Recently in the news is Missouri motorist Daniel Smith. When stopped by police near Independence, Missouri, following a driving accident, threatened to sue them under copyright laws if they wrote down his name. Smith, 45, allegedly told officers his name was copyright protected and that, every time it appeared on their documents, he would launch a $500,000 lawsuit. He reputedly added that, if his claim wasn't paid within 10 days, it would cost them $1.5 million and that, if they didn’t pay up at that point, judgments would be entered against all parties involved and their property.
The IPKat marvels at Smith’s cheek. Even if copyright vested in a name (which does not appear to be the case: see Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants [1982] Ch 119), he suspects that Smith is not its author and wonders whether title to his name devolved to him as a beneficiary of his parents’ estate. The only plausible thing about Smith’s assertion (viewed from a European perspective) is the generous scale of the damages you can get in the United States.
Copyright in names? Not for Ewoks or Elvis
What is copyright infringement? Find out here, here and here
Copyright infringement damages issues here and here
The IPKat marvels at Smith’s cheek. Even if copyright vested in a name (which does not appear to be the case: see Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants [1982] Ch 119), he suspects that Smith is not its author and wonders whether title to his name devolved to him as a beneficiary of his parents’ estate. The only plausible thing about Smith’s assertion (viewed from a European perspective) is the generous scale of the damages you can get in the United States.
Copyright in names? Not for Ewoks or Elvis
What is copyright infringement? Find out here, here and here
Copyright infringement damages issues here and here
POLICE THREATENED BY COPYRIGHT NAME CLAIM
![POLICE THREATENED BY COPYRIGHT NAME CLAIM]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, November 07, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html