While the King of Pop has passed to his eternal resting place, he leaves behind more than devastated fans, mourning family members, legendary dance moves, and record breaking statistics. With his demise, we have learned that Michael Jackson amassed a substantial intellectual property portfolio, demonstrating a creativity well beyond his musical talents and leaving some to refer to him as an “Intellectual Property Goldmine.”

A little known fact about Jackson, he co-owned a patent for an invention he created that allows dancers to lean forward at a 45 degree angle beyond their center of gravity by wearing specially designed shoes. (U.S. Patent No. 5,255,425, titled “Method and Means For Creating Anti-Gravity”).

His famous gravity defying “lean” can be seen in the music video for the song Smooth Criminal.

Jackson also registering his name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and owned numerous other trademarks for goods and services ranging from merchandise to fan clubs.

And, of course, let’s not forget about the copyrights. In addition to securing copyrights to his own works, Jackson famously outbid Paul McCartney and purchased rights to the Beatles song-copyright catalog for $47 million dollars in what many claim to be his best business decisions, later selling the rights to Sony for $90 million.

Although often maligned for his lifestyle choices and actions, Jackson’s dedication to creating and protecting his art and talents cannot be denied. Love him or hate him, he leveraged his superstardom (and that of others) into substantial intellectual property assets.

Fairey et al v. The Associated Press, Case No. 1:09-cv-01123-AKH (S.D.N.Y, filed 02/09/2009)

A follow up to this blog post. As predicted, copyright ownership in the underlying photograph is turning out to be a point of contention in the federal lawsuit.

To refresh the reader’s recollection, Fairey, filed for declaratory relief on the basis of fair use, after the AP threatened to sue him for using its photograph without permission to create the famous “Hope” artwork; the AP counterclaimed on the basis of infringement of its copyright in the photograph.

Last week, Mannie Garcia, who took the 2006 photo of Mr. Obama which Fairey admits was an inspiration for the “Hope” artwork, filed a Motion to Intervene and Memorandum of Law in the Fairey v. AP case. Mr. Garcia claims that he, not the AP, owns the copyright in the photograph because he was a freelance photographer at the time (in other words an independent contractor, not an employee); and that he never assigned his rights in the photograph to the AP. In support of his claim, Mr. Garcia proffers a copyright registration certificate for the photograph filed in March 2009. Mr. Garcia argues that he should be permitted to intervene in the lawsuit, under FRCP 24(a)(2) or in the court’s discretion, because his “interests are not adequately represented by either party:” on the one hand, Fairey “profited from the sales of Mr. Garcia’s copyright photographic image;” and on the other hand, the “AP seeks to reap some of the profit by claiming that it — and not Mr. Garcia, is the rightful owner of the copyright in the photograph.”

Stay tuned for further developments and the Court’s decision on Mr. Garcia’s motion.

Practice Pointer: This development serves as another reminder of the critical importance of securing copyright assignments in writing from independent contractors whose work you want to own, regardless of what their agreement might provide. It is a prudent practice, whether the contractor created an entire work for you (for example, a logo design or a photograph), or a piece of a larger project (such as a few lines of software code or illustrations for a book).

If you don’t have anything nice to say, it’s not OK to lie.

Increasingly, the FTC is going digital-rambo against false advertisers, and the states are following (law)suit. Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetics company has just settled with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for publishing fake reviews about its cosmetic facelift process.

According to documents filed by the attorney general, Lifestyle Lift got employees to post anonymous product and service reviews on websites owned by third parties, making it appear that the reviews were made by genuine product users.

In addition to violating Section 5 of the FTC Act, which proscribes the use of deceptive advertising tactics to sell products to consumers, such conduct also violates many state laws on unfair business practices and false advertising. Cuomo, in a press conference, called the activity “cynical, manipulative, and illegal.” Cuomo would be right.

In fact, reviews are identical in every legal measure to testimonials, where the law is clear: any positive testimonial provided by consumers must be (1) truthful; (2) authorized by the manufacturer of the product; and (3) and must reflect the “typical” experience of a product user. Thus, even if a consumer is telling the truth about a product, if that truth either is not supported by scientific studies, or does not reflect the average customer experience (and therefore distorts the product’s worthiness), such a review is considered false advertising.

As many following the advertising world know, back in April, the FTC announced it will be going after companies who pay others to create viral and influential websites about the benefits of the companies’ products if information on those sites is not truthful.