Skip to content

July 4th Holiday

Our office will be closed Thursday July 4th and Friday July 5th in celebration of Independence Day. We will return on Monday July 8th.

Posted in Uncategorized.

In the news …

Satellite office supporting Canon City TechSTART.

Canon City Daily Record Article

Also, at noon on July 7th at TechSTART I will be giving a short seminar on Copyright law for small business.  Call 719 315 5275 for more details.

Posted in Administration.

New Office Serving Southern Colorado

We are pleased to announce that we will be expanding our service area to include Pueblo, Canon City and the environs this year.

Our phone number for matters involving Southern Colorado is 719 315 5275.  Our mailing address for those matters is:

Roberts & Roberts Law Firm llc
PO Box 945
Canon City Colorado 81215

We look forward to serving those of you in our expanded service area.

UPDATE 1/30/2019: We have closed our Denver office. If you are one of our Denver clients, please call 720 667 9644 for information on setting an appointment to meet with us.

Posted in Administration.

Copyright for Writers and Artists Seminar at CityStacks

Robin Roberts will present his seminar on Copyright Law for Writers and Artists at CityStacks Books & Coffee on May 27th at 6PM.

1743 Wazee St #100, Denver, CO 80202
(303) 297-1440

There is no fee for attendance.

Posted in Administration, Intellectual Property.

CNN Money article on estate planning essentials

CNN Money website has a good beginning discussion of estate planning essentials.

Posted in Estate Planning.

Employees vs Independant Contractors

There has been an increasing trend among businesses to organize their business model with the intention of having the people that they rely upon to serve their customers have the status of independent contractors rather than employees. There are several reasons for this structure, including avoiding responsibility for tax withholding and employer payroll taxes; as well as reducing workers compensation policy costs.

The status of a worker, as employee or independent contractor, for tax purposes is covered by a body of law that involves a long list of factors regarding things like the degree of control the employer has over the employee. However, for workers compensation policy coverage, Colorado law uses a more explicit statutory list of factors – all of which must be satisfied – to exclude a worker from being an employee.

Lastly, will using independent contractors impact your premises liability coverage? This is something for the small business owner to have clearly explained by his legal counsel before deciding to reorganize his business model.


Posted in Business Formation, Premises Liability.

Open Carry of Firearms and Small Business

No doubt you have seen coverage of various protests for and against open carry, and efforts by gun control advocacy groups to get businesses to ban carry of firearms by their patrons. An eatery in the aptly named town of Rifle in Colorado has gotten attention for itself by advertising its friendliness to open carry and having its waitresses carry as well. One story about Shooters Grill.

We have no interest in weighing in for or against this political issue. However, a small business should carefully consult its premises liability coverage before adopting any policies regarding its customer or especially its employees’ carry of firearms.

For employee carry, the legal issues are very clear. Commonly only employees of very high risk businesses will be found carrying firearms – businesses such a gun shops and gold/silver buyers are the most common. An employer is responsible for the negligence of its employees during the course and scope of their employment. Any negligent discharge or deliberate use of firearms by your employees will create high risk of legal liability.  Such policies should be explicitly coordinated with your insurance provider.

Carry by customers is an area of more ambiguous legal status. With some municipal exceptions, Colorado law allows the open carry of firearms in most public spaces. Private property owners are allowed to forbid such, but until an individual refuses to leave when confronted, it is not a criminal offense. Some gun rights activists assert that a private property owner that forbids carry should be liable should an unarmed individual be the victim of crime on the premises but there is no such legal rule generally accepted.

A business that wishes to make an explicit prohibition – or invitation – of lawful carry by its customers should also discuss these issues with their legal counsel and insurance provider.

Posted in Business Formation, Civil Litigation, Premises Liability.

And more frivolous threats

In this case, turning into an award of attorney’s fees against someone using the Federal courts to attempt to suppress speech with a frivolous copyright claim:

Ken White of Popehat describes for us.

Posted in Civil Litigation, Intellectual Property.

More Frivolous Threats

Ken White of Popehat works hard on free speech issues.  Here is another example he is bringing to light of a frivolous threat from a lawfirm.

If you are the target of a frivolous threat like this, its best not to ignore it but to get competent legal counsel to respond vigorously.

