Awesome. Well, welcome to day four VIP. You guys are awesome for being here. You guys
actually get this hot off the press. I don't know if you just saw there was a lawsuit that
was filed yesterday against OpenAI. Did you guys hear about this? Yep. Another major one.
I will share this with you. John Grisham, George Martin, and another 17 authors just sued
OpenAI for copyright infringement. I'm not making this up. I told you this is going to
explode. This is one of the hottest issues right now. Here's proof of it. This is the HuffPost
apparently. Peter has been telling our members for about six to nine months that this was coming
and that this is what was going to happen. I called two out of three have already happened.
You're muted.
Something just happened. Let me see. Can you hear me? And can you see me? You can? All right. Zoom
just showed on my screen that there was an error. Zoom is now owned by OpenAI apparently. I'm just
kidding. Hopefully, this is being recorded. It says it's being recorded. Let me share my screen
so you can see what I'm trying to show you.
See if you can see it. Screen is loading.
Can you see it? It's not showing up, is it?
No, it says that you've started a screen share.
Yeah. Let me. It's like don't teach them. I'm serious. It's so weird. It's
crazy. It doesn't want people to know this stuff. All right. Let me try it one more time. This is
crazy. Actually, you know what? I could just do it this way. I'll just drop the link. Can't stop
me from dropping the link. Yeah, it's so funny. Vicki wrote in the comments, I missed one. Me
and Peter were just talking about all the resources that are up to date because we're signed up for
those updates on the industry. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to
get those updates on the industry. It cracks us up when you're on it.
There it is. There's the link right there. You can click on that link and you'll see
lawsuit was just filed by John Grisham. I mean, John Grisham is one of the best known authors in
the world. Just filed lawsuit against OpenAI. Sarah Silverman already filed lawsuit against
OpenAI for copyright infringement. There's a lot of others that are just lining up. People have
asked me, how do you think this is going to play out? Is this going to be... Yeah, but even though
he hasn't written for years doesn't mean he doesn't have copyrights. There's people who
haven't painted that have very powerful copyrights. Just because they haven't done it recently doesn't
mean that they don't have legal rights. There's such a large number of lawsuits that are being
filed against OpenAI right now and Google. Microsoft is coming up next very shortly because
they have AI software as well. It's extremely problematic. They're not going to be able to
appease everybody in my opinion because they can't redo their database. They would have to
start from scratch because they scraped the internet. Since they scraped the internet, they
grabbed other people's content and put the other people's content into OpenAI's database. Now when
you go in there and the content you're getting, you can literally ask for the next chapter of a book
and it'll create it based on that same book being in their database. Well, they don't have legal
rights to have the book. They don't have legal rights to have your paintings or your pictures
in there. But guess what? If your kids' pictures or your pictures were on the internet from 2021
prior, it's in mid-journey or it's in OpenAI. This is what they did. They scraped the internet.
So your content is in there. So the question becomes, well, how can I stop them from scraping
my content going forward? There are certain tools that you can use to make sure that your content
doesn't get scraped. You can do a thing called glazing. Glazing is pretty good.
There's a number of other tools that you can use.
Some of the companies are allowing you
to go onto their sites and type in your own URLs,
your own information,
so that they will not scrape your data in the future.
But the problem is that the problem's already happened.
So how do you fix this?
You can't pull data out of these engines.
It's not possible,
which is why OpenAI is not actually used,
ChatGPT is not actually used
in a number of European countries
because it's in violation of DARPA rules, right?
Which has to do with data privacy.
And so with data privacy rules,
you have to be able to pull,
like if I have a request
and I sent a request to Jennifer,
can you please, you have an awesome system,
but can you please pull my content from your system?
She has to be able to go, yeah, sure.
Here you go.
Well, you can't do that.
OpenAI can't do that.
That means it's permanently in there.
So how do you resolve this issue?
The way I think it may play out,
I think it's very possible that it'll play out this way,
is that they may create an entity
that people can register to,
saying that they are a member of that entity
and then provide royalties through that entity
to people that have certain copyrights.
That is a possibility,
but I don't see them,
I don't see how they can fix their database,
which means they would have to start over
from only licensed content
and publicly available content.
Good luck with that.
That's not even possible.
So they're stuck in a very bad position,
but they also made a billion dollars plus.
So they're doing pretty well.
So I'm not sure how they're gonna settle all this,
but it's pretty ugly.
All right, with that,
what I wanna do is I wanna show some of you something.
How many people here have a logo for their company?
All right, there's a few people
that have a logo for the company.
Okay.
I wanna show you how to do a trademark search for a logo,
which is kind of different
from doing a normal trademark search.
So I wanna walk you through this.
So logos are protectable under copyright law
and under trademark law.
Okay, both.
Just keep that in mind.
It's not just protectable under trademark law.
It's also the image itself is protectable
under copyright law.
The use of that image as an identification
of a source of goods or services
is protectable under trademark law.
So it's actually both.
Okay.
Do we have to file both?
You don't have to file anything.
You have certain rights under common law,
but then you could file a trademark application
for the logo so that you can use it
as an identification of source of goods,
like on your products or on your packaging
or on your marketing materials or on your website.
And then the copyright,
if you wanna own the image itself for the logo,
you could file that online for 65 bucks.
All right.
So I'm gonna show you something that's kind of unique.
There's two ways to search a logo.
I'm gonna show you both of them.
Let's see if I can, here we go.
Okay.
I wonder if I have my image somewhere.
Let me see.
Upload a file.
I do.
Okay, great.
