We have previously seen how people attempt to cash in on political and social expressions under the increasingly absurd copyright and trademark laws in this country. Now joining this ignoble group is Catherine Crump, 57, of Waukegan, Illinois, who has applied for the trademark on “I Can’t Breathe.” In doing so, Crump not only is attempting to cash in on the words of the deceased Eric Garner, but a nationwide protest movement. So, while tens of thousands have been trying to find ways to protest what they view as police brutality, Crump has been trying to find a way to make money out of the tragedy and the movement.
Crump appears cut from the same greedy bolt as Robert and Diane Maresca, who tried to trademark “Occupy Wall Street” as people were being arrested in the streets.
I have long been a critic of growing copyright and trademark claims over things occurring in public or common phrases or terms. (For a prior column, click here). We have often discussed the abusive expansion of copyright and trademark laws. This includes common phrases, symbols, and images being claimed as private property. (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). This included recently a New York artist claiming that he holds the trademark to symbol π. —pi followed by a period—a design.
Crump paid $325 to file an application on Dec. 13 with the United States Patent and Trademark office. She has refused to comment on her effort to make money off the tragedy. The real problem is that we have a system that now makes such ridiculous and opportunistic claims plausible as common images and phrases are increasingly claimed for private ownership. The result is the opposite of the intentions of these laws. Copyright and trademark claims are increasingly stifling creative, academic, and even political expression in this country.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Copyright laws definitely need to be reformed.
I don’t know what to say—————-and that’s saying something 😉
hey is this Crump any relation to the attorney Crump that is leading the family of Brown the criminal? what a long shot that would be. at least rats stick together.
maribair – you raise an interesting point. I had forgotten about our fellow traveler attorney Crump. He certainly is opportunistic enough to go for the money and run it through a relative.
How odious of you.
The copyright and trademark system needs to be reformed.
Mind-space for sale…intellectual (?) “property” rites and rituals as capital earning becomes headhunting…. literally….per capita.
ChipS, LOL! Did you write for Lampoon @ Harvard?
Copywrong
Chips S.: Great post. Art and creativity does not usually mix well with money. Shame on Crump and the Maresca’s.
“Crump has been trying to find a way to make money out of the tragedy and the movement.”
“She has refused to comment on her effort to make money off the tragedy.”
Has Crump broken an actual law or is she just not toeing the morality line? If Crump has refused to comment, then how do you know this is an attempt to make money? Maybe she is trying to prevent race hustlers from profiting off of this tragedy and plans on donating all the proceeds to a victim fund for police brutality.
There has to be more to this story for JT to omit the word ‘allegedly’ and to smear her. I trust JT has more evidence than he’s presented.
I’d offer an opinion on this, but as the holder of the copyright on “Do you come here often?” I may be a bit biased.
The article says “what they view as police brutality”. I’m wondering if the Professor does not think that police brutality in particular neighborhoods for particular people is entrenched and the norm of this country’s legal system.
I think Al Sharpton should get a cut off of this.
What difference, at this point, does it make? Everyone else is on the make hay out of the deaths of these guys bandwagon. Why not let her pile on too? The protesters who are using the deaths for their own multifaceted purposes. The politicians who are waving the bloody flag so they can get re-elected. The race hustlers who are creating chaos for their own ends. Money money money money money. It is all about money. It is always about the money….and power.
Let her copyright the damned phrase. Perhaps we will hear less of it and not have to see it waving around on those professionally made signs. Of course, if you are asthmatic you will have to use another phrase to alert people that you can’t breathe.
At least, if she makes money off the bodies of some dead guys, she will be contributing to the capitalistic system and contributing to someone’s job opportunities to make the stupid t-shirts.
I enjoyed your fresh perspective, Johnathan and while I am no expert on the abuses of the copyright/trademark system, I am an expert on legal access. It is always important to make our laws as expansive and unrestrictive as possible for maximum freedom, even though it means some can use the syst for their own economic gain in a negative way. While I abhor the making of money on this poor man’s tradegy, every tee shirt she sells will bring awareness to the movement as does your blog about it. And, perhaps she will do something positive with the money. That she did not comment means we don’t know one way or the other what her intentions are.
Good writing. Easy to read. I look forward to more.
She can print all the T-Shirts wants and spread the word – but she shouldn’t be allowed to deny others the freedom to do so. In fact, the more people who can freely print T Shirts the better it will be for the cause in question; whereas this woman will actually be restricting the dissemination of the message by preventing others from using the phrase “I can’t Breath”
Also, since most people who are using this phrase on T-Shirts and other media are of limited financial means, why would she imagine that she would gain anything by suing them for copyright infringement?
I would vote for a candidate who championed wholesale reform of our crazy copyright laws.
Then, what would one say to a paramedic when one has a heart attack?
MONEY hungry leeches will always try to profit from those last spoken words in any incidents. Whether a killing, a historical event, or an accident.
A law needs to be made that criminalizes such attempts as greedy con artist.
So lets get this straight you have to pay someone a fine if you have an breathing attack. or your wind pipe is crushed in an accident. Or if a kid gets stung by a bee then he would have to pay to live.
Something that is free speech is suppose to stay free and is a not a new invention requiring a trademark license.
But look at the fact:
Who is profiting from a tragic event.
Lawyers, Media Preachers like Al Sharpton and those who want to use the event to loot and steal from another town.
Look at the facts of the riots. People from out-of-town looted the stores and now the store owner have to recover from their own neighbors and race to not protect their lively hood.
Someone has to occupy the bottom rung of the ladder.
The delivery of a compilation of words might have economic value – as in university courses, bound books, an organized seminar/convention setting, but not just the compilation of words without the added features. Value is based on scarcity. With ubiquitous internet availability/use, ideas are no longer scarce enough to have value, without additional scarce add-ons.
She is only operating like the Brown family who have tried to capitalize on the death of their son and step-son. It is the American way.