That Tweet that has been making the rounds, and maybe even gone viral, should be fair game, right? Everyone has been retweeting it, so embedding the original tweet into my website isn’t hurting anyone…riiiight? Well, not so fast. The answer may depend on where the case is heard.
Katherine B. Forrest, a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, recently issued an interesting order on this issue. Seems that Breitbart News Network, Yahoo, and a number of other online news outlets failed in making the same argument.
It seems that they all embedded a tweet (which had gone viral) into their own online websites. The tweet included a photograph of Tom Brady taken by Justin Goldman, and originally posted by him to Snapchat.
The photograph caught fire and several users uploaded it to Twitter, and eventually landed on the news websites. Goldman argues that he never publicly released or licensed the photograph, so he’s suing for infringement of his exclusive copyrights in the image.
The news outlets claim that they never actually downloaded or copied the photograph because it technically remained housed on the Twitter servers, linked through the embedding code on their own websites.
In what some have labelled a “surprising” decision, Judge Forrest set aside the 9th Circuit’s “Server Test”, which would determine infringement based upon whether an image is hosted on the alleged infringer’s server. Rather, she granted partial summary judgment to Goldman, holding that the fact that the image was never stored on the news websites’ servers was not dispositive.
Judge Forrest did leave the issue open as to whether the news outlets had raised effective defenses against infringement—citing potential arguments under fair use, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and innocent infringement theories.
In reaching her decision, Judge Forrest examined the exclusive right to display the photograph (as opposed to copy or make a derivative work) granted to Goldman under the Copyright Act of 1976. Her opinion delves into a history of the right to display and the fact the drafters of the Copyright Act wanted it to encompass “new, and not yet understood, technologies,” such as Twitter.
Her decision also references a 10th Circuit decision, out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, which came to a different result. In Colorado, the District Court has (at least for the time being) applied the “Server Test” to a similar case.
In the 2016 Grady v. Iacullo decision, the Court held that, when a website includes a hyperlink to a copyrighted work, a copy has been created and infringement may have occurred. “transferring a copyrighted work into a computer’s RAM can create a copy under the Copyright Act.” However, the court requested that additional information be provided to it by the parties and a final ruling has not been made.
While final rulings and appeals are yet to be announced, beware the shifting sands of technology…embedding another’s image in your website may be more trouble than it’s worth.
If you have questions about this or any other copyright or licensing issue, contact our Arts & Entertainment attorney Caroline Kert at firstname.lastname@example.org or 303-763-1615.
A federal jury recently returned a verdict in favor of the San Diego Comic Convention (SDCC) in its trademark infringement lawsuit against Salt Lake Comic Con (SLCC). At issue was SLCC’s use of the phrase “comic-con” for its annual comics and pop culture convention held in Salt Lake City. SDCC has held an annual comics and pop culture convention in San Diego since the 1970s.
Both sides – SDCC and SLCC – said saw the jury’s December 2017 verdict as a win. SDCC had asked for $12 million in damages, but the jury awarded only $20,000 because they found SLCC had not infringed on SDCC’s trademark “willfully.”
Meanwhile, SLCC had tried to argue SDCC didn’t have a valid trademark, because “comic-con” was a generic phrase used worldwide to generally describe any kind of convention devoted to comic books, superheroes, sci-fi, fantasy or any other related aspect of “geek culture.” Under trademark law, you generally cannot trademark a term that’s in common use. In fact, even when a properly trademarked word becomes commonly used in a generic way, the trademark owner may lose their rights (think kleenex, chapstick or velcro, all trademarks that have become “genericized”). So, SDCC tried to argue the same thing has also happened to “comic-con”.
During the trial, SLCC presented evidence that there were hundreds of comic-cons all over the world (“New York Comic Con”, “Phoenix Comicon”, “German Comic Con Berlin”). They also presented evidence to the jury of how, in the 50 years SDCC has been in existence, its lawsuit against SLCC was the very first time SDCC attempted to defend its trademark in court.
Ultimately though, the jury rejected the argument that “comic-con” has become generic and found SDCC’s trademark was still valid.
One interesting aspect of this lawsuit is that the court did not allow the jury to hear that SLCC was simultaneously challenging SDCC’s “comic-con” trademark registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO issued a trademark registration certificate for “comic-con” to SDCC in early 2007. SLCC held its first event in 2013.
SLCC initiated what’s called a trademark cancellation proceeding, which is an administrative action, completely separate and apart from its federal jury trial, held before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). A trademark cancellation proceeding allows a party to request that a registered trademark be cancelled so that the holder of that trademark no longer has any rights under it.
