Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
May I suggest you do a
> google search on "HERON of Alexandria" I came up
> with a 139,000 hits. Even Encylcopedia Britannica
> uses "Heron".

Funny, when I did a search on "Heron of Alexandria" I came up with 32,900 hits, not 139,000. Interestingly, when I did a search on "Hero of Alexandria" I found roughly the same, once duplicates and alternative spellings were taken into consideration. So, there's no "consensus" on the fellow's name. I had always known of the fellow as "Hero" myself.

> Next time might I suggest you consult Wikepedia
> (Please no "Wikipedia is garbage comments",
> they've cleaned up their act tremendously from
> what I can see.)

In what way? Anyone at any time can write or edit a Wikipedia article, which makes them notoriously unreliable as information resources (I myself have edited a few which were notoriously unreliable about Egyptian history, for example, with cited references and the lot. For all I know, these articles have been re-edited into something equally unreliable again - that is the nature of Wikipedia) . Further, the Wikpedia article to which you refer me used the Snopes articles as part of their references, a source which you deemed "unreliable". So, we can argue the reliability/unreliability issue 'til the sky turns green, but it doesn't resolve the issue. Perhaps it is as warwick says: trust NO online source.

>I went to Snopes and noticed
> that they didn't cite any laws or lawsuits to
> support their assertion.

It's very possible the issue never went to court - not everything does. Corporations as a rule don't like to go to court if they feel they can buy their way out of unpleasant situations. Even the 2006 settlement Snopes mentions was stated as an "out of court" settlement.

I did more google search
> on KFC royalty rights and variations and just came
> up with the usual corporate cat fight law suits
> over-who-owed-who-how-much-for-royalty-fees. As
> you can see Snopes or Wikipedia is hardly the
> definitive statement on the matter. BTW since
> there's no definitive answer to this question so
> far I'm going to write a letter to KFC and try and
> get some resolution to this question once and for
> all.

Doubtful you'll get a straight response. Even the Wikipedia article to which you referred me stated at least 3 different reasons that KFC gave for its name change (healthy options, varied menu, and streamlined name branding (Snopes, cited by Wikipedia). They're not about to admit it was for financial reason due to possible royalties owed to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, IMO.

. For instance my all time favorite was when John Fogerty got
> sued for violating copyright law because he had
> the "look and feel" of John Fogerty of Credence
> > Clearwater Revival. Another record comapny had
> bought CCR's and decided to throttle John Fogerty and
> sued him, the result, he didn't produce a thing
> for ten years. Ultimately it was overturned. But
> ten years? If I had been the judge that
> case would have lasted 10 seconds.
> >
> > Again, this is not correct: Actually, Fogerty's
> > feud was with longtime label owner Saul Zaentz,
> > who owned Fantasy Records. Fogerty sued for the
> > rights to his Creedence songs, but Fantasy owned
> > them. Then in 1985, Zaentz sued Fogerty for
> > defamation over the solo songs “Mr. Greed” and
> > “Zanz Can’t Dance” and for copyright infringement,
> > charging that the new song “Old Man Down the Road”
> > copied Creedence’s “Run Through the Jungle.”
> > Zaentz won the defamation case, but lost the
> > copyright suit.
>
> Like I said he was essentially suing because it
> had the "look and feel" of a CCR song. So my
> summation was basically correct.

No, it wasn't. It wasn't "another record company;" it was the same company for which Fogerty had worked all along, even under CCR. Secondly, Fogerty won his case at the outset - that is, Zaentz's copyright lawsuit was not appealed since Fogerty won at the initial trial. What kept Fogerty in court for many years was suing for payment of his own attorney fees from Zaentz, who own Fantasy records. As mentioned before, this resulted in the landmark US Supreme Court case of FOGERTY v. FANTASY, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1994).

Meanwhile, Fogerty was recording all during the period as Fogerty Facts noted:

"...Fogerty followed up his success in 1985 with another album in 1986 entitled Eye of the Zombie. It was not merely as successful as its predecessor. Because of his albums failed success, Fogerty disappeared from the limelight until 1993 when Creedence Clearwater Revival was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. However, Fogerty refused to perform with his former band mates in retaliation with their siding with Fantasy Records during the copyright trials.

2004, marked a turning point in the life of Fogerty. He released another album, Déjà vu (All Over Again). Also, Fantasy Records was sold to Concord Records, which quickly ended to thirty-year fight between Fogerty and his former label. The new owners took steps to restore the royalty rights Fogerty gave up in order to be released from his contract with Fantasy in the mid 1970s. Finally, on June 9, 2005 Fogerty was inducted into the Songwriter’s Hall of Fame, and in September he returned to Fantasy Records to release another recording."

Now, if Fogerty took a 10 year hiatus from rcording it was not because of Zaentz and Fantasy Records' lawsuit - that copyright issue was thrown out altogether at the initial court trial, though Fogerty did have additional lawsuits (which he himself brought) to recover his attorneys' fees (which he won at the US Supreme Court level - this probably took at least 3-4 years, BTW).

Fogerty's hiatus after the failure of the Eye of the Zombie album is noted on a number of biographies about Fogerty online, as well as his issued single, Knockin' on Your Door in 1986, which also failed.

In short, you can't blame copyright for John Fogerty's recording hiatus - he was still recording after "Old Man Down the Road" lawsuit - until his music failed at the cash till. That had nothing to do with Fantasy Records' copyright lawsuit.

> Since it was an ornamental design conjured up from
> their imagination of an historical event that may
> or may not have taken place, depending on your
> personal beliefs, I personally don't see any
> reason why they couldn't patent it.

Their concept of the physical imagery and producrtion of that concept can be patented, but the belief itself can't be held as intellectual property - as it is an abstract concept which is not possible to copyright/trademark/patent.

Done.

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J. D.

=================
DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek out an attorney in your own state who is familiar with your state's laws and applications thereof.