The value of copyrighting your strawman title

[chomerly]

I've read a few things on the site with regards to copyrighting your strawman title but nobody seems to have a clear definition of what the value of that copyright should be worth.

Surely there would be a point on that value which would be considered excessive and simply, these people who you issue your notices of agreement to would refuse to payout. And if you took these people to court to recoup the value of your copyright, it's quite possible that it would be thrown out for being far too excessive.

Surely there must be some sort of point which would be considered reasonable. i.e. a percentage of the value of you as a person.

Lets say for instance that you have invented something and you apply for the patent and associated copyrights in advertising etc. If another company decided to make a copy of your invention but call it something else you could take them to court and sue them for damages and sue them for a percentage of the units that they've sold.
Surely there has to be a surety value of our strawman moniker and i assume that it would be different from one human being to another.
How would we find out that general worth and what percentage would be considered reasonable?
I'm thinking that the best way would be to look at your credit file as the amount of credit that you can get depends largely on your credit score.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

[chomerly]

Considering the lack of replies to this question i can only assume that it is being viewed as a means to get money. This is not the case.

My question relates more so to what we as individuals are worth and that by copyrighting your legal fiction name, what effect does it have on devaluing the need of a debt collection agency, as an example, to chase you down.

[BenOfEtc]

Good afternoon.

Unfortunately, you cannot copyright your name (or title or whatever you call yourself).

Copyright protection can only be given to certain things, which are listed in Section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. They are "“original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, sound recordings, films or broadcasts, and the typographical arrangement of published editions”.

Things can only be copyrighted if they are original and if a certain amount of effort has been required to create them. The UK Intellectual Patent Office has confirmed that names and titles cannot be copyrighted. Not enough work has gone into creating it.

So, bad news: you cannot copyright your name or title. Good news: no one else can copyright your name or title either.

[pedawson]

Creating a copyright of ones name is in fact original. Sign my name to a document and find out why.
Yes I know it is fraud but using my name on a document I have no knowledge of infringes my rights. It goes hand in hand with (TM) My name is being used as a corporation and as such is a creation that 'I' can copyright.

Discussion welcome, before we do it is important to first discuss 'WHAT IS A NAME?' It was not 'I' that chose it and it is NOT 'I' that am benefiting from it.
What is the meaning behind the ALL CAPS name?
We have computers and the typeset is not limited, neither is the written script so WHY do they insist on ALL CAPS?
TPTB insist that ALL CAPS be utilised or they will NOT accept certain documentation, this is a big give-away.

The ,Designs and Patents Act 1988, is an ACT and is therefore a suggestion and is not set in concrete. We have the ability to (C) however not for reasons set in this act, so it doesn't apply. Plus there are many affidavits that have created this common procedure through acquiescence and tacit agreements.

Namaste, rev; (He who leave the battlefield first loses) An un-rebutted statement of truth becomes law, of course the truth has to be made known to those involved and those involved do not have to reply which is acceptance that the truth spoken / written is in fact the truth.

Namaste, rev;

[BenOfEtc]

Creating a copyright of ones name is in fact original. Sign my name to a document and find out why.
Yes I know it is fraud but using my name on a document I have no knowledge of infringes my rights. It goes hand in hand with (TM) My name is being used as a corporation and as such is a creation that 'I' can copyright.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by this, but a few points-

• One of the reasons you can't copyright a name is that they are not original. It's obvious if you think about it. Lots of people have the same name. For example, there's a TV presenter who has the same name as myself. If I copyrighted my name he wouldn't be able to use it. That would be silly.
• Originality isn't really the point though - not enough work has gone into making the name. It is not 'substantial' enough to be copyrighted.
• A trade mark and copyrighting aren't the same thing.
• Your name is being used as a corporation? You mean as a company? Even if you started a company called Joe Bloggs Limited, you still can't copyright your name (or the name of the company for that matter).
• The person who can copyright something is usually the person who created it. So even if a name could be copyrighted, for most people it would be their parents that could copyright the name. Again, this would be silly.

What is the meaning behind the ALL CAPS name?
We have computers and the typeset is not limited, neither is the written script so WHY do they insist on ALL CAPS?
TPTB insist that ALL CAPS be utilised or they will NOT accept certain documentation, this is a big give-away.

I don't think there is any legal significance to lower and upper case letters whatsoever. I'm not sure what you believe the use of uppercase letters is giving away.