As of the date of this blog post, a number of other parties have filed cancellation proceedings against SDCC, including Denver Comic Con, Phoenix Comic Con, and a subscription service that offers a “ComicCon Box” service.
Regardless of how the jury in Utah decided and what happens with SLCC’s federal appeal, we will ultimately have to watch what the USPTO does to see what the fate of all the comic-cons will be!
If you have any questions about this post or trademark law, contact our Intellectual Property team today.
In 2016, a group of museums and researchers in the Netherlands unveiled a portrait entitled The Next Rembrandt. This painting was actually generated by a computer, which had analyzed thousands of works by the 17th-century artist Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, and then used the data to create its own work in the same style. In the same year, a Japanese computer program wrote a novel called The Day A Computer Writes A Novel, which remarkably passed several rounds of judging for a national literary prize.
Meanwhile, Google is developing an artificial intelligence program that it hopes will write news articles, and already owns an artificial intelligence company called Deep Mind that has created software that can generate music.
Creating copyrightable works using artificial intelligence (AI) will undoubtedly have very important implications for copyright law. Traditionally, determining the owner of a copyright in computer-generated works was not a problem because the computer or software was merely a tool that supported the creative process, analogous to a pen and paper or camera and film. Now, AI is now creating works free from any direction or assistance from humans!
Since the advent of mechanical ways to play music (think player piano rolls in the 1880s), new technologies have always exceeded the boundaries of the existing copyright law, meaning the courts and the lawyers have been forced to stretch existing doctrines in their attempts to encompass the novel and unprecedented scenarios presented by this new technology.
The next frontier in copyright law, and issue that will test the language in our current statutes, will involve works created directly by computers. Right now though, these copyright implications are by no means clear. Should these original and creative works still be deemed to be made by a human author (i.e., the individual who designed or programmed the AI or initiated the “go” command) or independently by the AI alone? Would it be legally just to refuse to grant copyrights to music, novels, dramatic works and art created by AI? Would this refusal harm the content creation industry?
Our Intellectual Property Team will certainly be following these efforts!
If you love to ski or snowboard, you may have heard of “champagne powder”, the dry, light and fluffy snow we love best. But, from a meteorological standpoint, what is it?
Well, champagne powder does not actually describe a particular kind of snow crystal or water-density level, nor is it a term much used by meteorologists or snow scientists.
Instead, “champagne powder” owes its fame to ski industry marketing, with one resort in particular, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation (Steamboat), leading the charge.
According to Steamboat legend, back in the 1950s, a rancher named Joe McElroy was skiing with friends near the town of Steamboat Springs, Colorado (before the resort was created) and got sprayed in the face with snow. He told his friends it tickled his nose like champagne – “champagne powder!” The phrase began to spread across the Yampa Valley, and starting in the 1960s, Steamboat the new ski resort started using it in its marketing.
Five decades later, Steamboat took legal steps to claim exclusive rights to “champagne powder.” It filed a federal trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2008. It also started sending cease and desist (C&D) letters to anyone publishing the phrase, stating Steamboat had obtained common law trademark rights. In June 2010, the USPTO issued an official registration certificate to Steamboat for CHAMPAGNE POWDER related to “resort lodging services”.
With its C&D letters, Steamboat pursued an aggressive trademark protection strategy aimed at preventing anyone else, including journalists, bloggers and weather professionals, from using “champagne powder” to describe snow or ski conditions at all.
Then in 2014, Steamboat successfully prevented a gaming software company from using “Champagne Powder” for a casino video game.
It is fair to say Steamboat’s early round of C&D letters infuriated the ski community. Recipients from California to Utah to Montana shared their letters, as well as the name and contact information for Steamboat’s attorney, all over the Internet. Online forums and message boards pointed out that “champagne powder” had been widely used in the global ski community for decades, not to describe a particular ski resort or mountain, but a certain kind of snow conditions. In fact, at that time Champagne Powder even had its own Wikipedia page. This page made no mention of Steamboat. The introduction only stated:
“Champagne powder is a very smooth and dry snow, which is great for skiing. The term originates from the ski resorts in the Rocky Mountains, which often have these snow conditions. The name derives from the sparkling wine champagne . . . .”
then went on to describe the weather conditions that created the snow.
Meanwhile, at least one business, Unofficial Networks, a “ski bum’s guide to outdoor news and entertainment”, thumbed their noses after receiving their Steamboat C&D letter and revised a certain offending headline to “Sparkling Wine Powder.”
Steamboat’s response to the flurry of bad PR around the country was to explain that, under trademark law, they were required to issue a C&D letter whenever they saw a use of “champagne powder” that infringed its trademark rights.
