ChipCards and CyberSecurity Issues

The ins and outs of eCommerce and the latest changes in how eCommerce is conducted is something that confuses many people.  This week, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) in partnership with reputable resources in America are teaming up to educate entrepreneurs and small business owners on these changes.  Rather than discuss these changes at length in this blog article, I’m sharing two events I’m aware of that may be of interest to readers and visitors to this blog.

Twitter Chat | Small Biz Chip Card/EMV Questions | #ChipCardChat

Please join the US Small Business Administration (@SBAgov), SCORE Mentors (@SCOREMentors), AT&T Small Business (@ATTsmallbiz), Mastercard (@MasterCardNews), First Data (@FirstData), and Square (@Square) for a Twitter chat on the payment card transition to the embedded chip (also known as EMV). We’ll be discussing common questions about what the shift means for small businesses. Follow along with the hashtag #ChipCardChat.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM EST

Twitter Chat
EMV 101: What Small Businesses Need to Know About The Switch to Chip Card Technology
Wednesday, October 14, 2015 | 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM ET

Join the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and Square for a free webinar presentation: “EMV 101: What Small Businesses Need to Know About the Switch to Chip Card Technology”.

Participants will learn:

  • What the transition to EMV chip card technology means for small businesses
  • What EMV chip card technology is and why it’s more secure
  • What the new fraud liability rules that take effect October 1st mean for merchants

Cosponsorship Authorization # 15-2050-102.  SBA’s participation in this cosponsored activity is not an endorsement of the views, opinions, products or services of any cosponsor or other person or entity. All U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) programs and services are extended to the public on a non-discriminatory basis.

To register for this webinar, click HERE.

A fantastic infographic has been created by and is downloadable as a pdf file.  Visuals are a great way to remember key points on important matters, especially when there’s so much important information to remember!

Click HERE to download this infographic directly from the website.

NOTE FROM ELYSE BRUCE:  October is National Cybersecurity Awareness Month with four components to this year’s awareness campaign.  This week is “Staying Protected While Always Connected.”

Please remember that year-round cybersecurity practices are important for helping to keep your personal information, assets, and third-party information safer when you’re aware of the dangers.

  •  Set strong passwords and don’t share them with anyone, no matter how trustworthy they are.
  •  Keep your operating system, browsers, and other critical software optimized by installing updates on a regular basis.
  • Talk about Internet safety and best practices with family, friends, colleagues, and your circle of influence.
  •  Limit the amount of personal information you post online.
  • Use privacy settings to avoid unintentionally sharing information on the Internet with third-parties.
  • Be cautious about what you receive or read online.   If it sounds too good to be true, most likely it’s not true.

Commit to making your digital world safe just as you commit to making your real world safe.  Don’t be a victim.

Elyse Bruce

The Story Of A Copyright Crime

One of the things I do on a regular basis is to check on whether an individual, a company, a corporation, or an agency is infringing on any of my copyrights.  It rarely happens, but it does happen on occasion, and when it happens, I address the situation legally and appropriately.

Imagine my surprise when I learned that — a website that is a mere few months old at this point — had one of my photographs uploaded to their site for others to use as they wished.  The contact information was minimal at best with no physical address or email address or any other identifying information available on the website.

On the contact page, however, they did have this notice uploaded.

Aside from the fact that whoever wrote the disclaimer seems to have a general aversion towards periods and capitalization, the claim that they believe the images on their website are in the “public domain” seemed to be an outright and duplicitous lie.  How can I say that it seemed that way to me?  Let me show you how.  This was my photograph that appeared on the website without my written permission.

Check out the lower right hand corner of this photograph.


Here’s a close-up of what’s in the lower right hand corner of this photograph.

Yes, that’s a copyright notice.  There’s the world recognized © that means the intellectual property in question is copyrighted.  My name follows the copyright sign, and the year the image was created (2012).  In other words, there is absolutely no way that the owner(s) of the website can claim that they believed my photograph was in the “public domain.”

What’s more, even though they credited where the image was from, the Shutter Shots blog is mine and they could have easily sent me a message through the blog requesting written permission to upload my copyrighted image to their website.  But they didn’t because that would be an admission on their part that they were aware my copyrighted image was not in the “public domain” which would render their website disclaimer null and void.