Posted in Uncategorized.

A. Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes Copyright

Public Domain – Its Quite Elementary

This week, the Seventh Circuit gave us a ruling in the Sherlock Holmes case. The case was initially brought as what is called a “declaratory judgment” case. This means that that plaintiff was someone who wanted to use Sherlock Holmes stories without paying a license to the Conan Doyle Estate and asked the court to rule that he could. Sort of the opposite of being sued for infringement, he wanted a ruling in advance. Federal courts will only do this kind of thing in narrow circumstances.

Here’s the link to the appellate court ruling if you want to follow along:

Seventh Circuit Opinion

There are 56 stories and 4 novels in the Sherlock Holmes canon. Ten of those were published between 1923 and 1927, and so are still in copyright in the United States (we are only discussing US copyright law today) until between 2018 and 2022. You might want to go back to my earlier postings to see a longer discussion of copyright term but for now, just realize that the current scheme of calculating copyright term – life of the author plus 70 years – does not apply to works created back then.

The plaintiff, Leslie Klinger, edited an anthology of stories by other authors writing stories using the Sherlock Holmes / Dr. John Watson characters believing that he did not need a license for the public domain stories. Klinger never argued he could use the material that appears solely in the later 10 stories. The Conan Doyle estate told the publisher that it needed a license, and that publisher paid the estate for such. Klinger then started a second anthology and was negotiating with a second publisher to publish it when again, the estate threatened to stop publication in the absence of a license. So eventually Klinger decided to ask the court for a declaration that the works did not need a license. The Conan Doyle estate responded to the lawsuit, and argued that since some of the stories were still in copyright that all of the “characters” of Sherlock Holmes and Watson were protected. As one could not separate out the protected portions of their characters from the non-protected portions of their characters as expressed in the earlier, now public domain, stories. There argument was “ …copyright on a “complex” character in a story, such as Sherlock Holmes or Dr. Watson, whose full complexity is not revealed until a later story, remains under copyright until the later story falls into the public domain.”

The trial court agreed with Klinger and issued a declaratory judgment. The Conan Doyle estate appealed that judgment and the appeal was heard by a Seventh Circuit panel that included Judge Posner – who is a rather famous appellate court judge. The estate had two arguments before the appellate panel. The first was a technical argument about whether or not the court had jurisdiction – those narrow circumstances where a Federal court is allowed to make a declaratory judgment – and the second was the argument about the characters spanning public domain and protected stories. We won’t discuss the technical argument as its boring to just about everyone but suffice it to say that the appellate court found that there was jurisdiction in this case.

One of the arguments that the estate made to support their argument regarding the protection of the characters was that an author might be discourage from creating new works if his character was not protected beyond the expiration of the copyright of the earliest stories containing that character. The court found this a pretty silly argument given that A.Conan Doyle is dead now some 84 years and that similarity other authors going forward are unlikely to themselves be above room temperature when this circumstance occurs. Difficult enough to incentivize live authors to write, isn’t it? The completely dead ones have no resistance to writers’ block at all.

Judge Posner also wrote that the opposite was true, that if the estate’s argument was successful that authors would be incentivized to keep writing derivative works based on their earlier works to extend copyright protection rather than write entirely new works with new characters. An interesting point, but perhaps the weakest of Posner’s argument given the copyright term structure today.

Posner had more fun with an estate argument that attempted to create a distinction between “flat” and “round” characters. Discussing the estate’s argument that a character that was thinly developed in earlier stories became more “round” in later stories and so deserved longer protection, Posner ridiculed plaintiff’s attorney saying “Repeatedly at the oral argument the estate’s lawyer dramatized the concept of a “round” character by describing large circles with his arms.” You will have to take my word for it that attorneys never like their clients to see a court opinion that ridicules their rhetorical work.

After that bit of fun, Posner tells us rather plainly and clearly that the elements in a story that has reached the end of its copyright protection and entered the public domain are completely in the public domain and that the existence of later, still protected, stories do not alter that.

And so Klinger gets his declaratory judgment affirmed by the appellate court, and he can publish without license stories that incorporate elements from the 50 public domain Sherlock Holmes stories – but not the later 10 stories.

Posted in Intellectual Property.