Case 1
The songwriter (myself) has used a dead person's protected works. I have created a new version of the copyrighted work, and I am being threatened for legal remedies, infringing on copyrighted works. Am I infringing on copyright laws? A simple answer is Yes, I violated copyright law. Here is the legal justification: The copyright laws are created to encourage the creation of more content of that type, not to give the content owner the right to deny other people from using their work. The United States Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 8, provides that the copyright law's purpose is to "promote the progress of useful arts and science by securing for limited times to the inventors and authors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries and writings" (Bouchoux, 2012). The same laws also protect the original works of authorship.
As soon as an artist type something down, they naturally acquire copyrights for their works, whether published or not. Copyrights are automatic eight and do not need any special paperwork, just like trademarks and patents. However, registrations may be required to enforce such artwork, but as a matter of right, the author is not required to register anything to get the right to use the copyright sign © for their work to be copyrighted. It is also a fact that the copyrighted symbol does not carry any legal weight and, as a result, does not have any magical impact on copyright status. It is also understandable that forgetting to use the copyrighted symbol does not cause the author to lose the right for their creation. The symbol is just to act as a notification that the art is copyrighted. Nevertheless, while the songwriter still owns the copyright to this piece of art, fair use protects certain users from any legal actions by the deceased lawyers. I did not copy the artwork as it is and used it; instead, I used it to create other forms of art, but what was the intent of this art? It was posted on YouTube for my own benefit. Fair use is a legal exception to the exclusive rights given to the author by the law for a copyrighted work. Fair use allows the copyrighted piece of art to be used without permission for the public good. This case is just similar to not being allowed to use a dead dictatorial president's images to tell his ill stories in governance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Still, the court places limits to fair use; copyrighted work fair use constitutes use by production in phono records or copies or through any other methods by that section for purposes like news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, research, or scholarship, is not infringing copyright. I used the reproduction for my own benefit, so I am not protected by Fair Use.
Case 2
In this case, the principle of insurable interest applies. The principle of insurable interest is applicable because insurance can only be purchased for insurable interests. The second warehouse owner is the legal owner of his warehouse, and as a result, has a valid insurable interest in the property. He is, therefore, eligible for taking insurance to cover for the costs involved in his property through fire. I cannot have an insurable interest in a property that I do not own (Bouchoux, 2012). This is because if I take insurance against another person's property, it will invoke an invalid interest in causing damage to the second person's property, which is illegal.
Case 3
Food recipes are difficult to protect; however, I think that trade secrets are the best way to protect my marinade recipe. Here is my justification: Copyrights are important for giving exclusive rights to artistic and literary works. Copyright is not ideal for my marinade recipe because it does not have the necessary literary expressions that would separate it from other similar chicken recipes. Patents are not good for recipes because it is not easy providing novelty that it has never been known before, it takes over a year or more to get patent, and the recipe will be published for the entire world to see (Bramson, 1980). Trademark laws could be an option to protect my chicken recipe names and logos to ensure that my customers are not confused with any other chicken recipes. However, a trademark would not be useful in preventing copyrighting of my recipe. The only thing I can do with a trademark is to prevent other chefs from using my recipe name.
A trade secret is my preferred method to protect my marinade chicken recipe. Most of the famous recipes are protected as trade secrets. A trade secret is a skill or knowledge only known by the artist, giving the recipe maker an advantage. A perfect example of trade secrets is the Coca-Cola formula. To enforce a trade secret, I will have to make nondisclosure agreements with my distributors, manufacturers, contractors, and any other person I trade with. The agreement would be to protect my secret recipe for my chicken soup.
Case 4
Replacing a new packaging machine for my newly acquired business would cost me $125,000. I have two options to ensure my machine; take insurance for the machinery for $50,000 or insure it for $200,000. Since the machine will not get damaged soon, I will go with the $200,000 insurance. A $200,000 policy will allow me to use the machine as long as I can while also assured that if it breaks down, I will get a new one and additional funds. The only problem with $200,000 is that the premiums will be higher, but the returns, in the end, will be better, it will secure the business future (Bouchoux, 2012). While $50,000 will allow me a reduced bill, it does not give as much value as the $200,000 policy. With a $50,000 cover, I will obtain repair for my machine. I will pay low premiums for the period of the cover. However, with a $200,000 cover, I will get a new machine and additional money to boot.
Case 5
Caffeine has been in use as alertness, stimulant, and anti-sleep aid for several centuries. The most popular source of caffeine is coffee, but it can also be extracted from other sources like cocoa, tea, and cola nuts, amongst others. It is a historical truth that coffee is drunk as an approach to increase alertness and wakefulness (Bramson, 1980). Most people generally take coffee to help them stay more alert during the morning hours. This, therefore, the friend cannot claim to have invented caffeine or related products because it will be impossible to prove that it is a new invention separate from the common caffeine, and the effects on people are still the same. Students use caffeine to study for longer hours, and companies also recognize the importance of caffeine for night-shift employees.
My friend cannot claim this to be an invention, but he can use another approach to patent the invention. He can use it in terms of a nutritional supplement as a composition, a mix of beverages, and caffeine to render the beverage more nutritious, palatable, or effective induction of alertness on the users. My friend should also consider using a mix of unique ingredients to improve taste and function.
References
Bramson, R. S. (1980). Intellectual Property as Collateral-Patents, Trade Secrets, Trademarks and Copyrights. Bus. Law. , 36 , 1567.
Bouchoux, D. E. (2012). Intellectual property: The law of trademarks, copyrights, patents, and trade secrets . Cengage Learning.