Steamboat was correct. Trademark law says that if a trademark owner doesn’t adequately monitor its mark and allows others to use (and infringe on) it, the trademark rights can be invalidated. Enforcement is a required part of trademark ownership. If you don’t enforce, you potentially give up your rights.
However, it is important to realize that a federal trademark registration does not give you absolute rights to prevent anyone else from using the word or phrase in any context whatsoever. Trademark law is designed to protect consumers from confusion about the source of products and services. It is not designed to give trademark owners an exclusive property right to those words, phrases or designs. That is, it doesn’t let you claim that any use of your trademark by a third party violates the law.
Thus, arguably, Steamboat’s enforcement efforts are appropriate only if it prevents uses of “champagne powder” that are confusing consumers, with the big assumption being that most of us know “champagne powder” as something related to the Steamboat brand.
Is Steamboat’s champagne powder enforcement strategy actually in line with trademark law? The appropriateness of the legal claims Steamboat makes in its C&D letters and its other aggressive trademark protection efforts cannot be determined unless Steamboat finds itself in court. Then, a judge or jury will be tasked to decide whether its positions are valid under current trademark and unfair competition law. So far, no one has formally challenged Steamboat to determine how strong its “champagne powder” trademark actually is.
If you have received a C&D letter from Steamboat or anyone else, or have questions about registering your trademark or protecting your brand, contact our Intellectual Property team today!
By: Caroline R. Kert, Esq.
I’ve noticed a recent trend with artists calling to get help resolving a contract issue. The scenario usually unfolds something like this:
- The Artist had been contacted by a promotor/client/other artist to help capture photos or video.
- There is no written agreement, other than a few texts back and forth about payment rate and when to show up to the shoot.
- The Artist does the shoot, edits their product, and provides one or several complete products. This can be a series of photos or a few versions of a promotional video.
- The client begins using the completed works or forwards them on to their own client. The Artist usually finds this out by seeing the work on a website or FB feed.
- The Artist never gets paid and receives continued assurances that payment will come once the client receives payment from their own client.
What a horrible position for the Artist to find themselves in, and what an unsustainable reputation for the client to establish within the market!
But, not all hope is lost—copyright law can help the Artist gain some leverage in negotiating a resolution. The main thing the Artist should remember is that copyright in the images remain with the Author until there is an affirmative act to assign or license those rights to another. The Artist is the Author and retains copyright, unless they are 1) the employee of the client or 2) there is a written, signed agreement that defines the work as a Work Made For Hire, assigns the work, or licenses the work.
Without a WRITTEN AGREEMENT, a contract Artist has not given the client any rights to reproduce, display, or otherwise use the work. This can often provide a lot of pressure to get payment when the Artist clarifies this to the client. Without rights in the work, the client is arguably infringing on the Artist’s copyright when reusing the work or selling it to a third-party. In our experience, a well-crafted cease and desist notice to the third party can generate immediate attention and payment.
Even with a written agreement, the doctrine of Work Made for Hire is often misunderstood by artists and their clients. Very few types of projects qualify for treatment as a Work Made for Hire. Even if there is a clause that attempts to identify the client as the copyright owner, it often fails.
Of course, every situation is different and you should contact a lawyer that specializes in artist representation before taking action. Your attorney can help you review communications and written agreements to assess what next steps can help you get paid.
To help minimize the potential for conflict, always get your agreement in writing and clarify when payment is due (payable in stages with various deliverables, and never dependent upon whether the Artist’s client gets paid by a third party).
Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects “original works of authorship.”
Literary works (poetry, novels, newspaper articles), musical works (songs and their lyrics, orchestral compositions, movie scores), dramatic works (films, plays) and visual arts (paintings, prints, comics, sculptures) easily come to mind when thinking of works that probably have copyright protection.
However, copyright can be a lot broader! U.S. law allows you to claim copyright in software, architecture, fictional characters (for example, Superman), pantomimes and even your business’s logo. Online, the contents of a website or blog, including its text, graphics and videos, can also have copyright protection.
This broad nature of copyright is no accident. The Copyright Act acknowledges that future technologies may create new kinds of content that can be protected. When the founding fathers provided for copyright in the U.S. Constitution more than 200 years ago, they surely could not fathom billion-dollar superhero movie franchises or the Internet!
So, instead of providing an exhaustive list of things that can have copyright, the law simply establishes certain elements that must be met for a work to have copyright protection.
Elements of Copyright
To be copyrightable, a work must:
- Contain a minimal degree of creativity
- Be created by a human author
The recent case of Naruto v. Slater confirmed animals are not afforded rights under U.S. copyright law. This ruling meant “Naruto”, a crested macaque monkey who took a charming and commercially-viable selfie, could not sue to own the copyright of the photograph.
