Quote Originally Posted by SlackerDrummer View Post
As far as heraldry is concerned, yes, we all agree your arms are unique. As far as copyright law is concerned, however, the protection "extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material."

Basically this is saying 'you can't copyright a fact' only the conclusion drawn from that fact.

So if you agree that the arms of Makclenand of yt ilk dating from the 16th century are protected...

what is protected is the right of the owner of those arms to their exclusive use

...then the difference between them and yours (blue stars rather than red) is what is unique and therefore that change is what is covered in your protection under the law.

It has nothing to do with any change and everything to do with the right to protect that to which I have exclusive ownership through a perfect title in law.

In no context, I think you are absolutely correct in your assertions, but in the greater context of heraldry, I'm not convinced.

Here, it seems we part company, unless you want to pay my usual consultation fee of $250/hr-- !

Of course this is all intellectual debate as there is no historical context in which to place it (in the US court system).

It is, and for the life of me I can't imagine anyone else being interested at this point.... and if they are, maybe they need to get a life...

If your intent is to copyright the text of your grant, by all means keep using the example of the book. But the "intellectual content" of the blazon of a coat of arms is too abstract to be protected under copyright law.

No it's not; the blazon is the legal description of the arms. Since 2001/2 all grants made by the CHI have been copyright in the name of the state. It is the blazon, not the exemplification (usually depicted somewhere in the letters patent) which is used for the copyright.

In other words the concept of a white shield with a red lion between two red bars with three blue stars in chief isn't subject.

But it is, for the reasons cited above. You may not believe it to be so, but it is.

From the law: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Right. It means that the estate of Bram Stoker can't sue Anne Rice claiming that they own the copyright to the idea of a vampire novel, anymore than the College of Arms could sue the Chief Herald of Ireland claiming they own the concept of Heraldry.

While placing the arms on a business card (not a calling card)...["business" cards? ] does provide a good faith effort to show that you intend to use the mark in commerce and is good enough to register the mark, you must specify what goods you intent to sell under the mark or what services you intend to provide.

In your instance you could say "Armorial Advisor, or any such lawful enterprise which may be subsequently undertaken in the future" or some such, and append the letters "AA" after your name on your cards. (That will be $250 for the advice, thank you.)

The mark is only protected for the things listed on your application and according to the US Patent and Trademark Office, "If you list vague terms, such as 'miscellaneous services' or “company name,” your application will be considered void and you must file a new application."

Sorry, we're on the clock now, and any further advice is going to cost you.

Just out of curiosity, Scott, if you could register your arms as either a copyright or a trademark (which you can't)

Says who?-- Oh wait... we've already had that discussion...

...would that make them substantive in your mind?

Broadly speaking, yes; despite the process by which one may have arrived at that ownership, copyright/tm provides a means whereby one can produce a form of entitlement to those arms-- proving ownership-- and therefor could, conceivably, successfully defend them in court. In effect they would be "homesteading" those arms, as opposed to having a clear title (a grant) in the first instance. To further the land ownership analogy, the difference between arms held by prescriptive right and those held by substantive right could be likened to "squatters" rights, vs. deeded rights, while those with copyright/trademaked rights fall somewhere in the middle, like homesteaders.