Posted January 12th, 2010
by admin
Is the artwork used for a state license plate in the public domain? In Wiki_Commons it says "It has been pointed out on Commons that nearly all license plates contain designs that are owned by their respective creators (i.e. the individual US states)." But no reference exists that states exactly what the law is, and I have found no particular state website that addresses that issue.
Most states have a "default" design that you get if you don’t purchase one of the special designs. Of course the special "fund-raiser" designs are copyrighted by the state or the individual artist, but is the "default" design in the public domain? (The law states that designs for the federal government are in the public domain, but not states.)
I believe the artwork is copyrighted, but what gives me pause is that you see the little refrigerator magnets with the states’ license plate designs at travel centers, maybe with kids’ names on them, do the manufacturers of those little trinkets license the designs from the states?
Thanks for your help!
Since we’re dealing with state law here, you have to be careful about lumping all the states together for one generic answer. With any state law issue, you will have to look at the laws at each individual state to determine an answer.
Unless a state expressly disclaims the copyright, then the license plate design may be under copyright. However, when you’re dealing with "default designs" (I assume you mean a simple, conventional license plate layout), then there may be a question as to the level of copyrightable (i.e., enforceable) aspects in the work.
Posted in Domain Names and US Government
Posted January 12th, 2010
by admin
To best explain the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its many connotations, the United States’ concept of “Manifest Destiny” should be covered first. Manifest Destiny was the belief of English-speaking Americans that God had ordained them to take and hold the lands from the Mississippi River to the coast of the Pacific Ocean, much of which was claimed and occupied by Mexicans and Indians. The United States’ people believed its means of fulfilling this destiny were justified, a Machiavellian concept (“the end justifies the means”).
The US found its opportunity to use this concept to obtain a large portion of Mexico when Texas gained independence in 1836. Though Texas had agreed not to annex itself to the United States in exchange for its independence, it did so in 1845. However, at the time of annexation, the southern border of Texas had still not been specified. US President Polk took the position that recognized the Rio Grande as the southern border. In what was later to be considered a deliberate provocation by the United States to begin a conflict with Mexico, US troops entered the area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande (land believed to belong to the US through annexation). The conflict that occurred between the US military and Mexican military was considered an act of war by the US, even though Mexico had not confirmed whether or not the Rio Grande was the southern border of the Texas territory.
After many unsuccessful peace negotiations (open and secret) and after many military skirmishes, the US military gained occupation of Mexico City in August 1847. It was then that the final peace negotiations began in what would become the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty demanded a large section of Mexico’s northern territory, with the Rio Grande as the southern border (for to accept the Nueces would be admitting guilt for starting the war). It was signed and sent to Mexico and the United States’ senates to be ratified on February 2, 1848.
In the United States, President Polk only conceded to accept it and send it on to the Senate for ratification after coming to the conclusion that continuing the war would not acquire for the United States a treaty that was any better. However, he recommended to Congress that an amended one be ratified and sent to Mexico for approval, one that did not contain Article X, which guaranteed property rights for Mexicans and Indians living in the ceded territory being. His main reason for this recommendation was that questions over the validity of land grants in Texas would come up on whether or not the treaty would apply to Texas since they had acquired their independence prior to the treaty.
Many factions within Congress were against ratifying the treaty, but for different reasons. The Whig party believed that the treaty would increase the southern states’ power by legalizing slavery within the new territory. Some were opposed because they were “morally against the war.” Others didn’t want it because they were Polk’s rivals, and some like Sam Houston wanted more territory than the treaty claimed. The treaty suffered few changes otherwise due to “each faction’s opposition to the proposals of the others.” The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, without Article X and with changes made to Article IX, passed the Senate and was ratified on March 10, 1848.
In Mexico, a letter of explanation by US Secretary of State James Buchanan followed the amended treaty. His letter included reasons why Article X was stricken and why Article IX was reworded. According to the letter, Article X was deleted because Buchanan firmly believed the US Constitution’s promise to protect a person’s property would be upheld regardless of whether or not the article was included in the treaty. As for Article IX, Buchanan explained that it had been revised as a “result of the Senate’s wish not to violate precedents established in treaties negotiated with France and Spain.” Also, a document known as the Protocol of Querétaro was presented to the Mexican Congress prior to the treaty’s ratification that explained the United States’ reasons for changing the original treaty. It said that the changes to Article IX “did not intend to diminish in any way” the rights that would be given to Mexican citizens becoming US citizens, and that the deletion of Article X “did not intend in any way to annul grants of land made by Mexico in the ceded territories.” However, the protocol’s interpretation of the treaty was never considered by the US government to be obligatory, meaning it had “no legal force.”
