Comments on: Michael Jackson: Inventor of Anti-Gravity Illusion

By: Harley Marshall

Harley Marshall — Mon, 03 May 2010 14:22:06 +0000

there is no doubt that Michael Jackson is the best ever pop music artist of the Centruy.’:

By: Katie

Katie — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:18:16 +0000

Jackson also had various Trademarks Registrations including U.S. Registration No. 1,908,209 for the mark “MICHAEL JACKSON” for use on “sound recordings; namely, pre-recorded phonograph records, audio tapes, compact discs, videotapes, and motion picture films featuring music and entertainment.”

In addition to Registrations there are several Trademark Applications which include Serial Nos. 77/480,301 and 77/480,413 for “THRILLER 25 THE WORLD’S BIGGEST SELLING ALBUM OF ALL TIME”, both of which are still pending.

By: Ron Wallace

Ron Wallace — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:31:05 +0000

This patent was bogus – the result of lazy patent attorneys. In 1954, a travelling magician came to my school with the same designed shoes. I know since I was a stooge from the audience of 12-year olds who was wearing the shoes. He had previously placed bolts in the floor of the stage (I have no idea how he convinced the Principal to allow this). As he “hypnotized” me, I slid the shoes over the bolts. Next I leaned forward well beyond my center of gravity to the amazement of my friends. I never revealed how I did this trick until now.

By: breadcrumbs

breadcrumbs — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:32:07 +0000

Gene, you mention “In fact, a parody case involving “Pretty Woman” and a 2 Live Crew parody made it all the way to the US Supreme Court.”

You also mention that “permission Al’s works would always infringe the copyright in the music, likely not infringe the lyrics and sometimes infringe of the choreography.”

Didn’t the 2 Live Crew case you cite throw out your first statement? I’m drawing this from memory, so I could be way off…

but doesn’t Fair Use, involving parody, include fair use of each of music, lyrics and choreography as components of the entire single act of parody? If the components can be counted separably, then the single act of parody is counted as parody of each and all elements and thus still considered Fair Use?

By: Jim Belfiore

Jim Belfiore — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:20:39 +0000

Following the forward citations leads to an unexpected use as prior art in an aerospace patent. http://andromeda-30.blogspot.com/2009/06/patent-thriller.html

By: Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:47:58 +0000

Catradhtem-

Thanks so much for setting the record straight. I know that though, as do most, and my article next week will go into detail about this.

Nevertheless, it is an excellent question that forces students learning copyright law to ask themselves whether there would be a copyright infringement. With each Weird Al song the analysis changes slightly, and copyright infringement and defenses thereto are all about facts, so each song requires picking critical facts that support or mitigate a finding of infringement. Without permission Al’s works would always infringe the copyright in the music, likely not infringe the lyrics and sometimes infringe of the choreography. The reason this is such a good exercise is because it is interesting, fun and engages the students. They are also forced to walk through an entire copyright infringement analysis and all applicable defenses.

I have heard from colleagues over the years that it is not a good question because it is counter factual. In my opinion that criticism is just plain silly. It is a perfectly legitimate question and thought experiment even if Weird Al gets permission. In fact, a parody case involving “Pretty Woman” and a 2 Live Crew parody made it all the way to the US Supreme Court.

-Gene

By: catradhtem

catradhtem — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:35:36 +0000

Just to set the record straight on the last part of the article: “Weird Al” Yankovic obtains permission from the artists he parodies. Michael Jackson was no exception; in fact, in interviews Al has proudly stated that contracts exist that both he and Michael have signed listing them as the co-writers of “Eat It” and “Fat.” So there is really no way Al’s work could be argued as copyright infringement.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:02:47 +0000

The patent has lapsed due to non-payment of a maintenance fee.

Re-stated, it is no longer enforceable.

The statement of a patent not going through is not really applicable – if a patent issues, it has gone through.

Maybe I am not understanding your intent, though.

By: nicole

nicole — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:20:19 +0000

does anybody know whatever happened to the patent?? why didn’t it go though?