The ,Designs and Patents Act 1988, is an ACT and is therefore a suggestion and is not set in concrete. We have the ability to (C) however not for reasons set in this act, so it doesn't apply.

I disagree that the statute is a suggestion. It's certainly open to a certain degree of interpretation but it's still the law.

And here's the thing: copyright is only enforceable under the CPDA 1988. There's no common law protection to fall back on. If the CPDA 1988 isn't binding law - then *nothing* can be copyright protected. You can announce that you've copyrighted your name or title or anything else you like but if you can't enforce it then it doesn't mean anything.

Plus there are many affidavits that have created this common procedure through acquiescence and tacit agreements.

For example?

[holy vehm]

You say that a name cannot be copyrighted for the reasons you state ben, but what if i created a whole new name?
What if i went to all the trouble to ensure that no other person or human in the world had the same name as me, i actually create a whole new word and call myself that.

Would this not satisfy the criterea of effort that has gone into the creation of something, thus if i created it, i must be able to protect it.

I very vagually remember the joe bloggs company (made jeans wear) attempting to copyright the name or brand, cant remember the outcome though.

[pedawson]

BenOfEtc, First let me explain myself although this is unusual for me to explain myself, I have no need and I do not wish to be educated by someone who is NOT in full possession of the facts.

Acts and Statutes

The LAW you so lovingly refer, is in fact, not law at all they are and remain acts and statues.
Ignorance of the law is normally no excuse.....Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c.36) Para 3.2 :

In any proceedings against any person for an offence consisting of a contravention of any such statutory instrument, it shall be a defence to prove that the instrument had not been issued by or under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office at the date of the alleged contravention unless it is proved that at that date reasonable steps had been taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of the instrument to the notice of the public, or of persons likely to be affected by it, or of the person charged.

A Statute turns an Inalienable Irrevocable Natural Right ... into a revocable privilege.
All Acts are statutes restricted in scope and applicability by the British Constitution and common law.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein

For something to exist in LAW it must be capable of being named, and its scope defined.
A Society is defined in both legal terms and Common Sense terms as 'a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal'.
'Society in general' is not a lawful name.
Since 'society in general' cannot be defined in scope, and cannot be defined in name, then it cannot exist in LAW.
A Society cannot exist in LAW, it can have no liability in LAW, and hence can never create LAW, nor enforce any devised Statutes as LAW.

Trademarks and Copyright don't have to be exclusive within the world, just within your sphere of operation. Actions to enforce them are where confusion to the 'consumer' could damage the TM (C) so declared by the owner. So it doesn't matter how many 'same names' there are as long as confusion between them doesn't exist.

Upper Case Names

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.

Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Trademark
Trademark (TM) is common law, a Registered Trademark (R) is commerce...so TM is established because i claim it.....very simple

Copyright
Copyright can also be claimed under common law in the UK, but the UK has suggested a single name is unlikely and that 'skill' should be involved

A trade mark may consist of any sign capable of being represented graphically, particularly words, including personal names, designs, letters, numerals, the shape of goods or of their packaging, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.

Magna Carta (Constitution) If there any acts or statutes that breach this, they are null and void.

No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land.
For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

Now I would like to state this quite categorically, on this site we discuss the points that are relevant to the thread 'OWNER' and I apologise here to chomerly for any disruption my post earlier may have caused.
I refer to:

Plus there are many affidavits that have created this common procedure through acquiescence and tacit agreements.

For example?

This is NOT the subject of this thread and the information is readily available on this forum if one would wish to see them.

I will not be pulled into a session that is fast entering the realm of TROLLING.
There are guidelines and consequences for trolling and I am not affraid to use them. Please stick to the topic and provide all the information regarding chomerlys request.

Namaste, rev;

[BenOfEtc]

You say that a name cannot be copyrighted for the reasons you state ben, but what if i created a whole new name?
What if i went to all the trouble to ensure that no other person or human in the world had the same name as me, i actually create a whole new word and call myself that.

Would this not satisfy the criterea of effort that has gone into the creation of something, thus if i created it, i must be able to protect it.

Truth is, it's a matter of interpretation. Something can only be protected by copyright if “sufficient skill and labour has been expanded in its creation”. Now, like I said that has generally meant names can't be protected. That doesn't necessarily mean that no name could ever be protected. I don't know how long a name would have to be.... but I suspect that in practice any name that could be protected would be so long as to be impractical.