Mexico’s handling of the issues that surrounded the ratification of such a treaty went more along the lines of survival. Many factions in Mexico’s political system were against the treaty. One liberal by the name of Manuel Crescencio Rejón argued that the treaty would mean Mexico’s “economic subordination” and that since it had been signed before Congress could discuss this option, the treaty went against the Mexican Constitution. Another against the treaty was José María Cuevas, who spoke about his opposition to the Chamber of Deputies. Some did favor the treaty because it stopped the US from taking more territory and costing Mexico more military funding. One such person was one of the original commissioners, Bernardo Couto, who called the treaty one of “recovery rather than one of alienation.” In a later book about the war, one author called the treaty merely the confirmation that the US had taken land which had little value and was hard to defend. Mexico deemed it wise to choose the “lesser of two evils” and ratified the treaty on May 19, 1848.
It wasn’t long until the United States began a series of treaty violations, which for the most part went unresolved, and some which still are unresolved today. The Land Act of 1851 established a Board of Land Commissioners which required that land-owners “present evidence supporting title within two years, or their property would pass into the public domain.” According to the protocol (earlier noted to be of “no legal force” according to the US government), the property rights of Mexican landowners would be protected. In the fine print, though, the deletion of Article X made it hard for landowners with “imperfect” titles to complete the processes of land confirmation, whether it was via Mexican law or United States law.
Another violation of the treaty was the Foreign Miners’ Tax Law that inadvertently discriminated against those Mexicans who should have been exempted from the tax because of the treaty’s provisions for US citizenship. “Since there was a legal distinction between the Mexicans who had migrated to California after 1848 and those who were there before the gold rush,” outcry over the tax law being enforced on Mexican-Americans could not be justified.
It was violations such as these that inspired the Chicano movement in the 1960s, the same era as the Civil Rights movement. The movement sought to “redefine” the position of Mexican-Americans. To help with that cause, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was used to point out abuses to their human rights, such as the right to property denied those who were kept from completing their land titles, and such as the right to the full enjoyment of US citizenship which was indicated as forthcoming in Article IX of the treaty. Though the movement did not do well at obtaining help from the US government to restore land to Mexican-Americans, a recent move to take the case of the Mexican-American and the Native-American to international courts by the IITC has begun to meet with increasing success.
Since the signing of the treaty, a policy of arbitration has existed between Mexico and the United States, though the US does use it mostly when to its own advantage. However, this policy, the intertwining of the two cultures due to the Mexican influence in the US Southwest, and advances in both countries’ sense of human rights and diplomacy is slowly warming the friendship of the neighboring nations.
Thanks for the explanation. I wonder who sues the Mexicans over taking the land from the Indians?
Posted in Domain Names and US Government
Posted January 12th, 2010
by admin
I have a company name (not logo) that I’d like to protect. My company name is registered with my state’s government; however, another company is using the same name in another state. The other company has been around much longer than mine. Neither of us have registered the trademark with the USPTO.GOV.
If I register the trademark before they do, will I have control over the name even though they have been using it longer than me?
If so, can I take their domain name and force them to switch their company name OR sell them a license to use the name?
Wow, what a wonderful question.
The answer is that USE, not registration, creates trademark rights. Now registration can provide you with other benefits (such as a presumption of nationwide priority, an "incontestible" registration after a while) but it’s priority of USE that matters.
Second, a trademark only applies to particular goods or services — like TOP FLITE for "Golf Balls, golf clubs, and golfing related services. Technically, even though that company may own TOP FLITE, another company could own TOP FLITE for, say, "aviation training services," so long as there’s no "likelihood of confusion" between the products and services.
Thus, if this other company, even if they have priority, uses the name in unrelated goods or services, than you can register and enjoy nationwide priority.
If this is untrue, then the best you can do is seek a "concurrent use" proceeding / application before the USPTO. There, you say "this company has priority, but it hasn’t registered nationally, and its rights are limited to this geographic area… I want rights everywhere else." You can then effectively box them in to a small geographic area. While you can’t force them to give up their name, you at least can get the better area.
(P.S. if you try to register the name nationwide without telling the USPTO, and you have actual knolwedge that they exist, and you get your registration, it may be subject to being cancelled in the future for fraud on the trademark office or because they had priority and their mark is likely to be confused with yours. Then you would have wasted a lot of your time and money. So be careful when going forward.)
