These posters have been all over the New York City subways and buses for quite a while now, in both English and Spanish (Si ve algo, dice algo).

But soon, if the application goes through, the Metropolitan Transit Authority will have a trademark in the phrase. The MTA is pretty aggressive on intellectual property, especially considering that they are a municipal organization. I can't help but wonder if trademark attorneys' fees aren't 50 cents of every $2 fare.

A Canadian court issued a John Doe order to enjoin individuals that obtained copies of the Half-Blood Prince (from a retailer that jumped the gun) from reading their copies. From IPKat:

Author JK Rowling’s literary agent said

“Copyright holders are entitled to protect their work. If the content of the book is confidential until July 16, which it is, why shouldn’t someone who has the physical book be prevented from reading it and thereby obtaining the confidential information? How they came to have access to the book is immaterial.”

It’s at times like this that the IPKat wishes that he wasn’t such a blackletter lawyer. While strictly the contents of the book may constitute confidential information, the idea of injuncting innocent purchasers in the interests of having a showy launch leave the IPKat frankly horrified.

It seems that it is actually very material how they came to have access to the books. They purchased from an authorized retailer; they are (although not a copyright term) holders in due course, or a bona fide purchaser, as it were. Rowling has a beef, that's for sure, but it ought to be with the Canadian publisher and store, who allowed it to happen.

Let's twist this around a bit and think of what would happen if a similar rule were applied to broadcast regulation, a related legal regime. Would it make sense that you could be allowed to keep a TiVo'd copy of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, yet be enjoined from watching it ("time-shifting")? Of course not, that's absurd.

Finally, I'm embarrassingly unfamiliar with Canadian copyright law, but I suspect that this next little bit is substantially the same there. Copyright law (at least in the U.S.) isn't about protecting confidential information from disclosure in the first place, it's about retaining control over subsequent use and dissemination. Again, Rowling, etc. have definitely been done wrong, but not by the readers. Enjoining your fans from reading your book can't be such a good idea.

The WSJ reports that (the fictional Plaza Hotel resident) Eloise is being evicted for two-year renovations. Poor Eloise! But don't worry, there's an intellectual property (para-trademark?) dispute brewing for entertainment in the interim!

Patrick Meehan, who owns the film, TV and merchandising rights to Eloise, wants the Plaza to pay him for using her name and likeness. That's something the hotel has never done. Meanwhile, Simon & Schuster, which holds publishing rights to the character, is miffed at being left out of the talks and is threatening to strike a promotional alliance with another hotel.

... But Eloise's return is not guaranteed. The Plaza has never had a legal claim to the character. Mr. Naftali is now negotiating with Mr. Meehan over compensation issues. Mr. Meehan says he expects the talks to be "protracted."

... Meanwhile, Simon & Schuster, which receives a percentage of movie, TV and product sales, was left out of the negotiations between Mr. Meehan and the Plaza.

The book publisher, which is an adviser to the estate, is threatening to recommend moving Eloise to another hotel if Mr. Meehan doesn't fulfill certain contractual obligations....

Simon & Schuster is not currently considering moving Eloise to another hotel in future books, Mr. Richter says, but he doesn't rule that out, either. Ultimately, Ms. Thompson's estate has final say over story lines for future books, but Simon & Schuster has always worked closely with her heirs. Mike Rudell, a lawyer for the estate, declined to comment.

Likely, the parties will work something out on their own. If it does go to court, it'll likely turn more on contractual provisions between Meehan and Simon & Schuster. But, this does raise the question of what - if any - rights an appropriated owner has to the assets of people/entities that appropriate. That is, Eloise's author didn't just pick the Plaza because it sounded fun, but rather very specifically for what the name conveys. Does the Plaza then have any right to the author's profits? (Obviously, the best case is always to bargain in advance, but this rarely happens, and virtually never with the first work.)

In lots of other contexts, appropriation of value in a name gets a pretty tough look (e.g. metatags, advertising keywords). I often don't agree with those decisions, but it seems to me like allowing broad protection from appropriation in those contexts could only lead to recognizing interests for parties like the Plaza.