Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AFRIMERICAN]

It has come to my attention that for reason, and by means unknown, the word AFRIMERICAN has been granted certified Copyright protection.

Does anyone know if this has this ever happened before?

This is not a joke.

[JSonnabend]

It has come to my attention that for reason, and by means unknown, the word AFRIMERICAN has been granted certified Copyright protection.

Does anyone know if this has this ever happened before?

This is not a joke.

You're missing something here.  Single words and short phrases cannot be "copyrighted".  It is possible that the word is protected as a trademark, but that would be for limited purposes, not in any general sense.

- Jeff

[Ameil Bruce]

Technically, and theoretically that would be true, but due to components of contract law, and the issuance of a copyright certificate validating statements and claims therein/thereof, "AFRIMERICAN" is a copyrighted word.

It's an anomally.

As far as anyone knows, it's a first, and only.

I was doubtful about that myself, but recent legal challenges involving it, somewhat has the opposing sides, and judicial personell stumped.

While copyright laws do apply, becuase of the contractual nature of copyright cerificates, it is now a matter of contract law, and the only honest way to void this contract is to revisit the Dred Scott decision which is a constitutional violation.

There is no mistake.

[JSonnabend]

Well, if you are talking U.S. law, then you are simply misunderstanding something.  Copyright is not "contractual", it's statutory.

I'd be happy to look at whatever it is you've been reading and help you understand where your misunderstanding lies.  

- Jeff

[Ameil Bruce]

This matter is already in federal court, so I won't attempt to try it here, or reveal the essences of my case.

Suffice it to say, while the Copyright right law as a whole may be statutory, once a certificate is issued, and secured by time, and or exploitation, any discrepancy, or challenge becomes a judicial matter. Judicial pursuits rely on several legal codes that are used cross referentially to establish precedent. where precedent has previusly been established laws are argued to weaken it, where there is no precedent various laws are argued to establish one.

This is unprecedented.

I am not a lawyer, but I have filed seven lawsuits on various matters and have only lost two, which is to say, I don't take these things lightly, and only pursue those matters which have a high probality of win in my favor.

While everyone says what you say, various agencies, and corporations are going to extremes to keep this anomaly under raps, hidden, even to the point of setting up a string of foreign users in five different countries so as to create a false origin. Google has two books listed as using it that don't actually use it, and the persons being sued have offered to settle twice since seeing the actual certificate.

With an increasing number of acts of subterfuge by U.S. government agencies that include false listings, a recent fraudulent trademark registration of it by a corporation that went out of business twenty years ago which the trademark office knows is fraudulent, to the CIA using it as codeword to secrete funds for a study of Iran, and to possibly intwine it in some negative racist propaganda, I see to much is going on for it to be no more than a word or mistaken interpretation on my part.

While those acts could be racism, I believe it's that, and much more because the above is just the short list of acts experienced the past three years.

When I began civil and criminal action a few weeks ago things began to change, and the question I got/get Were/is, "How did you get this Copyrighted, and In comments I get, "Those people are gonna kill you...

I'll be back when the case is settled.

[JSonnabend]

Care to provide a case number?  How about a copyright registration number?  Both the "federal case" and the copyright registration are public record, so you won't be divulging anything untoward.

- Jeff

[mactheknife]

The copyright registration number is TXu-399-322, registered back in 1989.  Judging from the way the title looks on the catalog record, I'd gather that what was submitted to the C.O. is a dictionary definition of sorts.  Such definition may have enough original text to be copyrightable, but that doesn't mean the word itself is protected.

[Monito]

The Afrimerican com website includes the copyright symbol on their site but do no make any mention of copyright or registration or a lawsuit on their About page.

Since they want to popularize the term, it seems rather counterproductive to copyright a term, if it were even possible, or trademark it, which is possible.

Rather like Loglan and Lojban that I was reading about recently, two similar artificial languages, where the first was copyrighted (though later overturned) and that caused the second to be invented, with the result that the first is dead and the second is still under development and use (though by only 50 or so users).