I very vagually remember the joe bloggs company (made jeans wear) attempting to copyright the name or brand, cant remember the outcome though.

Ah, Joe Bloggs. That takes me back. When I was young, growing up in Manchester, everyone was wearing Joe Bloggs. They were one of those brands that became very fashionable and then faded badly. The founder was a millionaire at 24 but ended up bankrupt.

Anyway. They will have protected the brand through a trade mark. In fact, I just checked and they did. You definitely *can* trade mark names. For example, 'David Beckham' is a trade mark, as is 'Wayne Rooney'. 'Gary Neville' is not.

Edit to add: You can't copyright a name or word even if it's the name of a company or a word you've made up yourself. I just thought of a good example of this: The name 'Exxon' wasn't protected by copyright despite it being (presumably?) a word they made up. It'll be a trade mark though, of course.

[BenOfEtc]

Hi Phil.

Firstly, I apologise for any offence caused. You are quite correct that you have no need to explain yourself. You don't need to reply to me at all. You are quite free to ignore me entirely if you prefer.

Now I would like to state this quite categorically, on this site we discuss the points that are relevant to the thread 'OWNER' and I apologise here to chomerly for any disruption my post earlier may have caused.

Well, I did reply to chromerly. I thought I answered his question in a useful way. To be honest, I only replied because I noticed that he'd posted twice and no one had replied to him in four months. I can hardly be said to have disrupted a discussion because before I replied there wasn't one.

I only opened the discussion out in response to your reply to me... but if replying to your points was inappropriate, I apologise again. I just like discussing stuff online... especially as I have a LOT of time on my hands at the moment.

I will not be pulled into a session that is fast entering the realm of TROLLING.
There are guidelines and consequences for trolling and I am not afraid to use them. Please stick to the topic and provide all the information regarding chomerly's request.

I don't want to pull you in to anything. But trolling? I thought I was disucssing quite reasonably.

But I am more than happy to follow house rules. It's your forum. I appreciate the fullness of your reply and feel a little bit rude only replying to the bits about copyright and trade marks but if you want me to stick more rigidly on topic I'm happy to do so. Like I say, your rules.

Trademarks and Copyright don't have to be exclusive within the world, just within your sphere of operation. Actions to enforce them are where confusion to the 'consumer' could damage the TM (C) so declared by the owner. So it doesn't matter how many 'same names' there are as long as confusion between them doesn't exist.

I think that there is the risk of some confusion here. Copyright and trade marks aren't the same thing. People often talk about them together (which is where the confusion comes in) but they are actually very different things. They work in totally different ways.

What you say there is mostly true, but only applies to trade marks. The details are a little more complicated than that but you're basically right that the same word (or whatever) can be copyrighted by different people for different purposes. But like I say, that's a trade mark issue, not copyright.

For copyright the issue is originality. It doesn't matter if the same thing has been created somewhere else as long as you didn't copy it. So actually, that someone else has the same name already isn't really the issue. (One of my posts was possibly a bit misleading in that regard, for which I'm embarrassed and apologetic.) The issue is the minimum effort bit that you refer to in your post.

Trademark (TM) is common law, a Registered Trademark (R) is commerce...so TM is established because i claim it.....very simple

Copyright can also be claimed under common law in the UK, but the UK has suggested a single name is unlikely and that 'skill' should be involved

The way you get to own copyright and a trade mark are very different.

For copyright, as you suggest, you don't have to do anything at all. If I right a poem then I own the copyright as the author. I don't have to register it or write 'COPYRIGHT' on it or (c) or anything else. It just happens automatically. I probably should have said that in my original answer - it's not only that a name can't be protected by copyright, but if you could there isn't a process you'd need to follow. So you doubly don't have to worry about it.

To own a trade mark it has to be registered. A trade mark isn't protected by common law at all. If you don't register a trade mark then you don't own it. You can slap (TM) after some text but it doesn't mean anything at all without registration.

Where the common law comes in is the common law tort of passing off. It basically means that you cannot pass of your goods as someone else's. If you can show that you have some sort of reputation to protect, that there's evidence of confusion and that you've suffered damage as a result, the court will step in. It only applies to commercial activity so isn't usually relevant to the issue of protecting your name.

[tayga]

I hope you don't mind me butting into this conversation but, as someone who has already copyrighted his strawman I have an interest.

It's been suggested to me that my if my strawman was created by the State then I didn't make it and can't copyright it. Does anyone have any thoughts on this argument.