Now because made it extremely difficult to contact them with regards to this serious matter, I had to invest time into finding out who they were, and to learn more about the website traffic.  Here’s what I found out.

IMAGE 5Additional research also yielded this information.

So with 21,506 daily visitors as of today’s date, it’s not unreasonable to believe that about 10 million people will visit in its first year of operation.

That’s a lot of visitors.

And since has made it incredibly difficult for copyright owners to reach them, the next step is to contact the website’s hosting company.

Those who have no problem infringing on the copyrights of others — claiming they believe said intellectual property to be in the “public domain” when it is obvious that said intellectual property is copyright protected — and who make themselves next to impossible to contact except through a website form may think they’re getting away with this kind of behavior.  The fact of the matter is, they aren’t.  There are always LEGAL ways to address the issue of copyright infringement.  This is just one of those LEGAL ways.

UPDATE (12 October 2015 at 3:39 PM EST)

I received an email time stamped 3:39 PM EST from Valentina Petrova.  The email address she used seems to indicate that she is in Russia.  Remember from the documentation provided Sunday in this article that the website is hosted in New York City, New York, U.S.A.

Email from Picsant
I won’t quibble over what I believe the owner(s) did or did not know about my copyrighted photograph that was on their website, and I won’t quibble over whether there was or wasn’t a visitor responsible for uploading my copyrighted photograph that was on their website.  The goal was to LEGALLY address the issue of copyright infringement, and to resolve the issue.  The end result was achieved.

That being said, dear readers and visitors, this proves what I wrote in this article.  Refuse to be victimized by those who disrespect your copyrights.  Defending your copyrights doesn’t have to end up being a lawsuit, and it doesn’t have to cost you a lot of money.  Being firm in your resolve to defend your copyrights most often yields the results you’re hoping to achieve.

Elyse Bruce

Idle No More: The Columbus Argument

On Monday (12 October 2015), many settlers in the U.S. will celebrate Columbus Day.  Many of those same settlers will tell you with derision that the move to have Columbus Day abolished and replaced with Indigenous Peoples Day is insulting to them.  The argument they put forth is that they are just as native to America as Indigenous Peoples are, and they are reluctant to let go of that opinion.

Native Species v Invasive Species

The definition of what defines an invasive species is public knowledge — found in dictionaries, found in science books, found on websites, found on blogs, and more.

Invasive Species
Whether it’s the European red fox (introduced to North America in the 18th century) or the house mouse (also introduced to North America in the 18th century) or any other mammal (including settlers), an invasive species is still one that is not native to the land in which it now is domiciled.

Native Species Aren’t Native

The argument that Indigenous peoples arrived from somewhere else making them an invasive species is oftentimes floated as an argument by those who feel this argument is valid.  They will argue that, at most, Indigenous peoples supposedly crossed over the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago.

In 2013, an exhibit in Brazil knocked that 12,000 year claim to the ground with the presentation of artifacts dating back at least 30,000 years.

According to archaeologist Niede Guidon, this discovery proves that when cave art began in Europe and in Africa, it began in the Americas as well.  It also proves that there were Indigenous peoples living in the Americas … and long before the Bering Strait theory hypothesizes.

The cave art was located in Serra da Capivara National Park, a UNESCO recognized World Heritage Park in Brazil.

When all is said and done, Indigenous peoples have been in the Americas at least 30,000 years (and most likely centuries more) which makes them a native species.

Comparing Flying Squirrels

There are 44 species of flying squirrels in the world.  Most of them can be found in Southeast Asia.  However, in the U.S., there are only two flying squirrels that are considered native to America:  The northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) lives  in the Northeast, down the West Coast, and in Idaho and Montana) and the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) lives in the eastern U.S. from Maine to Florida and west from Minnesota south to Texas.

If two Red Giant Flying Squirrels (that are native to northern parts of India and Nepal through parts of southern China, Burma and Thailand to Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra, Java, and Borneo) had been brought to the U.S. in the 18th century and their progeny were found in the U.S. in 2015, that still wouldn’t make them native to America.

It also doesn’t mean that because 42 species of flying squirrels live outside of the U.S., that the 2 species of flying squirrels that are native to the U.S. came from other regions of the world.  There’s no logic to putting forth such an assertion, especially if it’s based on the fact that there are  so many more species of flying squirrels outside of the U.S. than there are inside the U.S.

And naming a baseball team the Flying Squirrels doesn’t automatically make all squirrels in America native to the Americas either.

Invasive Species Are Naturally Bad

No, that’s not what’s being said.  What’s being stated is that an invasive species will always be an invasive species just as an indigenous species will always be an indigenous species.  Science has proven that invasive species can be controlled and managed, especially when the invasive species are large and pervasive.  Does that make invasive species naturally bad?  No.  What science has proven is that there are ways for invasive species to co-exist peacefully with indigenous species.  Science has also proven that indigenous species are to be protected so they can flourish.

Final Note

To those of you who celebrate Columbus Day, and who insist that renaming the day Indigenous Peoples Day is ridiculous, please consider for a moment or two what Columbus Day represents.  If you are a settler, you are an invasive species.  However, this doesn’t mean you cannot co-exist peacefully with the Indigenous peoples of the Americas.  What it means is that the relationship between the two needs to be better controlled and managed, and celebrations such as Columbus Day need to be removed.

Elyse Bruce


Copyright Trolling: Don’t Be a Victim

This article was written by Shaun Kaufman and is reproduced on the Elyse Bruce blog with written permission from the author.   It originally appeared on his website on June 14, 2015 and can be found on Mr. Kaufman’s website by clicking HERE.

Shaun Kaufman is a North Denver native and resident who graduated from CU Boulder in 1979, afterward excelling at DU law school and graduating in 1984. During law school, he worked in the Student Law Office where he won his first criminal jury trial. He was also a managing editor of the Denver University Law Review.  He is also a proud volunteer at CeDAR, a drug and rehabilitation center in Denver.

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice from either the author of the article (Shaun Kaufman) or the owner/author of this blog.


What Is a “Copyright Troll”?

It’s a pejorative term for a party (for example, a company that buys or owns copyrights) who aggressively enforces its owned copyrights through threat of litigation. These companies use frivolous litigation (lawsuits brought to harass defendants) to make extraordinary profits.

Copyright Trolling Isn’t Accidental

When we talk about copyright trolling, we don’t mean a company or individual who happens to learn their intellectual property (such as a picture) is being illegally distributed or copied so they ask their lawyer to contact the copyright violator with a request to please stop the undesired activity. For example, my wife is a published author. Recently she learned one of her stories, which she sold to a publication years ago, was being illegally distributed through an online site. My wife owns the copyright to this story, so she wrote a request to the site owner to remove the story. The site removed it. She wasn’t interested in further action, such as initiating a lawsuit or requesting financial damages.

Trolls Always Seek Financial Damages

In fact, copyright trolls’ sole reason to exist is to initiate copyright violation lawsuits, which is how the trolls make money. For example, Righthaven, LLC, purchased copyrights for old news articles from the publisher of the Las Vegas Review Journal. Righthaven’s sole purpose and business was to then seek out anyone who copied, distributed, posted or otherwise used these articles without Righthaven’s permission. Upon finding these violators, Righthaven filed lawsuits demanding damages of $75,000 per instance from each copyright infringer. Obviously, not everyone, if anyone, can pay $75,000 for illegally using a copyrighted item. Righthaven knew this. They would then agree to settlements of several thousand dollars per defendant. According to an article on the site Righthaven Victims, Righthaven has bitten the dust.

How Can You Not Be a Victim?

Do not reproduce or redistribute such items as:

  • Music
  • Images
  • Blogs
  • Stories
  • News articles
  • Movies

Also ask anyone who might use, or have access to, your computer to not reproduce/redistribute items.

How to Identify a Copyright Troll

Simply put, you can identify a copyright troll because the entity requesting extraordinary financial damages for an innocent copyright infringement is not the holder of the original copyright.

Public Domain Images: Two Sources

There are numerous online sites and services that offer public domain images for no fee. Below are two:

The Getty Museum Open Content Program: Open content images can be used for any purpose without first seeking permission from the Getty. It requests the user acknowledge the digital image with the statement: Digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program.

Below is an example of a copyright-free digital image via the Getty Museum Open Content Program:

Card Players 1949 LA by Max Yavno (Digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program)

Library of Congress, Carol Highsmith collection: The Library of Congress does not own the images, recordings, manuscripts, maps and so on in its collections, and advises users to verify rights and permissions before downloading any items. One collection whose content is within the public domain is photographer Carol Highsmith’s archive of her photographs that includes thousands of digital images. Highsmith offers all of her digital photographs copyright-free to the American public.

Below is an example of one of Highsmith’s photographs:

1933 Courtroom, James R. Browning US Court of Appeals Building, SF, CA by Carol Highsmith


Related Articles and Sites:

Fight Copyright Trolls

Electronic Frontier Foundation: Copyright Trolls

ars technica: “Furious judge decries ‘blizzard’ of copyright troll lawsuits

Wired: “Judge Orders Failed Copyright Troll to Forfeit ‘All’ Copyrights


NOTE FROM ELYSE BRUCE:  October is National Cybersecurity Awareness Month with four components to this year’s awareness campaign.  This week is “Creating A Culture of Cybersecurity At Work.”

Please remember that year-round cybersecurity practices are important for helping to keep your personal information, assets, and third-party information safer when you’re aware of the dangers.

  • Set strong passwords and don’t share them with anyone, no matter how trustworthy they are.
  • Keep your operating system, browsers, and other critical software optimized by installing updates on a regular basis.
  • Talk about Internet safety and best practices with family, friends, colleagues, and your circle of influence.
  • Limit the amount of personal information you post online.
  • Use privacy settings to avoid unintentionally sharing information on the Internet with third-parties.
  • Be cautious about what you receive or read online.   If it sounds too good to be true, most likely it’s not true.

Commit to making your digital world safe just as you commit to making your real world safe.  Don’t be a victim.

Elyse Bruce

Working As A Team

Recently, author/artist Thomas D. Taylor and I completed a commissioned painting for a prestigious literary festival.  The Special Projects Coordinator was very definite with regards to what he wanted from the painting, and as the lead on the commissioned piece, I took notes at both meetings to ensure that I heard and understood what was expected of the project.

Hours of research went into learning the history of the subject of the painting, and even more research went into understanding the architecture of the period as well as the building materials that were used at the time.  And, of course, everything from the sky to rocks was researched as where the subject is located determines what nature looks like (which differs from region to region).

While I won’t show you the tableau in its entirety, I will show you thumbnails from the painting and share with you the great amount of detail that went into every bit of this canvas.  First off, the painting is acrylic on canvas and is 24 inches by 36 inches.  Much of the painting was done with liner and spotting brushes (in fact, my favorite Loew-Cornell 7350 finally expired near the end of this commission).

The pebbles on the dirt path leading up to the house in the painting creates the impression that if you were to walk along the path in real life, your feet would feel each pebble and every stone you stepped on.  The path itself is one of loose dirt and dirt packed down from the many people who have walked it.

Pebbles On The Path_SMALL

The stone step is hard while the wood along the bottom of the painted fence gate is rough.  Of note is the fact that the wood along the bottom of the painted fence gate and the stone step share the same colors.  What creates the different effects is how much of each color was used, and how it was applied.  And yes, that’s a bit of moss growing on the right hand side of the stone step.

Stone Step_SMALL

Details can make or break any creative endeavor.  In this case, the upstairs window — with its shutters open — shows a tree in front of the house reflected in the glass panes.  It’s not sharp and defined because, truth be told, reflections in glass panes rarely are sharp and defined.

Tree Reflecting In Upstairs Window Pane_SMALL

In both downstairs windows, sheers can be seen.  While it would have been easier to just leave the windows clear, a house of this sort would have had drapes and either sheers or lace between the windows and the heavier drapery inside.  During the day, the heavier drapes would have been pulled open and tied with sashes, leaving the sheers and lace to allow the sunshine to pour into the room without providing too much harsh lighting to penetrate.

Sheers In Downstairs Window_SMALL
And finally, among the small thumbnails I’m sharing today, is the modern man sitting on the fence reading a book.  The book cover in the painting measures three-quarters of an inch tall by half an inch wide (which made it incredibly tricky to paint the cover).  If you look closely, you’ll see that the man’s shirt also has buttons (another tricky and unbelievably small detail that needed to be included).

Reading Man On The Fence_SMALL
In the weeks to come, the Special Projects Coordinator will have the pleasure of unveiling the painting at WinterFest.  Until then, however, all I can share with you are these thumbnails.  I promise you, though, that I will upload a full view of the painting once the painting has been officially presented to the public.

Until then, enjoy these aspects of the painting that Thomas Taylor and I co-painted.

Elyse Bruce

Politicians, Moose, and Terrorists

Social media memes have a tendency of pitting polarized views against each other, and then to sit back and watch the drama unfold.  The problem with that is that there’s usually just enough fact from both sides to merit a spirited discussion.  Take for instance this meme about moose in Canada and terrorists in Canada.

Moose, Terrorists, and Politicians

If you’re not familiar with how big a moose can be, here are a couple important moose facts you need to know:  A male moose, on average, weighs over 550 kg (1200 lbs), and a female moose, on average, weights over 400 kg (880 lbs).

According to statistics, female moose kill more people in Canada than any other animal including the number of people killed by grizzly bears.  In fact, information from Statistics Canada states that moose are up to ten times more likely to be in animal-vehicle collisions than bears.

But what happens when a moose and a vehicle collide?  Surely it’s not that dangerous to the person or persons in the car.

Well, the person in the car needs to know that moose are involved in about 4 percent of traffic fatalities in Canada every year.

If the vehicle involved in the crash is a motorcycle instead of a car or a pick-up truck, the chances of it being fatal increases by a rate of thirty-five times … but that’s pretty much to be expected when a full-grown male moose clocks in at around 1,200 pounds and a full-grown female moose clocks in at around 900 pounds.

Over a six month period in Saskatchewan and Alberta, there were 7 fatalities recorded that were related to moose-vehicle collisions.  There were another 2 reported in the very small province of New Brunswick.

But those aren’t the only instances where moose and humans collided, and where deaths were the result of those interactions.

Let’s look at fatalities as a result of moose-vehicle collisions.

In B.C., from 2009 to 2013, there were 11 fatalities.  In Alberta, from 2012 to 2013, there were 4 fatalities.  In Saskatchewan, from 2012 to 2013, there were 3 deaths.  In Ontario, from 2007 to 2011, there were 13 fatalities.

So in just half of the country, in the space of a few years, there were over 30 deaths as a result of moose-vehicle collisions.  Of course, we know that there were more in the other half of the country.  How do we know?  Because Statistics Canada stated that moose are involved in 4 percent of traffic fatalities in Canada every year.

Regarding terrorists, in 2010 Misbahuddin Ahmed of Ottawa was arrested (later convicted) of facilitating a terrorist activity.  No Canadians were injured.

In 2013, Chiheb Esseghaier of Montreal and Raed Jaser of Toronto were charged for the role they played in a plot to derail a New York to Toronto train.  No Canadians were injured.

Also in 2013, John Stewart Nuttall and Amanda Korody of Surrey (BC) were investigated, which thwarted an attempt to plant pressure-cooker bombs in the B.C. provincial legislature buildings.  No Canadians were injured.

In 2014, Martin Couture-Rouleau killed two Canadian Forces members in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelie (PQ).  Also in 2014, Michael Zeha-Bibeau from Quebec shot and killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo.

This means that in 2014, three Canadians were killed to terrorists.

However, there is a long history of domestic terrorism in Canada.

Even before Confederation, terrorism was traced back to Canada with the Fenian Brotherhood, an Irish nationalist group created in the 1858 by James Stephens in Dublin (Ireland) and John O’Mahony in New York City (New York, USA).  Members of this group were split on tactics to use, but they ran the gamut from supported assassination to more traditional war practices including conventional military battles.  In 1868, Thomas D’Arcy McGee was assassinated, and the Fenian Brotherhood was blamed for it.  They also failed in their invasion of Quebec in 1870 and the raid on Manitoba 1871 was an abysmal failure.

And back in 1923 there was the Sons of Freedom aka Freedomites, a radical splinter group that rejected anyone’s authority other than their own.  One of their most dangerous acts was the 1962 bombing of a power transmission tower in southeastern British Columbia.

And let’s not forget the FLQ (Front de Libération du Québec) who have owned up to committing 300 acts of terrorism in Canada since the 1960s, not the least of which included the kidnapping of British Trade Commissioner James Cross and Quebec’s Labour Minister Pierre Laporte (who was subsequently murdered by his captors).

In 1966, Paul Joseph Chartier went to the House of Commons in Ottawa with his homemade bomb.  His intention was to kill as many MPs (Members of Parliament) as possible.

Direct Action had a short run in the 1980s that ended when five key members of the group known as the Squamish Five were arrested in 1983.  They pled guilty to the charges against them, and served prison terms.

In 1984, Denis Lortie intended to assassinate premier Rene Levesque.  Fortunately for many, he arrived at a time when the Quebec provincial legislative building only had a few people wandering about.  Unfortunately, he killed three employees and wounded thirteen other employees before surrendering to a Korean War vet who talked him down.

Do we need to take terrorism seriously?  Of course we do.

Do we need to take the possibility of terrorism seriously?  Of course we do.

Has terrorism always been a historical part of Canada’s past and present?  Of course it has been and continues to be.

Should we overreact and fall prey to hysteria and fear mongering about terrorism?  No one has been able to quantify what constitutes a reasonable level of caution regarding terrorism, so this question cannot be answered at this time.

Should Canadians be concerned about the passing of Bill C-51 also known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015?  When a bill gives the police the power to arrest people without a warrant, that is something to closely scrutinize.

Should we worry about how dangerous moose are when driving along Canadian highways?  It’s always a good idea to be aware of any wildlife that may choose to dart out from either side of the road and into the path of fast-moving traffic.

Elyse Bruce


Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Canadian Disaster Database

House Of Commons of Canada: Bill C-51

Is Everything Fine With Happy Birthday?

A little over two years ago, I wrote about licensing as it pertained to the song “Happy Birthday.”  Today, the song is back in the news as a judge determines that the song has passed into the public domain and Warner/Chappell can no longer demand to be paid by those wishing to use the song in movies, at restaurants, in musical birthday cards, or anywhere else.

Birthdays Can Be Expensive

Happy Birthday To Whom? A Simple Song With A Complex Copyright History And Lawsuit

The song nearly found it’s place in the public domain twice before:  Once in 1991, and once again in 2010.  However, changes in the Copyright Acts in the U.S. kept the song out of the public domain.  Warner/Chappell and its legal department were of the opinion that Warner/Chappell owned the copyrights to “Happy Birthday” until 2030 when the song would enter the public domain upon the expiry of its copyright life.

That being said, the song didn’t make it into the public domain today because it’s finally aged out of the its copyright.  No, a federal judge determined that the copyright that Warner/Chappell was laying claim to wasn’t the copyright protection that was extended to the original copyright owner, Clayton F. Summy Company, back in 1935.

The Clayton F. Summy Company had filed copyrights for specific piano arrangements of the song that were available to the public through the Clayton F. Summy Company.  The song itself — which was a much older song titled, “Good Morning To You” by Patty Smith Hill and her sister Mildren J. Hill, to which new lyrics were added to become “Happy Birthday To You” — wasn’t copyrighted by the Clayton F. Summy Company!

Federal Judge Rules Happy Birthday Song In Public Domain

Happy Birthday Song Copyright Is Not Valid, Judge Says

If Warner/Chappell decide not to appeal the decision (or if they appeal and lose the appeal), this doesn’t mean the end of the matter.  There’s a strong possibility that a class action lawsuit will be filed to recoup the millions of dollars in licensing fees that Warner/Chappell has collected since 1988 when Warner/Chappell first believed it acquired the rights to the song.

At present, it’s estimated that the song brings royalties to Warner/Chappell to the tune of $2 million dollars per year.  When you multiple $2 million USD over twenty-seven years, the class action lawsuit could spell a minimum cost to Warner/Chappell of $54 million USD plus legal fees plus damages.  Based on that alone, it’s very likely that Warner/Chappell will file an appeal on the most recent legal decision.

Business isn’t always as straightforward and clear-cut as one might think.  This legal challenge over whether a song has been in the public domain for decades or has an enforceable copyright proves that point.

Until a final decision is made about whether Warner/Chappell intends to move forward with an appeal, it may be prudent to refrain from using the song in a public or commercial setting.  And yes, you may have to put up with annoying rap-style birthday greeting performances by restaurant servers until we go al fine on this matter.

Elyse Bruce


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,112 other followers

%d bloggers like this: