Karaoke Forums

...Could Sound Choice, or any other Karaoke Manufacturer with a Registered Trademark, deny the use of Public Displays of their Trademark in a commercial setting even if the PROs were being paid at the place of play and the usage of these trademarks were being played from an approved media (Original CDG and or Certified Digital Library)?

Uh, no?

If the company sells the disc to a KJ, how can they prohibit display of data on the disc?

To be legal the KJ pays fees for public performance, right?

That should cover any question of legality..

The effin CD+G producer does not own copyright to the music.. so should have no standing in any US court.

IMHO..

Sure, there are circumstances where that could be prohibited. But ordinarily, if the KJ is playing from discs, and the logo comes up, that's fine.

Since it is easy for folks to take what they read literally, I thought I would add this to be considered: I doubt that a manufacturer could refuse someone's ability to display a logo based on whether a venue has paid fees to a performance agency...

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. PRO fees have nothing to do with trademark rights.

That was the point. The OP question included an AND that was not addressed in the answer, so it needed to be clarified.

Your answer didn't clarify anything.

...Was just referring to the actual ownership of a Karaoke Company's Intellectual Property and their rights according to U.S. Laws. To my knowledge, from reading the law at various sites over the years, ownership has the right to decide how and where it can be used.

...As an example, most of us here know that Chartbuster shut their doors a while back. Some here use several of their tracks in their shows. Eventually Digitrax opened up and took over some of the Chartbuster's Library and replaced the CB Logo with their Digitrax Logo but not all due to licensing issues or for whatever other reason. However, apparently the Chartbuster Owner decided to maintain ownership of the Chartbuster Trademark. Now, could said owner decide to prohibit the use of the Chartbuster Trademark for use in a Commercial setting?

...From my understanding, the PRO Licenses are the responsibility of the Commercial Venue. Now if the KJ is also in charge of the Venue then yes, the KJ would be responsible for obtaining the PRO Licenses.

OK, I am falling into the trap, and spelling out the issue (guess I was showing some faith that I wouldn't have to):

Here is the original post:

...Could Sound Choice, or any other Karaoke Manufacturer with a Registered Trademark, deny the use of Public Displays of their Trademark in a commercial setting even if the PROs were being paid at the place of play AND the usage of these trademarks were being played from an approved media (Original CDG and or Certified Digital Library)?

The AND was capitalized by me. Since the AND is there, the answer is NO because I do not believe permissions to use logos would be tied in with any of the performance agencies. It is a grammatical thing, and reading between the lines is something others might do, but I do not tend to, since the way something is worded is an absolute that should not be ignored, especially when it can make one's position seem more detailed than it actually is...

I think the answer you are looking for is, they could try. Look at the Sting Ray\Karaoke Channel situation. According to several sources Including their site the last time I looked and Harrington) they do not authorize their products for public performance. I do not know if they would use copyright or trademark as an enforcement mechanism but they use one or the other. I also do not know if they have been successful and if not, if they would if they tried.

Your question makes it sound as though the PRO licenses have anything to do with trademark rights. They have nothing to do with the enforcement of trademark rights.

I'll give you some scenarios:

A. KJ plays from original media in a bar that has paid its PRO licenses.
B. KJ plays from original media in a bar that has NOT paid its PRO licenses.
C. KJ plays from pirated media in a bar that has paid its PRO licenses.
D. KJ plays from pirated media in a bar that has NOT paid its PRO licenses.

My answer for A and B is the same. My answer for C and D is the same. The PRO license part of the question is irrelevant; paying them won't save you from a trademark infringement claim, and not paying them won't make the trademark infringement claim against you any better. The reason for that is simple: The PRO licenses only cover permissions with respect to certain specific rights held by music publishers, not the rights held by SC.

A KJ who plays from original SC media (i.e., discs) need not worry about a trademark or copyright infringement claim by SC based upon that use.

A KJ who plays from unauthorized, non-original SC-marked media can expect a trademark infringement action based upon that use.

How that applies to other manufacturers is up to those manus.

...First off, it wasn't my intention to confuse anyone here by including the PRO in the OP. If I did I apologize. Just assumed that most of us knew about the PROs and what they cover. Do appreciate Harrington's examples.

...Although it doesn't answer my question, it looks like Mr. Boo understands the question I'm asking but even he admits that he doesn't know the answer.

Since Mr. Harrington is more familiar with this area of the law, I was hoping he could answer it:
...Does U.S. Law allow the Owner of a Karaoke Company's Trademark to prohibit the use of their Registered Trademark from being shown in a Commercial Environment?

...Am not here attempting to attack anyone. There's a reason for the awkwardness of the question as I seek for the answer. Now just because I would like to hear from Mr. Harrington, anyone is welcome to respond. The floor is open

The real answer is, it depends on factors that you haven't provided in your question.

Ordinarily, when a trademark owner sells goods outright--what we refer to as an "unrestricted" sale--then the purchaser can display the actual goods purchased publicly without fear of a trademark suit. For example, let's say I purchase RAWLINGS-branded baseballs from my local sporting goods store, then use those baseballs in a game to which I charge admission. The owner of the RAWLINGS trademark can't come and sue me for doing so, as long as the product I'm using is the actual product I'm using.

However, the trademark owner CAN impose restrictions on the sale of the original product that would prohibit this use. For example, let's say I run an amateur baseball league and I enter into a contract to purchase RAWLINGS-branded baseballs. In exchange for my designating these balls as the Official Baseball of HarringtonLaw's Amateur Baseball League--something that probably requires the consent of the trademark owner--the trademark owner gives me a discounted price on the balls. The company also imposes some restrictions, including a rule that the balls may only be used for amateur baseball, and not a professional league. That's therefore a restricted sale. If I then sell or give these balls to Joe Chartreuse's Professional Baseball League, thereby violating my license, I could be sued by the trademark owner for trademark infringement.

(I also point out that even if I buy original RAWLINGS baseballs, I can't then make my own baseballs, stamp them with the RAWLINGS logo, and use the copies for my games.)

The problem with giving you an easy answer to your question is, the answer ultimately depends on the doctrine of fair use. Fair use requires factual analysis.

I can see that under conditions like that florida case-the manus could refuse a media shift--but if someone has a hardrive or S.D. cards ftom chartbusters--or a gem set from sound choice I say no way.

...Thank you for the response and examples you given. Would like to throw out some other "Food For Thought" as in reference to the potential possibilities relating to the actual question at hand. Just might take some time. Thanks Again!

Dave,
...Personal I know very little about the Florida Case, only a little reading here and there. As far as the GEM, I would think you're correct as long as the KJ follows the agreement set forth by SC. Plus, SC knows what KJs have their GEMs.

...On the other hand, Chartbuster is slightly different. They sold their SD Cards to suppliers and also directly to customers, they may or may not know who owns them. Their HDs were only sold directly to their customers but they should have had records of those sales at Chartbuster. Of course there's always audits to prove yourself.

...As far as playing those tracks. I imagine any of them could/can be played from a laptop or any MP3+G player. I know SC's GEMs were designed for Professional Use and can only assume that Chartbuster's SD Cards and Hard Drives Series somewhat fall into that category?

...But! This does bring up one of the reasons why I asked the original question. As an example, if the owner of the Registered Chartbuster Trademark decided he/she no longer wanted to allow their trademark to be used commercially, do they have the right according to U.S. Laws?

If the KJ bought the product through an unrestricted sale ( from disty, retail, or even a garage sale, and no conditions were spelled out at the time of sale, then use of the product cannot be defined by the producer at a later date.

Reminder: At the risk of repetition, nothing on the discs' labels or packaging specifically forbids anything. unauthorized copies or public use for example.

No authorization conditions are stated, no unauthorized uses pointed out.

Example: "No Unauthorized Copy" does NOT mean a disc can't be copied. A backup copy for single site use is authorized by law. Copies made for re-sale or multiple sites are NOT authorized. However, NONE of this is pointed out, and those statements/warnings on packaging and labels are confusing and meaningless by themselves.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

"Example: "No Unauthorized Copy" does NOT mean a disc can't be copied. A backup copy for single site use is authorized by law."

Correct, as long as there is authorization either by the holder or by law. If either is not met, then it cannot be copied. As for the second sentence, that is for private use and for particular uses stated in the Copyright Act.

As for labeling, it doesn't necessarily have to be there. When you listen to a song on the radio, there is no announcement that it is Copyrighted, but if you copy it and use it in a way it is not intended, then it is in violation of the Act. Another example could be a book. For example a book is put out on the market and due to an error, the Copyright page was omitted, that work is still copyrighted.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

If a disc is not to be copied at all ( a hypothetical, since-at least in the U.S.- certain copies are allowed by law, whether the producer wants it or not) then it should read "This disc cannot be duplicated under penalty of law" or something similar. A direct statement, not an ambiguous phrase designed to confuse buyers into believing something that isn't true in hopes of stimulating further sales.

As for the song on the radio: Copyrighted or not, I can record from the radio for my personal in-home use, but cannot use that copy for public consumption. One is authorized, the other isn't. ( Not to mention that it would sound like crap, so why bother.) Just like recording a TV show for later viewing.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

What part of AUTHORIZED do you not understand?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger