Notarizing Trademark Instead of Registration

Dear Rich: I may be interested in securing trademark rights for a blog some time in the future, but I'm reluctant to pay for a trademark registration which may prove to be unnecessary. If I got a notary to print and then notarize a screen shot from her computer, could that document be used to support a trademark application at a later time? If this is a valid approach, what are the pros and cons, and do you have any advice about what the format and content of the document should be?
We suggest you abandon your notary plans. First,  a U.S. notary won't notarize a screen shot; notaries identify and screen people who sign important documents. Even if you prepare a document containing the trademark image and a statement about how you created it and you sign it, you'll still be wasting your money. Trademark rights are acquired by being the first to use the mark in commerce, not by being the first to create the mark. In any case, the USPTO makes you sign an oath as to the accuracy of the information in the application.

Amazon Seller Counter-Notice

Dear Rich: I am an Amazon seller and received a notice that I was infringing another seller’s rights and that my seller page had been taken down. I’m pretty sure this was a bogus strategy done by one of my competitors. I have rights to sell and post what I’m selling. My attempts at contacting Amazon have been useless because they just send the same email back. 
We're not sure whether the notice you received constitutes a DMCA takedown notice but to hedge your bets, we would suggest sending a DMCA counter notice to the seller performance team (even if you don't think it will do anything) and send a copy to copyright@amazon.com. At least you will have it on file with them in the event that this is part of a DMCA procedure. You must be sure of what you're claiming in the takedown notice because you're making this statement under penalty of perjury. You can read more about counter-notices, here.
If the counter-notice doesn't work ...  If that doesn’t work, and Amazon isn't responding in a meaningful way, you can try moving up the food chain and sending letters and emails to Amazon’s legal department (Amazon.com Legal Department, P.O. Box 81226, Seattle, WA 98108). If that doesn't get a response, you can file for arbitration under Amazon’s participation agreement.  This is a last resort, of course, and there are risks because if you lose and the arbitrator determines your claims are frivolous, you will have to pay Amazon's legal fees and costs resulting from arbitration.

Counter Notice 

Material that was removed: (describe Amazon advertising material taken down)
Location of where the material was located (URL): (list the URL for your Amazon seller page)

This letter is a formal response to a claim of rights infringement against material that I uploaded to Amazon. Please consider it as a DMCA counter notification as defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3).
I believe the claims of rights infringement are inaccurate and should be rejected for the following reasons: I either own all rights in the material posted or I have acquired permission from the rights holder. Further, I do not believe that the complainant has provided any credible claim of rights. All of my attempts to reach the complainant have been futile. In summary, any allegations of rights violation are unsupported.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of rights infringement is either based on mistaken information or is an intentional misuse of the law (and violation of the Amazon Participation Agreement).
I ask that Amazon restore the material in dispute unless the complainant files suit against me within ten (10) days, pursuant to 17 USC(g)(2)(b). I further consent to the jurisdiction of federal district court for the judicial district in which I reside. I agree to accept service of process from the complainant.
Sincerely [Electronic of actual signature]
Full Name: (provide name)
Address: Phone Number: (provide address and phone number)

Band Wants to Add New Members

Dear Rich: I'm in a band that has an incomplete lineup at the moment. Right now it is just 3 of us (2 guitar players, 1 drummer). We have a good handful of songs fully written and arranged. In the meantime, we are still looking for more people to join. How would it work if we go about copyrighting our music now just to get out there as a trio? I know when you file a copyright, you can always add to it later but is there a way to make the three of us principal songwriters and have the rest of the band (once it's completed) still get credit for the music later on?
Copyright is automatic so once your trio creates a song (song copyrights) or records an album (sound recording copyright) the three members are all co-authors and co-owners by default (assuming that all three contributed to each effort). If you filed copyright applications for either the songs or the sound recordings, you would list the three contributors as the "authors."
When you add a fourth member ... You should not revise an existing registration (or file a new one)  unless the new member modifies one of your existing songs or recordings -- for example, a bass player helps you modify an existing tune by composing a new chorus and bridge. You can always share revenue from existing copyrights with new members -- for example paying them song royalties for songs written before they joined the band but that doesn't require modifying the copyright information for existing copyrights. We recommend that you create a band partnership agreement to best deal with adding new members (and we explain how do that in our Music Law book).

What Do I Write to Prevent Infringement?

Dear Rich: I read your post on How Do I Word a Copyright Disclaimer for YouTube? How about if I am the copyright owner? What should I write to prevent somebody from infringing on my content? 
If you want to post a warning, something similar to the following would be standard:

"© 2015 [Name of Copyright Owner] This work is protected by copyright and you may not copy, distribute, or modify it. Failure to comply exposes you to legal action for copyright infringement."

If you want to give your warning a more dramatic vibe, you're also free to download and post the FBI's badge-like warning.
However, don't expect these warning to be much of a deterrent. As the RIAA and MPAA are already aware, copyright warnings have negligible effect on content piracy (just as alcohol and tobacco warnings have little effect on drinking and smoking).

Be Prepared. We think it's more important to be prepared for copyright infringement than to warn against it.  For example, registering your work can provide benefits if you must chase an infringer (and the certificate of registration adds some gravitas to your cease and desist letters). You should also learn how to police for infringements -- for example, for free you can create a Google alert or a Google reverse image search. And of course, include your copyright notice (© [Year] [Name]) whenever possible.

Who Do I Have to Sue to Get a Cup of Coffee?

Dear Rich: The Keurig company sells coffee brewers equipped with DRM technology. The next model will discontinue the DRM as Keurig cited poor sales and consumer complaints. Another coffee company has been selling a little plastic device that allows consumers to circumvent Keurig. Are these devices grounds for a lawsuit?
Digital rights management systems (DRMs) may be used to limit access to Java®, but we don't think they'll work for java. For legal and customer relations reasons, we don't think Keurig will pursue those who circumvent their technology.
Keurig's system. Keurig's coffee machines won't make coffee if a non-authorized coffee-filled pod is inserted (unless consumers jerry-rig a workaround). As a result of declining sales, Keurig is reintroducing its re-useable pods (permitting users to choose their own brew) but it's not clear whether Keurig will ditch its scanner/DRM entirely.
Is Keurig's system a DRM? DRM (or digital rights management) refers to methods for restricting post-sale usage of (or access to) a copyrighted work such as music at the iTunes store or books sold via Kindle. Cracking, reproducing, or tampering with DRM technologies violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This all works out well for movie studios seeking to protect copyrightable content but not so well for manufacturers seeking to limit access to non copyrightable works like garage door openers and printers (and we assume coffeemakers). As one commentator put it:

In cases involving manufactured products, where the products are part of an interoperable system, courts have found that DRM controls must be closely linked to the underlying copyright interest in order to have DMCA protection. 

So, we don't think Keurig will have much luck claiming a DMCA violation. In addition, the DRM-ing of coffee makers may also lead to antitrust problems.
P.S. #1 The Keurig consumer fiasco is part of a growing consumer rebellion (sometimes known as the "right to repair" movement) involving farmers, car customizers and other angry consumers blocked by software from modifying and fixing products.
P.S. We're going to assume the last sentence of your question was either an unintended pun or the product of an over-caffeinated mind.

Corporate Use of Lego Star Wars

Dear Rich: I make many presentations for internal company use on topics in the range of safety, health and quality. I wanted to start taking photos of Lego Star Wars figures in different poses and staging for some of my slides. Would this be a Lucas Films or Disney infringement on the Star Wars characters? I would not be selling the presentations and they would remain in house. I would, however, be printing slides in the form of a handbook for use within the company and would therefore have the Star Wars lego characters displayed. I will also be presenting at a national trade show in the future. Would the use of the Star Wars Lego figures change in any regard assuming it was ok for internal company use? In other words, now that the presentation would have a larger audience, would that be infringing on the star wars brand? Does any of this change if I use a more generic Lego figure like a fire fighter or construction worker?
We preface this by saying that there's a big difference between the uses you describe for corporate purposes than if the characters were used for personal creative purposes -- for example, for a few YouTube episodes. The Lego Group and Disney are more likely to tolerate personal uses than corporate uses because corporate borrowing may imply association or endorsement, and because corporations are solid targets with bigger pockets. In general, we think:

• your internal uses on slide presentations are infringing but may go unnoticed by lawyers for the Lego Group and Disney, 
• your national trade show presentation is more likely to be noticed, 
• your use of the handbook, if discovered, could add to legal problems for your company, and
• use of non-Stars Wars Lego characters, if discovered by the the Lego Group, would likely lead to the same problems.

You've been warned. If any of the uses are discovered -- for example, a disgruntled employee or a competitor reports you to the Lego Group -- you'll likely be liable for copyright and trademark infringement. As the Lego Group explains succinctly here, and in their downloadable Fair Play Brochure (the link can be found on this page):

Time and again, we see our products and trademarks used in the marketing of totally unrelated products and services, giving the impression that the Lego Group is somehow involved in or associated with such business activities or services, with which we are not actually involved. When used in these unrelated settings, be it in printed material or on the internet, the value of our trademarks may be diminished and the identities of our company, our products and our trademarks can lose their distinctiveness.

These statements don't have the force of law but you get the picture. You don't want cease and desist letters showing up in the mailroom. It's best to either obtain permission or find another method of making your point.
P.S. If this seems daunting, keep in mind that even the makers of The Lego Movie had trouble getting permission.

Interactive Streaming Plus Singer Imitation

Dear Rich: I need to find out how to internet-post my own recording (cover) of some songs by a well-known Canadian singer/songwriter. There is a wrinkle. I have the ability to imitate the style of the original artist fairly closely. Not an exact duplicate, of course, but done "in the style of" the artist. I would like to find out how this would affect the permission-seeking process and if there is something special about this kind of request. My plan is to: record a capella versions of the songs; post them on a Tumblr blog with a suitable still-photo. I'm not planning to charge anyone who wants to listen to the short clips or entire songs.
What you're planning sounds like "interactive digital streaming" (also known as "on-demand"). That's when a user can listen to a song upon request without having to download a copy. It's the process used at Spotify, Bandcamp, Rhapsody, and any website with a music player that allows you to start and stop the music. If you're permitting interactive streaming of a cover song, the proper legal course of action is to obtain a license from the Harry Fox Agency (HFA). According to HFA's site, the company offers licenses for interactive streams for one cent ($0.01) per stream via its Songfile service. Licenses are available for a minimum of 100 interactive streams up to 10,000 interactive streams per song licensed. These licenses are valid for one year.
Imitating the singing style. We're not sure imitation is always flattery, but we are pretty sure it's not infringement. Copyright doesn't recognize style, vibe, feel, or genre only original content (though that rule has been tested recently).  Where you might get into trouble is if you lead people to believe that the recordings are by the original artist. That shouldn't be an issue unless you begin selling the music in a manner that causes people to believe that the artist is involved with your tracks, or if you use the recordings to sell a product or service. You can probably avoid that issue with a prominent disclaimer such as "Mr. Famous Canadian musician is not associated with this recording."

Songs About Twitter

Dear Rich: I'm a composer looking to set texts from blog/Facebook/Twitter posts. Probably 20-30 words from each post, woven together in a musical work. My question is are posts made on social media sites considered public domain? If not, does fair use come into play here since I'm using so few words from each post and weaving them together into a new and unique work? 
We think you should proceed with your project. Here are some rules to guide the process:
Short phrases are not protected under copyright. That's right, copyright does not protect short phrases. The trouble is that nobody is clear as to how "short"  a short phrase can be. We've written about "protectable brevity" before and as we pointed out, it's not the number of words taken, it's the uniqueness and value of the words as well as the way in which you re-use them. The risk meter generally goes up when you take more than about 20 words.
Fair use may work but ... Even if the posts are protected, your project sounds ideal for fair use protection -- that is borrowing short amounts of verbiage for purposes of commentary or transformative purposes. Of course, we must always point out that fair use is a defense that is raised after you're in a dispute.
Just Sayin' Dept. It's unlikely someone will sue over the use of a tweet or a 20-word Facebook entry but one individual who borrowed Tweets for her own artistic purposes suffered backlash in the marketplace. For the same reason you should avoid posting any tweets or posts that identify an individual and reveal personal information. It's unlikely someone can claim privacy concerns over a Facebook or Twitter post, but if you're seeking smooth sailing, you should avoid that sort of activity.
BTW Dept. There's exciting news for copyright geeks: The Copyright Office has unveiled a searchable fair use database. Check it out.