Am I A Part Owner If I Fix a Defective Audio File?

Dear Rich: Some friends made an audio recording of a discussion. They could not get the audio file to work so they they asked me to convert it to an MP3 file so it would actually be playable. So I helped them convert this to a tangible product and they asked me to keep a copy of it for them. They then copyrighted it without my knowledge and sued me for infringement. My question is since I helped make this a tangible working file for them to copyright am I not considered a joint owner especially if I have the written consent between us to convert it for them?
No, converting an audio file from one format to another or fixing defects that make a file unplayable do not amount to copyrightable contributions and you wouldn't acquire any ownership rights to the resulting work. As a result of a 1991 Supreme Court case, copyright law no longer rewards labor (or "sweat of the brow" efforts), only original contributions to works of authorship.
Sued for infringement? We're missing something, here. Why were you sued for infringement? If you only possessed the converted copy and were not distributing it, there are no damages and no unauthorized copying. So there's no basis for someone to sue.

There's No Place Like My Trademark

"home" for geeks

Dear Rich: We have a t-shirt business in which we use a slogan and then add a geographic location -- imagine something like, "I Wish I Were in [City]" or "There's No Place Like [City]." I know our slogan is ornamental and I want to overcome that objection. I have read and talked to other attorney friends that if we can add a logo/artwork to the shirt itself (think "Life is Good" pre-artwork incorporated, and then post artwork incorporated), we would then be able to protect the slogan (in addition to the logo/artwork under copyright law). 

If your goal is to cordon off a few words such as "I Wish I Were in ..." or "There's No Place Like ..." and stop others from using those words in connection with the names of geographic locations, you've got a very difficult challenge ahead of you.
What about Life is Good? The Life is Good trademark strategy (which we wrote about recently) is a combination of scale, legal maneuvering, and aggressiveness. Keep in mind that even though Life is Good merchandise generates $100 million annually and the company has spent a small fortune on trademark registrations and enforcement, other companies have been able to register the mark for other goods and services. And it's not clear -- at least there's no legal precedent -- that the company can stop others from using other "Life is ...." combinations although they've threatened to halt Life is Nutz, Life Sucks, Life is Gay, and even went after LG Electronics' use of Life's Good (the companies settled). In summary, unless you're well-funded, famous, and willing to take an aggressive hardline view of your rights, you'll have a difficult time protecting segments of your slogan.
What is an ornamental objection? The issue of "ornamentality" typically arises when seeking to register a trademark for t-shirts or other clothing and the claimed mark is the featured element of the clothing. The trademark examiner is essentially saying that buyers are not associating the art or logo with a particular source. For example, the buyer of a There's No Place Like Modesto t-shirt does not associate that shirt with a particular source or company. However, the same is not true for the buyer of a Just Do It t-shirt. If you're facing an ornamentality refusal, the USPTO suggests five ways to overcome it.
Creating a slogan and drawing used in conjunction with the shirts. What if you sought to register the words There's No Place Like ... in conjunction with an image? Is that a method of obtaining protection for a phrase that might be otherwise unregistrable? No, not likely. Even if you register the phrase with a design (commonly referred to as a “design plus words mark”), "the strength and value of that protection may be limited." As for the copyrightability of a "design plus words mark," that depends on the degree of originality, creativity and in some cases, ornateness of the artwork (something that even the Life is Gooders had to grapple with). Of course, copyright won't be an issue if all that is copied is the slogan and not the artwork.

More Questions About Licensed Fabric

Dear Rich: I have two questions related to your post, "Can I Sell Clothing Made From Copyrighted Fabric?" (1) You indicate that crafters may freely use licensed fabric to make new creations under the first sale doctrine. But, it was my understanding that the first sale doctrine only applied to unaltered or substantially unaltered items. So, if I buy a Mickey Mouse fabric, decide to make a children's dress out of it, how does the first sale cover such an alteration? (2) Your post states that selvage statements such as "for personal use only" are not binding on the end users due to lack of assent. Wouldn't purchasing the item even in light of the selvage statement be an indication of assent? Similarly, there are thousands of digital artists on Etsy who have licensing terms for their creations but there is no requirement of assent necessary before purchase - are those statement also not binding? 
(1) How does the first sale affect alterations of copyrighted fabric designs? When you make clothing from a fabric design, you're not modifying the copyrighted design, you're modifying the shape and cut of the fabric. (It's true that cutting the fabric at certain angles may change how the design is perceived but that's not the same as modifying the design and reselling it.) Therefore, selling your clothing items is permitted under copyright law. When you use fabric containing trademarks (a different area of law than copyrights), courts will permit the resale of clothing provided that there is a prominent disclaimer that the finished goods are not associated with or endorsed by the trademark owner (see also this case). Alas, we're citing case law and precedents, legal niceties that some trademark owners may ignore when aggressively asserting rights at Etsy, etc. Therefore, unless you can afford to defend your rights in a courtroom, proceed with caution when selling clothing made from fabric that features trademarked characters or logos.
(2) Have you assented to a license if you see the "for personal use only" label before you purchase? No. A license requires mutual assent and without an affirmative indication of assent, no license is formed. For digital licenses, as you mention, "click to agree" assent is required. Otherwise, the "license" has no binding effect.

Michelin Domain Challenge

Dear Rich: Two years ago, my mother received a medical diagnosis and was expected to live about nine months to a year. In order to pass the time, and take her mind off of things, she decided she wanted to eat at all the Michelin star restaurants in London and write a blog critiquing their vegetarian offerings. (My stepfather is vegetarian and she felt this would be a fun bucket list item, that would also help people). In order to help her with her project, I bought the domain “MeatFreeMichelin.com.” I was shocked when I received a communication from Michelin’s legal representative saying that I was running the site in bad faith (he’s basing this on the fact I didn’t respond to the email he sent – I didn’t see it because it went to junk mail) and has started proceedings to seize the domain. He also threatened I would have to pay attorney’s fees - all for a site that was put up for fun- with no commercial interest- that used very little other than the name. The site didn’t look anything like Michelin’s, no logo’s were used, we did not imply that we had any kind of sponsorship and my mother chose the Michelin name because that’s how she decided which restaurants. In other words there was little other way to identify them. We believe this was fair use. However, even though we believe we are right with the fair use part -- and I have taken down the site as a precautionary measure -- we are still getting communications from Michelin’s attorney who continues to ignore our repeated requests that he explain why this is not fair use.
The Michelin attorneys have brought an action to cancel your registration of the domain using arbitration procedures established by ICANN, the organization that oversees domain name control. Under these procedures, Michelin can only cancel the domain if it demonstrates to an arbitrator that you acted in bad faith. The company has filed a complaint dated October 2, 2015 and you have 20 days to file a response. The rules for responding are explained here.
Did you act in bad faith? Under the arbitration rules, four ways to demonstrate bad faith include:

(i) the domain was registered primarily for the purpose of selling it to the complainant or a competitor for more than the documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the name; or
(ii) the domain was registered in order to prevent the mark owner from using it, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such registration; or
(iii) the domain was registered primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source or affiliation.

We assume Michelin is basing its claim on the fourth item. Under arbitration rules, an acceptable defense is if "you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue." Under these standards, it does not appear as if you were acting in bad faith because your mother's blog has no commercial purpose (typically, the strongest factor); there is little chance of diversion as Michelin customers are sophisticated enough to realize that the blog is not connected with Michelin (as is obvious from reading the blog's mission); and you are making a nominative fair use of the Michelin mark.
What to do? Although we don't believe you are acting in bad faith, our opinion may not matter much as such arbitration rulings are difficult to predict, often biased in favor of the complaining party, and will likely require an attorney's assistance. At the same time, the lack of a response is sometimes even used to infer bad faith as was done in Michelin's complaint ("Respondent never answered the Complainant's letter is further evidence of bad faith ..."). For that reason, if you feel strongly about asserting your rights, you should fashion and file a suitable response to be filed with the arbitrator.
On the other hand, you may be able to say goodbye to the whole thing by contacting Michelin and simply agreeing to retire the domain. As you are aware, your mother's blog can exist without the domain name. To lower your chances of being hassled over the blog, a prominent disclaimer may help -- something to the effect that the blog is not endorsed by or associated with Michelin or the Michelin Star.