(Domain names are oftentimes a different story. If they have legitimate rights in a domain name, and you don’t have superior trademark rights, you probably can’t get them to give up their domain name. Maybe, but not always.)
There are tons more things to say here, but that should give you a start. Since this is a complicated case, you really should talk to counsel who are experienced in trademark registration matters. Provide the information you have and see if they think that you can "Coexist," whether you need a concurrent use registration, or whether their priority "knocks you out."
(P.S. you can also negotiate with the other company, too, regarding your name…)
Good luck.
Posted in Domain Names and US Government
Posted January 12th, 2010
by admin
Words are not logos. Until somebody makes them. Everything else is original. Unclaimed as yet. Mine. I own it because no one else does. Big Corp. ( aka Every penny squeezing greedy hearted…oops.sorry. Government.) Big Corp. sucks us dry because we say,…duh,..OK! Heres something no one has ever made or thought of ,…I put a great deal into creating this,…um..is it ok if i keep it? Screw Them! The audacity.
Better Yet!? Screw Us! We let it happen all day long and twice at night. No way America! I did not sit through all those history classes thinking,.."They got tired of their rulers and got the heck out of dodge, Damn what got in the way!" ..you know,..INdians and,… AFricans..( who were more ON the way than in it.) and so , the world turns. Well America ,…Earth! Get ready,…The logic shall prevail, the fight is to have it heard, The victory,….well to the victor goes the spoils. May Good logic and not so common sense pave the way. Help me help us. Or not.
sooooooo, whats your question?
Posted in Domain Names and US Government
Posted January 12th, 2010
by admin
About 2 days ago I registered a domain name with 1and1. At the end of registration process, a message displayed which told I would receive an email containing my needed information to log in my account within 24 hours.
Today I received an email from security-team@1and1.com which states:
"In order to authenticate, and activate your account, we will ask that
you provide us with a copy of your passport, or government issued photo
ID. To avoid added delays, please keep file sizes under 5megs, colour
images are preferred, and only gov’t issued documents from the country
listed in your address are accepted as we need to verify both identity
and place of residence."
I want to know if it is normal? In fact I would not like to send these very private information to theme. What do I do?
Thanks
I wouldn’t think you would need to :s When I registered a domain on 123 reg, It didn’t ask me for anything like that and if it is NEEDED I would presume all domain registers would ask for it.
Who is the email from? Whats the address? I would probably ignore it and see what happens, if they delete the account, go with another domain host. Sounds like that would be safer.
Posted in Domain Names and US Government
Posted January 12th, 2010
by admin
Political parties are dividing the society in various caste groups. Media are adding fuel to fire by publishing their caste based stories and focusing on TV, only values of one caste or other. When ever any party wins or gets defeated in any election media men analyses the outcome always from caste angle. All pre-poll surveys concentrate on percentage of various caste groups in any constituency. It is media which presents caste based analysis of voters and forces them to focus on one group or other. Parties give little values to their manifesto or party principles or poll agenda their strategy is formulated for each constituency in unique manner.
Political parties like Congress Party gave abnormal importance to Muslims and ruled the country for three four decades. In due course other parties understood the essence of Congress plans and parties like RJD, SP and even BSP started realizing the value of Muslim bulk votes to win the election. Then Mayawati came forward with Dalit cards. BJP played the flute of Hindu Community. This time in UP Mayawati won the election by including Brahmins in her domain as reflected in various analysis made by various media groups. As a result other parties also trying to woo Brahmin lobby in Maharashtra. Upper caste is no more the monopoly of BJP only. When NDA came to power they also realized the value of Muslims along with Hindu card to remain in power. In south there is Tamils who are dominating. For each constituency there is separate caste calculation done by contesting candidates and media fuels and aggravate the same mad race by providing data’s on the same.
As a result new minorities group is facing isolation from the mainstream. Because smaller caste groups are being neglected by the elected representative in their area of operation. Days are no far when domain of minority and backward caste will engulf the major portion of the population, though there will different caste lobby in different segment of a district. Still caste based decision is a cancerous disease.
Only solution what I visualize is that surname should be banned by the government. It is computer controlled nomenclature of a newly born baby which may help us bringing back all citizens on one platform and constrain political parties to behave uniformly for all citizens without any biased attitude for any caste or community. Government must give its own computer generated Unique Identification Number and Name to all its citizen..
Good secular idea but not practical.
Govt. could not allot names.
Name is a choice of family.
They can allot only Nnumbers like-
Hindu-1,hindu-3
Muslim-5
Sikh-45 etc.
HA HA HA
Posted in Domain Names and US Government