Week 10 EOC: Lawyer Jokes

Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer?
A: A bad lawyer makes your case drag on for years. A good lawyer makes it last even longer.

Q: How many lawyer jokes are there?
A: Only three. The rest are true stories.

http://www.iciclesoftware.com/LawJokes/IcicleLawJokes.html


An attorney passed on and found himself in Heaven, but not at all happy with his accommodations. He complained to St. Peter, who told him that his only recourse was to appeal his assignment. The attorney immediately advised that he intended to appeal, but was then told that he would be waiting at least three years before his appeal could be heard. The attorney protested that a three-year wait was unconscionable, but his words fell on deaf ears. The lawyer was then approached by the devil, who told him that he would be able to arrange an appeal to be heard in a few days, if the attorney was willing to change venue to Hell. When the attorney asked why appeals could be heard so much sooner in Hell, he was told, "We have all of the judges."

As Mr. Smith was on his death bed, he attempted to formulate a plan that would allow him to take at least some of his considerable wealth with him. He called for the three men he trusted most - his lawyer, his doctor, and his clergyman. He told them, "I'm going to give you each $30,000 in cash before I die. At my funeral, I want you to place the money in my coffin so that I can try to take it with me." All three agreed to do this and were given the money. At the funeral, each approached the coffin in turn and placed an envelope inside. While riding in the limousine to the cemetery, the clergyman said "I have to confess something to you fellows. Brother Smith was a good churchman all his life, and I know he would have wanted me to do this. The church needed a new baptistery very badly, and I took $10,000 of the money he gave me and bought one. I only put $20,000 in the coffin." The physician then said, "Well, since we're confiding in one another, I might as well tell you that I didn't put the full $30,000 in the coffin either. Smith had a disease that could have been diagnosed sooner if I had this very new machine, but the machine cost $20,000 and I couldn't afford it then. I used $20,000 of the money to buy the machine so that I might be able to save another patient. I know that Smith would have wanted me to do that." The lawyer then said, "I'm ashamed of both of you. When I put my envelope into that coffin, it held my personal check for the full $30,000."


http://www.stromer.com/jokes/185jokes.html

Your Own Argument and Opinions.

Most of Patti's rulings were all correct they were"in the united states copyright protection derives from the us constitution which requires that original works of authorship be protected by copyright"(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 199) she seemed very logical in her findings, and educated. I agree with most everything there isn't much to argue as a musician getting the collaboration agreement's down is majorly important due to my copyright rights are always partial since it is a collaboration "different people can own different rights based on a copyright"(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 222) "a copyright owner can seperately license subparts of each right"(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 222)
intellectual property law is always tricky because its always hard to find out who had the copyright first "initial ownership - copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. the authors of a joint work are co owners of a copyright in the work"(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 222) and which is entitled to all five copyright rights "the right to reproduce the work, the right to prepare deriviative works, the right to distribute copies, the right to perform the work, and the right to display the work"(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 199) one of the most important copyright laws that i was disappointed she didnt even touch on was DRM  "a term that encompasses various processes or methods of restricting usage of a copyrighted work" (Patent copyright & trademark pg. 221) for me its something that is important in today's streaming audio times but i guess this did not come up in my questions so that is my own fault. So all in all all of her rulings were correct and logical, i'm glad i used her as my lawyer.

Rule of law

The magority of the questions i asked got fairly simplistic answers. when it came to contracts she told me the best way is to have a lawyer draw up a fill in the blank template contract when it comes to bands and new hire agreements. you also need a work for hire agreement for all new hires
“if the parties sign a work-made-for-hire agreement the copyright will be owned by the commissioning party as long as the work falls within one of the statutory catagories of commissioned works that can qualify”(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 236) 
 She also said that when or if i do ever sell my business that i will need to contact a lawyer to look over all paperwork and agreements signed to make sure that i am getting all my rights depending on what i am requesting and what the settlement will be. She said if this contract is ever breached that i do have rights to sue, but depending on conflict of interests and what the agreement was in the beggining and how much it is being breached and how fair the agreement was to begin with.

When it came to music sampling and if a 5 second clip constituted a lawsuit or not she said it depends on if it was altered so much that it no longer sounds like the original then i have no grounds for a lawsuit,

“music sampling sounds can be digitally captured and then modified and mixed to a point that the result has very little resemblance to any of the original material.”(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 244)

but if its just straight from my song then yea i have grounds for a lawsuit.

“any unauthorized use of copyrighted work that violates the copyright owners exclusive rights in the work constitutes infringement.”(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 209)
“the owner may file a lawsuit against the infringer for damages in a federal court.”(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 209)

I asked her about whether or not when a song is recorded in my studio but i'm not aware of it and its by one of my employees she said that since they are under a work for hire agreement then they are liable to not break or infringe that agreement. if they do its infringement upon the work for hire agreement. 
“ A copyright claimant is the party considered to be the basic owner of the copyright in a work being registered… an employer whose employee created the work in the scope of employment. A party who commissioned a work made for hire, as defined in the copyright act.”  (Patent copyright & trademark pg. 236)

“if the parties sign a work-made-for-hire agreement the copyright will be owned by the commissioning party as long as the work falls within one of the statutory catagories of commissioned works that can qualify”(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 236)

i asked her about by the rights to sample a song she said i need to write a letter to whomever owns the copyright to the song or licensing  agreements and write them a letter of request of artwork/lyrics.

“when a copyright owner wishes to commercially exploit the work the owner typically transfers one or more of these rights to the publisher or other entity who will be responsible for getting the work to market”(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 244)“an exclusive license, which must be in writing is a contract in which a copyright owner authorizes another person or entity (called the licensee) to exclusively exercise one or more of the rights (or portion of such rights) that belong to the owner under the copyright." (Patent copyright & trademark pg. 244)

I then asked her about the filling out of contracts when it comes to recording bands she said that yes before i record a band there should be paper work for either a collaboration when it comes to the copyright or a work for hire agreement/musician assignment agreement.

i also included the question i had for including myself into projects that i record and she said that if its a collaboration that each party can own one of the rights.

“a party who commsioned a work made for hire”(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 236) 
“the copyright owner can separately license sub parts of each right”(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 236)

i then asked her about what actions to take when a tv or radio outruns their limit on my music/product and she said it would be then a violation of copyright or an infringement and i then have a basis to sue the company for damages.

“ a lawsuit brought against someone who uses a copyrighted expression without permission is commonly known as an infringement action.”(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 209)

“the owner may file a lawsuit against the infringer for damages in a federal court.”(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 209 )
the actual first question i asked was if someone were to not pay me fully for a recording what would be my recourse? she of course said that i would obviously take them to court. and that they wouldnt have full copyright rights until they paid me fully and that i would take them to court for the damages and the court should find me in favor due to the fact that i am the person who was shorted.

“ the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that collective work in the same series” (Patent copyright & trademark pg. 201) “copyright owner also refers to as person or entity who owns one or more of the five exclusive rights that make up the whole copyright, and who therefore has a right to sue infringers of that right”(Patent copyright & trademark pg. 201)