- And be fixed in a tangible medium
The work has to be captured in a way to that it can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for more than a short time.
Copyright protection in the U.S. exists automatically from the moment the original work of authorship is fixed. You do not have to register the copyright, print a copyright notice on the item, or publish the work to have copyright protection!
(But read more about why you should register your copyrights in our blog post here.)
Exceptions to Copyright
Copyright does not protect ideas, procedures, systems or methods of operation.
Copyright also does not protect facts and mechanical, clerical content (for example, a phone book).
Copyright does not protect simple, short phrases. If you wrote a pop song with only one lyric – “Baby, I really love you…” – you probably wouldn’t be able to copyright this phrase and prevent other songwriters from authoring similar sentiments.
Copyright also does not protect content authored by the U.S. Government. Thus, you can freely quote federal governmental reports, publications, websites and laws. Be careful though! This exception is not true for other governments, such as the U.K.
If you have questions about copyright law, how to register your works with the U.S. Copyright Office, or what to do if you think someone is violating your copyrights, contact our Intellectual Property team today.
 15-CV-04324-WHO (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016).
Photo Credit: Kelli Tungay on Unsplash
We get this question a lot. Artists, designers and other creative entrepreneurs are busy people! So, why should you go through the trouble of registering your copyrights and putting copyright notices on your works if, under U.S. Copyright law, you have copyright protection as soon as your work is “fixed” in a tangible medium?
We understand the instinct that you surely have better things to do with your time and money, but notice and registration are what give our copyright law its teeth!
Let’s say you discover that a major fashion retailer has copied your artwork on t-shirts and has been selling it all over the world? You file a lawsuit and the judge finds in your favor. You won!
Or maybe you wrote a catchy melody and uploaded a YouTube video of yourself playing your guitar and singing it. A major brand uses part of your melody in its new commercials for cleaning products. You file a lawsuit and the judge finds in your favor. You won!
Having a valid copyright registration may mean the difference of being awarded $100,000 in statutory damages, plus an order that the other side has to pay your attorneys fees, versus having only a piece of paper from the Court saying you were right and a $15,000 bill from your lawyer you now have to pay.
In other words, to really benefit from copyright law, you need to have a copyright registration certificate from the U.S. Copyright Office, and you have to let others know you claim copyright protection in your content.
Statutory Damages and Attorneys’ Fees
Current copyright statutory damages are set out in 17 U.S.C. § 504. They range from $750 to $30,000 per work, an amount to be determined at the discretion of the Court depending on the facts of the case. However, if a defendant can show that they were “not aware and had no reason to believe” they were infringing copyright, they may ask the Court to have the damages reduced to $200 per work. This is why providing notice is key.
If you can show the defendant was willful when it infringed on your copyright – it was deliberate, voluntary and intentional – a judge is authorized to award you damages of up to $150,000 per work!
Also, if you did properly place some kind of copyright notice information on or in your work, and the defendant intentionally removed it before they copied you, they could be liable for an additional $200 to $25,000 per occurrence under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)! An example of this would be a website owner cropping your photograph in a way that the copyright notice information you’d place in the bottom corner, and then publishing the image online without your permission.
In other words, statutory damages can really add up, and they allow you to avoid having to hire damages experts to prepare costly reports and testify on exactly how much you were financially damaged by your infringer’s activities. Moreover, attorneys’ fees provisions means if you are successful in your lawsuit, the other side pays your lawyer’s bill. Even if a lawsuit is never filed, copyright registration and the mere threat of statutory damages can provide you leverage to protect yourself and your business.
What Is “Notice”?
A good copyright notice lets the public know that (1) the content is protected by copyright; (2) who the author or owner is; and (3) when it was first published.
Beyond this, there is no required form or method for providing this information.
One way is:
Copyright © 2018 Sally Jones. All rights reserved.
© 2018 Sally Jones
You could also provide more detail:
Copyright by Sally Jones. Originally published November 29, 2017. Revised on January 2, 2018.
You may have noticed major movie studios like Roman numerals:
© Time Warner Studio MCMXCVIII
In other words, so long as you provide the required notice, the form and format is up to you.
If you have more questions about registering your copyright, or think your copyright is being infringed upon, give our Intellectual Property team call.
 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2)
 17 U.S.C § 1203(d)
We are watching the lawsuit between This is Spinal Tap creators, Harry Shearer, Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Rob Reiner, and Vivendi very closely. This case revolves around issues that we always pay close attention to for our creative clients: net profit definitions, copyright termination, and work-for-hire.