Okay.
All right.
Let me show you two ways that you can search a logo.
Number one, you can use Google.
Google actually has an image searching capability.
So let me show you what that looks like.
Hopefully the share works.
Otherwise I might have to restart.
Okay, everybody can see the screen now, right?
Okay, great.
So if you look at Google over here, you see the mic.
Next to you, you see like a little kind of image thing.
You click on that.
You can then upload a file or paste a link for your image.
And then you find wherever your image is and you upload it.
So let's see if I can use this one.
Open.
See if it works.
That took way longer than it should.
Upload a file.
See if I can.
I have another version of it.
Let's go to...
Well, all you have to do basically just upload your image.
That's all you have to do.
So, you know what I was looking for, Ray?
I just thought of actually showing people
this one in particular,
but I was looking for my logo.
I was looking to see if we had,
here we go, challenge business.
I was looking to see if we actually had an example of the...
Yeah, I don't see it.
I was looking to see if I had an example of the logo here.
I know we save it all on the G drive.
I mean, on the Google drive.
Yeah, are you wanting...
Let me get it over to you in Facebook.
Try this one.
There it goes.
It's uploading.
You see how it's doing this meta tag thing?
This is weird.
I haven't seen it do this before.
Basically, you should be able to just click on an image
and then press okay, open.
But it's...
See this thing on top?
It looks like an error is happening.
I don't know why, but that's the first time I've seen that.
So, but all you can do is basically
you can upload your image
and it'll automatically show you any other sites
that have that image.
It's always worked.
I don't know why it's doing that now,
but it's showing you metadata for some reason.
But that's one place you can use.
But let me show you the USPTO website,
which is much easier apparently right now.
So, let's go trademarks.
Let's see, trademarks, searching, go to the second link
and then word of design mark.
So, the field that you can use,
when you look at all these different fields here,
you can go down to either description of the mark or,
where is it?
Design, there it is, design description.
So, whatever your image includes in it,
you can use the design description for that.
And you could say, let's say,
somebody come up with something that would be in a logo.
Like just type it in the chat
and we'll see what kind of logos we come up with
just by searching it this way.
A wave, that's a good one.
I'm gonna say a wave too.
Yeah.
Any others?
Let's try a wave.
Wave, seashells.
All right, so let's see, submit query.
So, you get all of these results right now.
All right, 32,000 results, which is a problem.
That's too many.
So, what we wanna do is add another restriction.
So, just say and,
and let's say we're gonna use this for education.
So, international class 41.
And we do a submit query.
Now we have 3,993 records.
So, these are supposed to include
some kind of image where waves are part of the image.
But how exactly are you supposed to know that?
Like, you have to click on each one, one by one.
See, okay, there's some waves there.
Go back, go to the next one.
Okay, there's some waves there.
These are radio waves.
Go back, look at another one.
That would take, I mean,
how many of you know that takes a long time to do, right?
So, what you can do instead is on the top here,
there's a button that says image list.
You see that?
Click on image list.
Look at that.
Isn't that cool?
Now you have all the logos right in front of you.
You just scroll down
and look through them very fast this way instead.
Let's say this is what we like more.
Then you can click on that image.
Not on the image, I'm sorry.
You click on the number associated with the image
and there's the trademark for it.
See that?
That's how you can actually search for logos.
Now, I would suggest that obviously
you use a professional searcher like Thomson Reuters,
but this is something that you can do
at a top level yourself first
to see if there's anything like it.
And if you don't find anything,
then you can send it over to Thomson Reuters.
But the point being that you may not use the right words
that are used for that logo.
And so the logo might not pop up for you.
And so that's why I'm saying it might...
Logos tend to be more difficult to search than wordmarks.
Does any, just out of curiosity,
does anybody have any questions on searching at all,
trademark searching?
Because this is something you guys can do on your own.
So I wanna make sure that everybody knows how to do this
and you don't have any issues.
So it looks like everybody's good on a trademark searching.
Okay, good, good.
All right, so now you know how you can do logo searches.
So if you go,
let's say I wanna do like the swoosh, swoosh, Nike swoosh.
There should not be a million swooshes out there.
So if I look for the swoosh,
nothing pops up there, which is interesting.
So now I can look at description of the mark.
For some reason, it didn't come under design description
because they didn't use that word swoosh.
So I thought to myself, well, that's a swoosh.
Well, the USPTO didn't categorize it as a swoosh.
They categorized it as something else.
This is why you might miss something
despite a mere fact that you use a different word
from what they would use.
Okay, so just keep that in mind
if you're doing trademark searches for logos
that you might use a term that they're not using.
So what you can do in that case
is you could just put it under all
and search for swoosh and see what you get.
Okay, 3,800 records.
So then what I might do instead is I might come down here
and do Nike as the owner, right?
Because I know Nike is the owner.
So I put an owner name and I click swoosh.
I click search, but I have to make sure it says, and.
Now when I do a search, look at that,
I'm down to eight records, see?
So now it's better.
So then from here, I can look at the image list
and now I've got a bunch of trademarks.
Some of them have the word swoosh in it
and here's one with the swoosh on it.
And if I want to see if it's alive,
I just click on the number and it says abandoned.
That one's abandoned, okay?
Any questions on that before I move off of that?
Because this is a tool that you can use on your own.
So I want to make sure you really know how to do this.
Peter, I didn't really see how you got to the image
and I'm not sure how you got to do the search for the logo.
I saw what you were doing,
but I don't know what you clicked on to do the logo search
and how you clicked to get the image.
