Learning To Fact-Check: Copyright vs. Trademark

Friday, April 11, 2008 by Julie Cancio Harper.

The Los Angeles Times sponsors a food blog called Daily Dish, which I read and enjoy (and have now added to the blogroll).

There is an unfortunate error in their post dated April 9: “Chicken and waffle feud”

What they claim is a case of copyright infringement is actually a trademark dispute, as reported in an Associated Press article available from the LA Daily News. See “Roscoe’s sues Rosscoe’s over trademark rights” for accurate yet brief coverage.

I’ve been thinking about blogs lately, and the responsibility I have to readers as a blogger. Bloggers are publishers in the sense that we put print (and other content like audio and video) into the universe. We don’t need much more than access to the Internet and basic word processing skills to do it. We each decide on our own editorial standards. We look up to our mentors and try to outshine our competitors, in a sibling rivalry sort of way.

This is a pretty loose type of writing, so there is a wide range of content and quality out here in the blogosphere. I accept that errors happen. Sometimes readers give a shout when something’s amiss, and bless them for reminding us to get it right because we’re not singing to ourselves alone out here.

But having the Daily Dish, which is staffed by professionals at the LA Times, post such a serious error is a bummer. I take my responsibility for accuracy and fact-checking seriously, even as a beginner. If it was a misspelling or a punctuation error, I would think “must be a typo” and leave it without comment. But there is a pretty extreme difference between copyright and trademark. And anyone working in any kind of publishing should either know the difference or make sure to pass on the newswire transmission word-for-word.

The U.S. Copyright Office defines copyright as “a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of ‘original works of authorship,’ including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.” Many creative works qualify for copyright protection, but business names do not. They are protected by trademark.

According to attorney Lloyd J. Jassin who provides “Trademark Basics” at Copylaw.com, “trademark law protects names, titles, short phrases and other symbols that distinguish the source of one product (or service) from another” and affect business and marketing efforts. The “other symbols” mentioned by Jassin include business logos, such as the waffle background and chicken foreground made famous by the original Roscoe’s in Los Angeles.

See “Copyrights vs. Trademarks: Related but Different” at Copylaw.com and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for more information.

In the lawsuit involving two houses of chicken and waffles, the famous Roscoe’s in Los Angeles objects to another restaurant’s similar name and logo because those marks of trade make it difficult for the businesses to be distinguished from one another. The suggestion is that Rosscoe’s deliberately means to deprive Roscoe’s of sales. This is especially important now that the famous Roscoe’s is opening a restaurant in the Chicago area where Rosscoe’s currently does business.

So, for the record and as a public service dedicated to accuracy in the blogosphere, I present this information.

And now that I have, I’m pretty much starving for chicken and waffles. Where the heck did I put that waffle iron?

Posted in blogs & blogging, publishing, copyright & permissions, los angeles, attitudes, trademark, editing | 4 Comments »