, etc., having the same, or very similar titles.

However, there are rules about "passing off," so it might be a mistake to call your book "Harry Potter And The..."

And you might like to consider whether any confusion that might arise between your book and anything similar could be detrimental to your sales.  I'd say that if you know there's already a book with a similar title then you should think of something else.

That's because Harry Potter is a trademark.

Pantelis Palios wrote:
I have heard that there has to be over nine words for it to be copyrighted. So when someone after the Beatles wrote a song with the lyrics "Blackbird singing the dead of night. Take these broken wings and learn to fly." the Beatles were able to sue them.

I can't see that anyone can copyright a single word. Remember, the "author's" name should make them different.

If you looked for another title, that too may already exist ( or even get published after you ) but sometimes spending some time on another name may give you one that is much better than your first one.

You can't copyright a word. If it's a word, then it's already been authored.

You can't copyright a title, but your example is lyrics, not a title.

UltimateAppeal wrote:
As always, I cannot understand why people ask for legal advise in forums. It is best to contact a lawyer who specializes in these matters, and you can usually get a first consultation for free.

Because it provides a way for others to share their experiences? And because if it's a legal-related thread, ei will always come in and give some very sage advice.

That's good enough for me.

Personally, I can't understand why an OP asks for others experiences on a topic and someone comes in and says to "contact a lawyer." I'm assuming the OP knows we are not lawyers and will take that into account. But sharing our experiences doesn't require a law degree.

DAN CRUIKSHANK wrote:
I have started a new series of photographs that I hope to one day be able to show in galleries and possibly use in a coffee table art book.

I want to give the series a title, which would also end up being the title of the book. I decided on a one word title that fit the series perfectly. I just did a google search and I found that there is another art photographer (located in the US, while I am in Canada)who has a collection, including a book, that he has given the same title to. The work is in no way similar to mine, but the title is the same word I want to use.

Is this a major issue? Can a single word be copyrighted when being used as a title? I’m just wondering if anyone here has dealt with this.

Thanks.

The Canadian Copyright Act states that:

“work” includes the title thereof when such title is original and distinctive;

(see Definitions)

and a work can be copyrighted. Please note that this definition states that the work includes the title. A title by itself is not protected by copyright.

Titles, names and short word combinations are usually not protected by copyright. A “work” or other “subject matter” for copyright purposes must be something more substantial. However, if a title is original and distinctive, it is protected as part of the work it relates to.

from A GUIDE TO COPYRIGHTS, page 5 (January 2005) by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

See Councillor claims he owns university name. Councillor Robert Lutczyk from Oshawa, Ontario claimed he held a copyright on the name "University of Ontario Institute of Technology." He tried to prevent a local newspaper from using that name in an article about the university.

UltimateAppeal wrote:

As always, I cannot understand why people ask for legal advise in forums. It is best to contact a lawyer who specializes in these matters, and you can usually get a first consultation for free.

And after you've done that and know the answer to the question, are you capable of telling someone the answer you were given (in writing)?

What is so special about a person who becomes a lawyer that makes them more capable of understanding the law than someone else? I can't think of anything other than law school. Do you think they spend three years on the subject of "can you copyright a title."? It's a simple answer to a simple question.

What's the speed limit on a highway? 55. Wait, which country, which state? Regardless, even when posted it "conditions permitting". What about states that have a speed limit of 65 in some places? Better ask a lawyer. Do you want your brain surgeon doing your surgery at 16, without going to medical school? Then you really shouldn't get a learner's permit/DL until you've learned the laws by going to law school. Even though there's a sign posted on the side of the road, you shouldn't answer the question of what the speed limit is if you're not a lawyer.


Just because the basic copyright questions are unfamiliar to you, doesn't mean that they aren't as simple to someone else as a question about the speed limit. Some people have lawyers to do their deals and the lawyers explain every paragraph and sentence until you understand what you're signing. Sometimes you want to sue someone and your lawyer explains the situation and how there's no premise for you to win, sometimes you send letters and negotiate based on what everyone knows the law says. Sometimes you sue and find out how the law is applied.

There's no reason that it's not possible to get a fully accurate answer from someone who isn't a lawyer.

It's up to you what standards you want to maintain. Personally, I have access to several lawyers who will answer questions for free. Sometimes I even ask before posting an answer. For the most part there are only 2-3 people here who I consider accurate enough to take their word on something.

And really, the subtext of what people are asking is "as a photographer, you've probably been in the same situation, what did you do and why and are you happy with your choice?" eventhough it's not phrased that way.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
If you had a dental problem, you'd call a dentist, right?

If you had a mechanical problem with your car, you'd ask a mechanic, right?

If you had a brain tumor, you'd consult a neurosurgeon. Of course.

If you have a legal question, you ask a photographer. Makes perfect sense.

The problem is that if I jump on Facebook I'm sure I can find at least one 'friend' asking about all of these.  Common sense stopped making sense to people long ago. And for the record I have two applicable canuck law degrees and specialization in IP and will be working in an IP firm soon. But ask me anything about dentistry. my ex-neighbour was studying to be a dentist when I was in my first law school. I was in the same room as his textbooks

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
If you had a dental problem, you'd call a dentist, right?

If you had a mechanical problem with your car, you'd ask a mechanic, right?

If you had a brain tumor, you'd consult a neurosurgeon. Of course.

If you have a legal question, you ask a photographer. Makes perfect sense.

If I have a question, I will ask anyone that I feel would have relevant, useful information.  Sometimes that is someone who works professionally in the area, sometimes not.

That being said, threads about copyright, contracts and releases on MM should generally be evaluated for their entertainment value, not their information content.

Robert Lynch wrote:

If I have a question, I will ask anyone that I feel would have relevant, useful information.  Sometimes that is someone who works professionally in the area, sometimes not.

That being said, threads about copyright, contracts and releases on MM should generally be evaluated for their entertainment value, not their information content.

so you are saying, if you want comedy you go to photographers?

DAN CRUIKSHANK wrote:
I have started a new series of photographs that I hope to one day be able to show in galleries and possibly use in a coffee table art book.

I want to give the series a title, which would also end up being the title of the book. I decided on a one word title that fit the series perfectly. I just did a google search and I found that there is another art photographer (located in the US, while I am in Canada)who has a collection, including a book, that he has given the same title to. The work is in no way similar to mine, but the title is the same word I want to use.

Is this a major issue? Can a single word be copyrighted when being used as a title? I’m just wondering if anyone here has dealt with this.

Thanks.

Is not much of a problem,,,  first you cannot copyright a word.    But the art,  and layout  including font,   can become a  copyright  of the total art...  Trademark might be a clearer  defination

UltimateAppeal wrote:
As always, I cannot understand why people ask for legal advise in forums. It is best to contact a lawyer who specializes in these matters, and you can usually get a first consultation for free.

I agree!!

You should NOT look for legal advice from a photography forum.  Contact a lawyer who has experience in that particular area, in your country.

Now..from a marketing issue..if this other photographer has a very successful book, you are probably doing more harm to both of you by confusing the general public with the same name.

That would make a strong argument to find another, more unique, name.

DAN CRUIKSHANK wrote:
I have started a new series of photographs that I hope to one day be able to show in galleries and possibly use in a coffee table art book.

I want to give the series a title, which would also end up being the title of the book. I decided on a one word title that fit the series perfectly. I just did a google search and I found that there is another art photographer (located in the US, while I am in Canada)who has a collection, including a book, that he has given the same title to. The work is in no way similar to mine, but the title is the same word I want to use.

Is this a major issue? Can a single word be copyrighted when being used as a title? I’m just wondering if anyone here has dealt with this.

Thanks.

Canadian Intellectual Property Office
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipoi … f/eng/Home
For information pertaining to Canadian copyright, trademark, servicemark and patents.

The (Canadian) Copyright Modernization Act (June 29, 2012)
http://balancedcopyright.gc.ca/eic/site … f/eng/home


You may not copyright a book title (the word(s) in the title).
You may register the graphic design of a book title as a trademark.
(but the designer/artist of the graphic design may register copyright on the graphic design and, through a usage license, permit you to use his/her creation... and to register trademark)

Suggestion: find an attorney that has dealt with IP law and ask your questions.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
US Copyright Laws have no jurisdiction in Canada . . .

However both countries are covered by the International Berne Convention which involves copyright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Conv … stic_Works


KM

Yep, but with one BIG difference: if you copyright your work in the US and someone "steals" your work in Canada, you can sue him, but if you only copyright in Canada and someone in the US "steals" your work, you can't sue him.
That's the tricky part of the copyright and USA. I learned my lesson the hard way

annelisedk wrote:
Yep, but with one BIG difference: if you copyright your work in the US and someone "steals" your work in Canada, you can sue him, but if you only copyright in Canada and someone in the US "steals" your work, you can't sue him.
That's the tricky part of the copyright and USA. I learned my lesson the hard way

I think you are mis-speaking.  An image is copyrighted, automatically, the moment you press the shutter.  The United States has a unique system where you can register an image, and if done on a timely basis, you can collect a variety of statutory damages in case of infringement.  Likewise, registration is required in order to file an action.

You can register an image at any time, even after infringement.  It makes no difference what country you come from.  So, if you shoot an image in Canada, and you are Canadian, you will have to register it in the U.S. in order to file an action.  If that is what you mean by "copyright" you are correct, you must do it before you can sue. 

The trick though is that most foreigners don't register their images in the U.S. as they shoot them.  The problem is if they don't register them before infringement (or within 90 days of publication), they are barred from collecting statutory damages.

The point though is to not confuse registration with copyright.  Your images are copyrighted and you are able to sue in the U.S. whether you registered them or not.  You will be barred from statutory damages unless you registered them before infringement.

DAN CRUIKSHANK wrote:
I have started a new series of photographs that I hope to one day be able to show in galleries and possibly use in a coffee table art book.

I want to give the series a title, which would also end up being the title of the book. I decided on a one word title that fit the series perfectly. I just did a google search and I found that there is another art photographer (located in the US, while I am in Canada)who has a collection, including a book, that he has given the same title to. The work is in no way similar to mine, but the title is the same word I want to use.

Is this a major issue? Can a single word be copyrighted when being used as a title? I’m just wondering if anyone here has dealt with this.

Thanks.

US law doesn't afford copyright protection for titles of a books.

From the US Copyright Office:

"Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases."

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

Mike Kelcher wrote:

I think you might be wrong on the coffee shop thing. I think the manufacturer of I-pods and computers would be hard pressed to prove that your coffee shops are an infringement.

Actually not true.  Back in the day when Apple Computer came into being the reason that the Steves named it that was in homage to the Beatles whose music publication company is named Apple also.  At the time the Beatles complained and they came to an agreement (I believe this all took place out of court) that Apple Computer would stay out of the music publishing business.  Fast foreword thirty years guess what?  Apple computer is in the music business with their iTunes store.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
{snip}

5. Apple is a trademark, but you may absolutely title a book "apple". you cannot start a chain of coffee shops named "apple" (without getting sued) there is no copyright on the word, but there is a trademark on what products and brand it represents

Mike Kelcher wrote:
I think you might be wrong on the coffee shop thing. I think the manufacturer of I-pods and computers would be hard pressed to prove that your coffee shops are an infringement.

Brian Scanlon wrote:
Actually not true.  Back in the day when Apple Computer came into being the reason that the Steves named it that was in homage to the Beatles whose music publication company is named Apple also.  At the time the Beatles complained and they came to an agreement (I believe this all took place out of court) that Apple Computer would stay out of the music publishing business.  Fast foreword thirty years guess what?  Apple computer is in the music business with their iTunes store.

In addition Apple (the computer company) did pursue legal actions with a German coffee shop - though it seems the logo was also a factor.  Not sure of the final outcome, but you can be sued - doesn't mean they will win.

http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/appl … -20111021/

Brian Scanlon wrote:

Actually not true.  Back in the day when Apple Computer came into being the reason that the Steves named it that was in homage to the Beatles whose music publication company is named Apple also.  At the time the Beatles complained and they came to an agreement (I believe this all took place out of court) that Apple Computer would stay out of the music publishing business.  Fast foreword thirty years guess what?  Apple computer is in the music business with their iTunes store.

Brian,
From what I remember, I think you've got the Apple Records (The Beatles) vs Apple Computers (Steve Jobs & Co.) pretty much right as far as their disagreement and subsequent agreement is concerned. I believe Apple did agree to stay out of the music publishing business. However, after fast forwarding 30 years, Apple isn't in the music publishing business, they are in the music marketing and sales business. To the best of my knowledge they don't create, produce or publish music, and the Beatles don't make computers, I-pods, I-pads, or cell phones.

DAN CRUIKSHANK wrote:
Is this a major issue? Can a single word be copyrighted when being used as a title? I’m just wondering if anyone here has dealt with this.

Thanks.

Probably.  I would think that the other guy's entire book is copyrighted, including the title.  I have an essay on the topic in my book, Catch 22.

Azimuth Arts wrote:
In addition Apple (the computer company) did pursue legal actions with a German coffee shop - though it seems the logo was also a factor.  Not sure of the final outcome, but you can be sued - doesn't mean they will win.

http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/appl … -20111021/

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
5. Apple is a trademark, but you may absolutely title a book "apple". you cannot start a chain of coffee shops named "apple" (without getting sued) there is no copyright on the word, but there is a trademark on what products and brand it represents

...Not truth

Mike Kelcher wrote:
However, if I made cell phones in my basement, I probably shouldn't try to label them "apple". There's a big difference between coffee shops and anything Steve Jobs' company makes.

...Truth

ei Total Productions wrote:
You certainly aren't going to copyright a single word.  Normally the book would be copyrighted, not just the title.

....Truth

UltimateAppeal wrote:
As always, I cannot understand why people ask for legal advise in forums. It is best to contact a lawyer who specializes in these matters, and you can usually get a first consultation for free.

BEST TRUTH!