I'm sorry, I missed that part.
Yeah, no problem.
Let me go back, I'll show you.
So we go back, let's go back to the start.
So this is the USPTO website.
Go to trademarks, searching.
Click on the box, click on the second link,
word or design mark, search.
Now what I do is I select either design description
is what I typically do because a logo is a design.
And so I'll search under design description.
So from there, let's say that there's like lightning
is one thing.
And then under design description,
I might also put under say water.
Let's see if there's any designs
where they have lightning and water.
Oh, there's 1500 of them.
So then I just click on image list
and these don't look like.
Lightning and water, how did that come up?
Let's go back and see what happened there.
Lightning as a design description and water.
How is there a, for a bug,
how is lightning and water in there?
Maybe it's a lightning bug.
No, yes, it is a lightning bug, right.
So let me explain something for you.
Since we looked at the design descriptions
under design search codes,
there's multiple things that fall under a code.
So you may be searching for clouds,
but you may get things that include like advertising
or fog, or you might search for a firefly,
but a termite pops up
because the word firefly pops up
the trademark that has a class code,
a design search code that includes fireflies,
that same design search code includes termites.
So this list here of beetles, fireflies, fireflies,
ladybugs, lightning bugs, blah, blah, blah, blah,
that is actually, those are the words
that fall under search code.
3.2, 3.14. So if you get results that just don't make any sense to you, it may be because
whatever popped up is in that design code that includes the word that you listed. This is why
you want to add other things to your search as well. So this is why you want to go in and when
it comes to the search here, add another word that's important to you. So maybe instead of
water I use like wave and then I do a search and I get only 256 records. Now I look at the image
list and I see waves and I see lightning. See that? So now I'm getting things that are closer
to what I want. Like this one over here bothers me because I don't see lightning anywhere but I
see a wave. So now when I search over here I look for the word lightning and I notice that it says
in the design search code 1.15.02 it includes electricity, lightning, and sparks.
And so they must think that this crown overhead over here must be like associated with
I guess electricity. There are little lightnings over the little house on the hill
in the very in the gray area on the top underneath the crown.
You see a house on a hill? No I see a little there's a wave and then there's a
and then there's a little triangular thing and then I mean that thing right there yeah those
little white squiggles might be considered yeah that might be lightning yeah yeah maybe that's it
let me see yeah it could be lightning yeah and one way to look at it is when you go down to the
description of it oh here it is description of the mark right there with a tread mountain in
the background with rain and lightning there it is so that's why the word's there so yeah
that's exactly I have a question on this search all right let me take Adelaine's question first
because she's had her hand up the whole time sorry Adelaine what's your what's your question
it's okay Vicky could have asked um as well but I just uh wondered if you've just created a logo
whether whether it's by AI or or whatever and you just want to make sure that you're not using
something that's like another one and put yourself in a position and that's vulnerable can you do
things like a reverse you know how Google can let you do a reverse image lookup you can upload
something and it'll find everything available on Google that looks yeah that's what I was trying to
do in the first place that's that's exactly what I was trying to do so if you go to google.com
I think she's asking can you do a reverse Google image search on the USPTO website
if I'm not mistaken no you can't do a Google search on USPTO website no no um I don't think
that's what she's asking but but over here like if you do Google here and you do a search you can
search for that image and with the complication with all the different words that people use to
describe the same thing can you put for example your logo into chat GPT and just ask it for
give me a couple of words that would be used to describe this logo and then absolutely
absolutely you can there's no problem with that thank you you're not trying to grab
ownership of the description of it like you're trying to grab ownership of a logo you're not
trying to grab ownership of a description of the logo yeah so by all means I mean when I run ads
you know I'll I'll try to come out with lots of different ways of saying something we'll throw
stuff in the chat GPT to come out with lots of different ways so by all means you can you can
throw it into chat GPT and come out with you know multiple different ways of saying the same thing
there is no problem with that and then you could put each one of them up into up into
the system let me see something if I do let me open this here so if I just looks like a really
tedious process oh it is it's a very tedious process and and one trademark infringement
lawsuit will can cost you two hundred and fifty thousand dollars wow so that tedious process is
it's worth making sure you do it right that's why there's professionals that do this
there we go I just dragged an image into here there we go okay so did you see that
so I'll show you what I just did in Google do you see the Google screen right now yes okay so I
click on the image here search by image then I grabbed an image that I created in mid-journey
here's an image I created in mid-
journey. I pull it in here, I let it go. Now this is what I get as a result.
These are all these images here.
Can you guys see all the results on the right hand side? Yes. Okay, so now the question is,
is it copyright infringement? So then you're looking at each one of these one by one and
you're saying, okay this is interesting, like there's the sun with the rays, there's sun with
the rays, there's this little stream. It's not exactly the same as any of these, it's just slight.
There's definitely modifications, but I'd have to look through all this stuff one by one to see do
I believe somebody else has an image that's very similar to it and I might be committing copyright
infringement. So this is a detailed process, but when you think of this is going to be the
logo that is used for my corporation going forward, you do not want to be putting a logo
that could potentially infringe somebody else's stuff. If it takes you time to do this investigation,
the nice part is if you're doing it, it doesn't cost you money. If you send it out to Thomson Reuters,
they'll charge you about $840, $850 to do the searching for you.
Or you could have a lawyer look at it quickly on the USPTO website because they're
good at doing searches quickly, which is one of the things I do in the package. I'll do a quick search,
not a Thomson Reuters search, I'll do a quick search and then I make people aware of the results that
we get. But on the logo side, it's much more difficult. That's why it's a lot easier to just
send it over to Thomson Reuters if you've got logos. Word marks are a lot easier.
So let me go to Dr. Nadine. Dr. Nadine,
did you have a follow-up question?
I don't think she hears. Can you hear us?
You have to unmute. Oops, I muted you. You got to unmute again. There you go.
Okay, so yesterday I was asking questions about that
contract I signed and the response I got. Is your question about the trademark searching?
Because I want to answer any questions about trademark searching first before I go to anything
else. To Kenya, do you have a question on trademark searching? I do have a question about
copyright and not trademark searching but copyright. On searching? Not on searching,
so there's something I do with children. It's a STEAM-based program, Science, Technology,
Engineering, Arts, and Math. When we teach them, we have them express it in visual arts
or performing arts. And now the visual arts that they produce,
I have the parent sign, I need a release form. Is that sufficient to use the artwork in ads
or on merchandise for my business? Yeah, we'd have to look at that in way more detail to answer
a question like that. You should bring that into the audit because that's way more detailed.
That's like looking at your terms and conditions, looking at who are the parties,
the people who make the decisions on behalf of children or the parents,
what are the waivers associated with the training that you're doing. I mean, there's so many
different aspects of it. That's a perfect thing that you would bring into the audit.
Yeah, let me go to Kenya. Go right ahead. I think you may have already kind of answered it
because I've ended up kind of shying away from logos so much and using more of a word mark,
especially if you have a unique business name. I mean, I'm trying to think of what my actual
question would be in that. Do you recommend having a logo? The reason why logos are
really appealing is because there's a visual aspect to an image that has an impression on
your mind. It just sucks you right into it. Then when I started researching because I'm working on
accessories, which eventually become apparel. And I started
researching all of the famous brand name. Companies like
Prada and Gucci. None of them actually, I shouldn't say not
most of them only have a word mark.
Or Gucci has logo. Gucci has logo Prada has logos.
What they have and what I said, this is actually the other
thing is what I the little the little circle logos, they call
them a favicon. Not actually a logo. Are you familiar with
that? How is that different? And anyway, because I do have that
like I did make like an actual graphic, but it's all text. It
kind of you know, looks like the Louis Vuitton one a little bit
but but it's anyway.
Yeah, so let me see if I can give you an example.
Can I help her click clarify the favicon on there as well?
Yeah, you can go ahead.
I'm also graphic design. So favicons are actually like a
smaller file version. Usually they're transparent in the
background. But it's when you go so you open up your internet
browser and you see the company's logo and you got like
20 different browsers open with 20 different logos. Those are
favicons. Okay, the icon itself. It's not a favicon. It might be
okay. That's flat icon. Like if people use a flat icon, that's
they they'll use like a trendy term of flat icon.
terms, I'm just
basically clip art branding, but it's a little different too.
Yeah, so what people will do is they'll take a logo and they can
take a logo and put it in many different formats. Okay, but the
but when you look at a company like Gucci, you look at what am
I wearing right now? Cartier, you look at all these, they all
have like, what was that?
Of course you are.
Yeah, well, I don't walk around with all the things like that.
It's just this. This was this watch. I will my wife to Cabo.
Right. And we just we hadn't had a time away in like, since the
kids were born, like, we finally had some time alone after 20
something years. And so we went on our own vacation to Cabo. And
and then we stopped, we stopped at a store. And she's like, you
need to buy that watch. And I don't usually buy things for me,
I buy things for her. And so she's like, you need to buy that
watch, you need to buy that watch. And so what I ended up
doing is getting a watch, but I got it when I got back here. And
it just so happened to be that the watch itself is, it's
Cartier. But it's, I just I love the colors. Oh, yeah.
It's so pretty. It's a it's a bellum blue. But the reason why
I'm mentioning all that is that all these companies have their
own logos. Now, that doesn't mean
this is when I did my logo search for name. So is this we
get a logo?
That's a logo. Correct. That's not a word mark. That's a logo.
Yes. Okay. Yeah. Um, okay. So this is actually, this is the
one I don't know if you can see it created for myself.
That would be a logo as well. Yeah. Okay. Okay.
This is something that I would want to trademark.
Correct. Right. And so where are you use? Like, are you using
that on your artwork? Or is that
no, this is for my the TK rose. So the bag that you bought?
Okay, got it. rose brand bag. So that's where the so to Kenya
Rosetta is a totally separate business who now I need to
license my artwork to TK rose.
Anyway. Yeah, well, so yeah, well, we can talk about that.
Anyway, I do have another fair use question. But we can come
back to that if you want to finish with.
Yeah, let me see if anybody does anybody have any questions on
searching before I look at anything else? No. Okay, cool.
Alright, go ahead. What's your fair use question?
Okay, so I actually wrote a book this spring. That is in it's in
editing right now. But I end I ended up so actually, it was
there's a few different things. So although I was so I did pull
like snippets out of a book, but it was like, I'm explaining my
reactions while I'm reading the book. So it's like she makes a
statement. And then I talk about how that made me feel. Do
you know what I mean? Yeah. So I and and and I'm like, and I'm
giving credit to her recommending people go read the
book. I mean, like, so I think I'm okay with some of that. One
of the things though, because the whole book is actually
telling my story. And there was a couple of songs that had
specific impact on me as part of my story telling my journey. And
so I shared the song lyrics. Yeah, credit to the writer,
which
I'm like, I don't know where that falls under fair use. If I should reach out and ask. I know
I've done that before with paintings too, where I have written song lyrics into a painting.
And I've sent, I think one of them that I actually like was going to create prints of,
I messaged the band and was like, Hey, I'm going to do this. And they never got back to me.
So I'm like, yeah. So, I mean, the honest answer in that area is you can get in trouble for that.
Cause that's copyright infringement. If you use like lyrics, I've had people that have taken
poems, you know, take the poems and they'll put the poems in the artwork and then the company
that actually owns the original poems will sue them. Well, so I guess that's where it's like,
but it gets a little more convoluted with music. Cause a lot of the music is actually
the music and the words are only like a part of a song. Do you know what I mean?
A poem actually is a complete finished work.
Anyway.
Basically when it comes to music, there are multiple elements of copyrightable material.
There's the audio portion of it that is just like the sound of the instruments that are associated
with it. And then there's like the instruments with the words, but then there's the words alone,
which are the lyrics. The lyrics themselves are protectable and the recording of the music with
the words inside of it is also a separate copyrightable work. So what would you recommend
then? If you could ask for permission, correct? That would be, I would do one of two things and
this is, we'll go into this more in the audit, but I would do one of two things. One is I would
look for things that are older where there is no copyright left over if that's possible.
Except that I'm talking about an experience that I had while specifically listening to the song.
Yeah. So that would be more recent stuff. So then in that case,
if I'm referring to, see, I can't give legal advice here. I can only give it in the audit.
So I'll talk about it more when we're alone one-on-one, but the general gist of it is.
I mean, I could make reference to the song and maybe pull out like a snippet,
but not the whole thing, right? Like something.
It would have to be like a small, it would have to be essentially a small portion,
but when we do it separately, it'll be under attorney-client privilege and I can elaborate
here. I can't do that because there's no attorney-client privilege and I can actually
get in trouble for telling you. And I, sorry, I do actually have another trademark,
which actually might be relevant to lots of people. So I ended up downloading a lot of fonts.
Some of them I pay for, some of them I don't. And so when it says free for personal use,
I cannot use that to build my logo. Correct? Correct.
That's not commercial use.
But if I buy the licensing for commercial use, then I should be fine.
Then not a hundred percent. And the reason why is because you're not the creator of it,
right? So you're not the creator. So if I create a stylized logo and in the stylized logo,
I'm utilizing fonts and those fonts are what provides the creativity so as to make it a
protectable logo, then in the disclaimer, when I file the trademark application logo,
I have to mention whether or not any portions of my design do not belong to me. So I'm going to
have to let another party know that like the font that's utilized in my logo is not owned by me.
It's owned by such and such. And you have to disclaim it essentially.
Then what if you manipulate the font like an illustrator and actually, I'm sorry.
Then you start walking into that. Is it a derivative or is it not a derivative?
Okay. Is it totally new creative work?
Well, that's fine. I'm just thinking I can't get in trouble for still giving them credit,
even if I've modified it.
Giving them credit for a slight modification is not going to stop you from getting in trouble.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
No. Okay.
Let's say that as an example, Tanya on here creates a unique font and she has the copyright
associated with that unique font. And then you say, man, that's a really cool font. So you take
four letters of that really cool font and you create a logo using that font. She has the legal
rights to the font. Now you're filing something with the federal government claiming that this
is your legal right, but you're taking somebody else's font to put into your image. So you didn't
create it. Right?
Okay, so almost all wordmarks are made out of fonts.
And that's, but most of the fonts
that are publicly available, you can use.
They're publicly available.
You don't see legal rights associated
with many of the fonts.
There are certain ones that a person will create
that are really well-known,
and they have a copyright on that.
So you have to determine,
like, are these just publicly available fonts
that are on Word or on, like, another program?
If they are, no problem.
If it's a uniquely created one
that somebody has a legal right to,
you can actually create a new font
and have legal rights to the font.
And nobody can use the font
without getting a license from you.
Now, if they get a license from you,
they can file a trademark on it
because they have legal rights to use it.
But that's what I was asking,
is if I can go, even though they were free for public use,
if I go back and buy the commercial license on the font,
Yeah.
and I should be okay?
In that situation, I would think you should be okay,
but we'll talk about it more in the audit.
So, all right, let me take one more question
from anybody who has not asked a question yet.
Look at Nadine.
Nadine's like, I got another question.
I got another question.
All right, all right, I'll take one more question.
Go ahead, Nadine.
Hold on, Rae, did you have something?
I'm sure your head go up.
No? Okay, go ahead, Nadine.
No, sorry, I'm resting my elbow.
I think this is two in one because they're related.
It's similar to what I had asked yesterday.
And so, if you have a training
where you're speaking about your ideas,
similar to the one yesterday,
and it's being recorded by the other person,
but they give you the recording at the end,
who has the legal right to that?
The one who records.
The one who does the recording.
The legal right to the recording is the one who records.
But if it's my idea, like what I'm doing,
I'm the one speaking about what I'm doing.
We're talking about the recording.
We're only talking about the recording.
The one who has the legal rights to the recording
is the one who records.
Okay, okay, all right, so say it's not the recording.
Say it's my, I'm speaking.
Okay, so what right do I have in that situation?
You mean what legal right do you have for just speaking?
Right, if there was no NDA, NCA signs in this second-
No legal rights.
None?
No, that's why I'm saying,
in your situation that you talked about,
we should go into that into a lot more detail.
There's certain questions I will be asking you
to see if there's anything that you can actually do.
But that's something that you should bring into the audit,
because you gotta talk about your personal situation,
like every single thing that went on.
Now, if you're just talking to somebody,
if I just, I like Vicky.
Vicky's a friend of mine.
I get on the phone and I start talking to her
about my technology, I have no legal rights, none.
If she takes that and she goes,
man, that was a really cool idea,
and she goes forward with it, I can't stop her.
I have no legal rights for discussing my invention.
Okay, so if the person, if you see,
like what you've been speaking,
so this is training in regards to a speech, right?
And so if you see like the components of your speech
and the idea that you've had show up
on like a teaching website in terms of standards
and stuff like that, registered, I have no, I can't.
I'd be pretty upset.
Yeah, I'd be pretty upset if somebody else was using it.
That's why you should dig into exactly
what the scenario was to figure out
whether or not there are any legal rights.
But if the situation is I just get on the phone,
I like Jennifer, I call up Jennifer.
I'm like, hey, Jennifer, I've got this great idea.
Like it, you know what we're doing?
I'm using this, and then you do that.
And then when you're done, you get this result.
And Jennifer's like, cool, Pete, that's awesome.
Thanks for sharing with me.
And then Jennifer just goes and creates a course
that does the exact same thing.
I can't do a thing about it.
That's why I'm telling you Nadine, you wanna do the audit.
Dig into like exactly what all the scenario is,
have it digested legally and figure out
whether or not you have either repercussions
or you have.
certain things that you can do.
There may be stuff that you're just not looking at
that, you know, clearly this is important
because you've asked multiple questions
around the same issue.
Stop playing games and jump in the audit.
I'm telling you, you'll get weighed further in that
because I'll ask you other things that are associated
with a legal analysis, which I can't do here.
I can't do a full legal analysis in this environment.
So, but it's really unfortunate.
I've seen this multiple times.
There are ways around certain scenarios
that we've been able to figure out.
And then in other situations, there's nothing you can do.
So that's why I would dig into the audit.
And so you can actually look in this in more detail
and figure it out.
And God permitting, we come out with a plan
for you to recover.
Maybe they owe you a licensing fee, who knows?
Like you have to figure that out though.
So let me go to Jennifer.
You're up, my friend.
You inspired a question.
Sure, sure.
Okay, so we discussed course creation
and copyrights yesterday, I think.
The days are becoming a blur.
And so there are a lot of no code app platforms now
where you can use somebody's platform
to make an application
so you can put your course into it
and then it's your app.
Great question, yeah.
Yeah, quote unquote, your app.
Right, right.
But if you do create an app on your own,
your own coding, your own everything,
you can apply for a patent on that?
Well, you can apply for a copyright for the code
and you can apply for a patent for the functionality.
Yeah, yeah.
So you ask a very good question.
Right now, it is very easy to use some of these sites
to create an app, a quote unquote app, right?
What they're essentially doing
is they're using the same framework for everybody,
but then they're creating
a different graphical user interface for the party
while the functionality essentially is similar.
Right, and then the contents are hosted
all over the internet
because they're unifying all these different platforms
under one user interface or, you know.
That's right, yeah.
In fact, what a lot of people don't know,
I mean, my background is electrical engineering,
so I'm very familiar with a lot of the technologies as well.
What a lot of people don't know
is a lot of the online software that you're using,
that software is not located in one place.
It's actually multiple different modules
that are in different locations
that are incorporated into one embedded system
to execute certain functionality to give you a result.
So you could have like seven different servers
worth of modules that are being utilized
to pull functionality together to give you your one app,
you know, and you never knew this.
Like you just thought, oh, I've got an app.
Yeah, and it's not really.
It's actually a lot of pieces put together.
So the question is, well, who owns the quote unquote app?
Like who's the actual owner?
And in those kinds of situations, it's very curious.
In that the original code that's provided already existed.
They're just, they're adding certain modules
to code that already exists.
So if the code already exists,
they own the copyright for that.
They're adding new modules specific
to your functionality within their code,
which arguably creates a newly, a new copyrightable work.
But the only part that would be a copyrightable work
is the portion that is new,
that's outside of the original copyright, right?
That may be too fast for some, but I think you get it.
You clearly understand what I'm saying.
So those new modules,
if the addition of those new modules together
within a software environment, warrant a copyright,
then the copyright is actually for the new stuff,
not for the original framework,
the original code that's associated
with what's on their server,
that's going to pull modules associated
with your functionality into theirs to give you a result
on a unique graphical user interface.
So that's a long way of essentially saying
the original code they own.
The new modules, since they created the new modules,
they technically own it.
But if you get them to assign a right title
or an interest over to you,
then you technically could file a copyright
for the new modules,
the new module portions of the software.
Now, the functionality that's associated with that software,
that's a whole different story because.
is that code that they have may just be code
to allow interaction between modules
as opposed to functionality associated
with your system or your method.
So what do I mean by that?
Let's say that the invention is taking money from X bank,
putting that money into some kind of processing
and there's like three modules of processing
that are provided.
And the result is that certain Bitcoin is purchased.
And then that Bitcoin is applied to something else
which results in the purchasing of NFTs, right?
Which in the long run is supposed to increase value.
Let's say that whole process is done.
Now on their platform,
they have software to interact with the bank,
software to interact with the Bitcoin company
and software to interact with the NFT company.
But they don't have functionality
that does the calculations to do the modernization.
They don't have any of that functionality.
All they have is skeletal code to allow interaction
between the bank, the cryptocurrency and the NFT.
Are you talking about the APIs?
Yeah, application programming interface, right?
That's essentially all they have, right?
Within this software code.
That is different.
That has nothing to do with your functionality.
Your functionality is monetization of hard currency
into crypto, into NFTs to increase some kind of portfolio.
The fact that they have code
that allows interaction with a bank
and with the cryptocurrency carrier
and with the NFT carrier like OpenSea
has nothing to do with your functionality.
So therefore you can file a patent on your functionality
and include the method within a flow chart
and they don't own anything.
Does that make sense?
That's essentially the whole analysis.
So for the code, their skeletal system,
they're popping in modules that they're creating for you,
get them a sign, all right,
Tyler, I'm interested in code for the modules to you.
That could be copyrightable.
But on the patent side, they're really not adding anything.
Your functionality is what you're giving to them.
So you should own the patent rights.
They should not be the inventors.
And that's why you wanna make sure
that you have an NDA in place when you talk to them
because you don't want them to walk around and say,
man, this is actually pretty cool.
Let me go find somebody and sell this to another party.
You do not want that.
Yeah, there was a lot of this kind of compliment,
thought processes when I started my first internet company
in the year 2000 because everything was code,
but it like line by line by line, it was crazy, yeah.
Yeah, no, it's a really big deal.
And this is why understanding IP,
the people that run these businesses,
when they understand IP, man,
they know how to keep the money in-house.
They do so well.
Like another company comes along
and they wanna do software apps
and the people that are working with them are going,
oh, look, we're not gonna be able to make double the money
because these guys know that we're gonna have to sign
everything to them.
We can't take advantage of them.
Like they have a reputation in the industry.
And so-
I wish I'd known this stuff back then about the, yeah.
But there's, I mean, the unfortunate thing
is there's just nobody teaching it.
Like, even if you went to law school,
if you went to three years of law school,
I went to what was called Frank and Pierce Law Center,
which is now called UNH School of Law.
Back when I went, it was the number one law school
in the world for IP, number one in the world.
They didn't teach this.
Like this is not, this is, you know,
now they taught what a trademark is.
They taught what a copyright is.
They taught what a patent is.
But this type, the type of stuff we're talking about
is like real life implementing practical skills.
And so my hope is that depositing this
into the brilliant minds of like you
and all the other people here
will result in companies doing really well.
And so that's-
It's really fascinating how much value a company can have
when you've got the IP put together correctly.
And then you've got your brand,
which is strong through every single aspect of your company,
including like who you hire.
And then you've got, you know,
on the side, sort of like as the cream on top,
it's sort of like, oh, and we sell stuff.
We make an income every year.
Yes, it's supposed to work together.
You nailed it in that what people fail to do
is they say, oh, let me get one patent here.
Let me get a trademark there.
Let me get a copyright there.
And they have nothing to do with each other.
They just do it to do it.
That's not, that is not how you build a company.
That's how you-
of money, right? You should have a reason why am I following a
trademark? I'm following a trademark because this brand
that I have has to have a there has to be a front name that
draws everybody to this experience. And now that name
becomes so valuable. Like tomorrow, I'm actually going to
be speaking on on a certain individual is pretty well known,
I'm going to speaking be speaking in his challenge, he
asked me to talk about trademarks. And he's like, he
knows the value. Like he has hundreds of things that are
protected. But the majority of people that he's training have
not a clue. But if you if you actually understand that your
name becomes so important, that when people see that name
Gucci, they should immediately know a certain quality when they
see, you know, the name Cartier, they have a certain quality, or
they see the name Nike, there's a certain quality. Well, what
happens when they see your name?
Right. So I have a brand management certification from
the University of London Business School. And so they
were talking about how the value of a business, a lot of it is
brand now. And brand isn't just what you think and feel. It's
the implementation of the brand throughout every level of the
company, including the hiring process to get the right brand
ambassadors, because they're the front line of your brand, like
every aspect of what you want your company to be.
So it's just absolutely right. 100%. And the and the companies
that master that early will be highly successful, right out the
gate. Like if you can understand this, as you're starting a
company, and be really concise and succinct with using that
brand, and make sure no like as an example, Ray will not allow
me to use any other colors. Like I try to come out with ads, I
try to come out, you can't use that. That's outside of our
color screen. You're changing our brand. I get reprimanded by
my own team.
Just to be clear. Tell him, Ray.
Bunky color. And I'm like, Peter, that's not on our
palettes. That's not our color codes.
That's and she'll fight me like she will fight. She's like, and
then she'll give me an attitude. She'll breathe heavy.
No, Ray, you're right.
But at the same time, like association, she brings so much
value in that she understands that when people see these
colors, they need to think of Peter Nieves and a protector
idea challenge. Or even if they don't think of my name, they
think of a certain quality of training, a certain quality of
experience, and not like some shark just kind of running
something to take advantage of people, right?
Just the protector, protect. That's actually what she does.
She protects the protector.
Yeah, you do. You need continuity, for sure.
You do. And so I greatly appreciate all the things that
you're saying, because you actually get it. And people
think, well, as I'm starting a company, it's too early to look
at this. No, if you understand this early, it will make your
company grow exponentially faster. Because it's consistent,
it's concise, there's an experience associated with your
name, your colors, you know, even your your general image.
And now you grow so fast. While if you're scattered brain, like
I'm going to do this here, I'm going to use that there, there's
no coordination. It's going to take you so long to get a
rhythm so long to get a following that it'll take you
five years to accomplish what you could have done in one.
Can I give you two examples?
Sure. Yeah.
Okay. So my sister, this is an example of how a company treats
their employees from the inside. So my sister works for
Lego. Can you imagine?
