Re: The Four Symbols is Copyrighted Part 2

[weiser <weiser@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:59 PM 4/18/03 -0400, TangerineMan wrote:
>
>I don't know nearly as much about copyright law as do Shar and some others
>on this list, but in the case of Jones' and Bonham's symbols, isn't
>intellectual property difficult to claim since they reputedly chose them out
>of a catalog of Celtic symbols, whereas Page and Plant designed theirs
>themselves?

The work was Rudolph Koch's Book of Signs.
It came out in 1955. It wasn't a catalog, it was an historical overview and 
compilation of 
logos and symbols.
It was a book common to most public libraries in the U.S. and Britain at the 
time. 
A historical reviewer does not own the copyright to the art works he 
illustrates in his review. 
Koch gave credit in his book that symbols chosen by JPJ and Bonzo were Celtic 
symbols. 
However, because the general tone of the book was symbol design history instead 
of Koch's 
artistic self expression, the symbols in question stood there open for the 
taking, based on 
how the copyright law worked at the time. Were they listed as being in public 
domain? Not 
that I remember and I looked to be sure.

So Jonesey and Bonzo's appropriation of their respective symbols was in an area 
where they 
could essentially do what they wanted. There might have been a dispute with 
Ballantine beer, 
over Bonzo's symbol but that's never been a court issue. And the most that 
Ballantine could 
have done was argue that it was a derivative work and ask for a fee.
Actually it probably helped sell their beer so it acted like free advertising. 
Bonzo was very 
public about what he did. Ballantine Beer never took action.
Jimmy Page's so-called ZOSO symbol althought it's derived from centuries old 
alchemy sigils 
is different enough that it is a unique logo. The same goes for Plant's symbol 
from the ancient 
mythical civilization of Mu, or whatever it's actual cultural source(I alway's 
thought it 
looked like the symbol for Maat's feather of truth in a circular cartouche).

The more recent changes in the copyright law gave copyright to the artist for 
life with works 
back to 1970 being included. No one challenged Led Zeppelin as a group or 
individually on the 
point within a reasonable amount of time. Thus over time it's become general 
worldwide public 
knowledge each one of the members of Led Zeppelin claimed the symbols as their 
personal 
individual musical trade marks(This isn't to be confused with a registered logo 
trademark).
Technically logos do not have to be registered trademarks to be legal marks for 
a person, 
they simply have to be publicly known through publication by either performance 
or being 
fixed in an art work or literary work or otherwise displayed in a manner that 
the general 
public has access to. They have the right to use those marks as alternative 
legal signatures 
if they want to.
I've witnessed first hand the Four Symbols being used by the members of Led 
Zeppelin in public 
rock music concerts, as a matter of their practice in trade.
In addition to the symbols being published by means of appearing in use by them 
in public 
performance and as a unique logo on the sleeve lable of Zep IV there's other 
support for 
their holding the copyright.
Here's the important point.

There are published interviews where each and every member of Led Zeppelin gave 
a statement to 
the press about "his" individual symbol as a personal mark of his musical 
identity, with a 
direct reference to their appearance on the fourth Led Zeppelin album.

The only way they would stand to lose the copyright over the Four Symbols as a 
piece would 
be if the usage over time became so common that the marks lose their meaning 
and no longer 
stand as representing Led Zeppelin
Fat chance on that happening for a long while.
Shar