So when COVID struck, Lego sent every single employee, even
part time employees, gift boxes full of Lego kits, so they could
play with their family during shutdown.
Smart. Okay, very smart.
Yeah. So guess how all their employees feel about Lego.
I guess how that's going to translate into every interaction.
Absolutely. Customers. Yeah. So the second example is hiring
process. So I know Southwest Airlines has kind of been
through some ups and downs, but their hiring process, they were
famous for the way they hired their pilots and their crews. So
pilots would come in for an interview, someone employed
there would walk out and say, Hey, here's some flowered shorts,
some Bermuda shorts. We'd love it if you guys would put these
on. It's a totally voluntary. So guess who did better in the
interviews? The people who put them on.
So
Yeah, there's just so many strategies you can implement
through a company to really bring your brand to life. Yeah,
so anyway, brand IP.
And if you can bring consistency between the names, the logos,
and even in the name selections for trademarks, make sure that
they're kind of there's a relationship. They're just it's
not like Brown, and then Timmy, it's like, hold it, like, what
do they have to do with each other? There's got to be,
there's some relationship, then what you're doing is you're
building an experience.
When somebody has an experience, like I get goosebumps talking
about this stuff. When somebody has an experience, when they
work with your company, they're not going to forget you, they're
going to suggest you to others, they're gonna, you know,
they'll immediately ask you for an affiliate, immediately,
they'll say, I need an affiliate, affiliate code. Like
you have to give me I need that because I'm going to refer a ton
of people to you. And I want to get on board because they
believe in your message. All of that from color schemes and
logos and from names, people don't fully understand it. But
I think the people that do get it, they take off so fast, and
they do extremely well. So thank you for sharing that. I think
that was a wonderful contribution that you just
said.
Thank you for so much you have shared and demonstrated this
week. So far, I can't imagine what's being covered tomorrow.
Yeah, tomorrow, we get to dig into the patent side, which is,
which is a lot of fun. So my intent there is to make sure
people don't lose their inventions by performing certain
actions. And not realizing that it violates things such as like
the public use bar, or the publication bar, or the offer
for sale bar, or if you lose rights in foreign countries,
like if I go to a trade show, and I show my new product, like
here's a product, I bring it there, I demonstrated I offer
for sale at the trade show. If I did not file something a
provisional patent application or a utility patent application
before doing that, I lost all potential for legal rights in
every foreign country. Wow, that's pretty heavy. That's
scary. And people don't know this. They run companies
without knowing this. But something as simple as filing a
provisional before you do that can result in you having
certain legal rights and then swearing back to that filing
when you go into foreign countries within one year.
We'll cover all that tomorrow. So and then tomorrow, Adelaine,
we'll just start out with you and your question then. Because
we're now 943. So let's jump in then. We'll start Ray, can you
just shoot me a, like ping me just so I don't forget, we'll
start out with a question then. And everybody, if you have
questions, again, if you're applying to stuff, do yourself a
favor, take that offer. I'm telling you, because this is
what we do. But just one on one with you. And we dig in deep. So
take advantage of it, because it's a great opportunity for
you. So yes, right. Good.
Sorry to backtrack your rewind you here. But I think Nadine, if
I'm not mistaken, you have a question about the foundations
package.
Oh, you're muted.
I think you have to unmute her.
Yeah.
There you go. Right. I wanted to have that conversation with you
if that's possible.
Yeah, absolutely. Why don't we we'll close here. And then we'll
just talk one on one. So you don't have to talk about it in
front of everybody else. Oh, are you saying that you want to have
that conversation right away after you take the offer? Yeah,
you can do that. Ray can book you for that. But if you have a
question about, about the foundation IP, we can do that as
well. Yeah, right now. Yeah.
Okay, sure. Is that what you'd like to do after the meeting?
Meeting? Yes. Okay, sure. No problem. Jennifer, I'm gonna
are you gonna be awake for like a half hour?
Yeah, it's only 644 here.
Oh my gosh. Okay, that's right. You're in Cali. You're in
Cali. I'm in Oregon. Oh, you're in Oregon. I'm gonna give you a
buzz. I have to ask you a question. So I give you a buzz
afterwards if you're if you're available. So
all right, with that, I'm going to close. Nadine, why don't you
stay on so we can talk real quickly. Anybody else who has a
question with regard again, to the foundations and IP package,
I'm happy to stay on and talk with you to figure out if it's
right for you. Happy to do that. So and you'll see I'm not going
to try to convince you to do it for no reason. If it doesn't
make sense, as Vicki will tell you, I'm going to tell you don't
do it. It's a waste of your time. So alright, so with
that, everybody to guys, make sure that you're not sharing the
details of your creations in your businesses because you're
here most likely because they're not protected. So this is
recorded. This is going out to other people. There are
vulnerabilities here where someone can now go trademark or
copyright your things. So try to be very protective of
everything
that you were creating and discuss them with Peter on those one-on-ones so that he can guide you
because then you are having a protected conversation. Right and that's another reason why I stop people
when they start asking those things I'm like all right not here don't because this is all recorded
and I don't want to especially as somebody who's really trying to protect all of you
so that you don't get into troubles I don't want you doing it especially on my platform
that would be catastrophic I went to the protect your idea challenge and I lost a
billion dollar corporation oh that that's great the anti-success story
all right well bless all of you guys have a great night uh Nadine why don't you stay on
and anybody else take care of Vicky take care to Kenya take care Tanya anybody else who has
a question take care Adeline uh you can stay on I'm happy to talk with you