On October 20, 2017, Shearer, McKean and Reiner joined Guest in a Second Amended Complaint as individual Plaintiffs. This followed the dismissal of their loan-out companies, which were originally named as Plaintiffs, but found to have no standing. The pre-trial grappling will continue over the next months and this case is expected to have far-reaching implications for Hollywood’s “inventive” accounting practices.
Essentially, studios enter internal contracts with their own subsidiaries that fall far short from arms-length transactions. This allows the studios to deduct enormous expenses against the gross profits of a film, sometimes package them together with the expenses of poorly performing films, declare that there are no net profits in a project, and make no payouts under the net profits provisions of contracts with creatives. These accounting practices have meant that actors and writers associated with such “unprofitable” blockbusters as Return of the Jedi, Ghostbusters, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and Forrest Gump have had to bring or threaten legal action before receiving their fair cut of royalties.
Not only have the co-creators of This is Spinal Tap requested a proper accounting of the net profits derived from the distribution and merchandizing of the film, but they are exercising their rights to terminate the copyright assignments in their works. Copyright law permits termination of rights 35 years after the assignment, and the co-creators have filed Notices of Termination. Their suit requests confirmation that the copyrights will revert to them in March, 2019. Reversion of the copyrights will entirely cut off the studio’s ability to distribute and otherwise commoditize the film and brand.
Ironically, the studio has now been placed in a position of fighting to retain interests in a “non-profitable” enterprise. The studio is fighting to retain its copyrights in the This is Spinal Tap brand by arguing that the co-creators were never copyright owners in the first place and that there is no assignment to terminate. The studio is relying on the work-for-hire doctrine to show that it was always the copyright owner of the film and music. At issue is the timing of the development of the copyrighted material—was it already in existence before the studio stepped into the picture, or were the requirements for work-for-hire in place when the material was created?
We love these kinds of cases because they are accessible and interesting to artists, and they help the public understand some of the nuances of copyright law. And, they help the artistic community understand why it is crucial to have an attorney review your contracts and catalogue your creative works. When we work with clients to review contracts, net profit definitions and work-for-hire provisions are often over-reaching and unfair to our clients. These are complex areas of law and are often misapplied in contract language. We work with artists to understand their rights and renegotiate fair terms. We also help our clients track creative assets and file timely Notices of Termination when the time is right.
If you need support understanding your rights under a film or other entertainment contract, contact arts & entertainment attorney Caroline Kert at 303-763-1615 or email@example.com. We are here to help.
An Internet domain name can be vital to branding and marketing, so it’s important for business owners to be familiar with some of the legal rules related to domain names, including the intersection of domain name rights with trademark rights. This post also reviews actions you can take to dispute domain names that may infringe upon your trademark rights.
A domain name is the primary “address” of a web site, and nearly all website owners want to have a domain name that is identifiable and easy to remember.
If my company is called “Betty’s Plumbing, Inc.” and I have a trademark for “Betty’s Plumbing”, it would be most logical for my website to also be “www.bettysplumbing.com”. This would be the best way for current and potential customers to find me online.
Domain Names vs. Trademarks
A trademark is a word, name or symbol used in commerce to indicate the source of the goods or services and to distinguish them from the goods or services of others.
Trademarks and domain names are not synonymous, but the two concepts often meet when there is an issue of whether use of the domain name is a trademark violation.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made clear: “Registration of a domain name with a domain name registrar does not give you any trademark rights.” The USPTO also states that simply using a trademark as part of a domain name does not necessary serve the function of “indicating the source” of goods or services. In other words, using someone else trademark in your domain name is not automatically infringement. However, additional uses of the trademark by your business beyond your domain name could lead to trouble!
The biggest takeaway is that the issue is not black and white. Generally, we recommend that before you spend money on acquiring a certain domain name, you do some research to make sure your desired domain name does not contain a trademark belonging to someone else who has not given you permission to use it. Trademark violations occur when there is “confusion in the marketplace” – when a consumer could confuse the business represented by the domain name with another business represented by a trademark contained in the domain name.
Further domain name registrars such as GoDaddy and Google Domains do not perform any trademark ownership verification before registering a new domain name for you so it is your responsibility to consider intellectual property matters! If you need any assistance with this, please contact our Intellectual Property team.
Domain Name Disputes
Domain name disputes often involve companies battling over the ownership of domain names from “cybersquatters.” Some cybersquatters register domain names with the intention of selling them at high prices to the companies who own the trademarks. Others exploit domain names by taking advantage of the online traffic that popular brands attract and misdirecting consumers to the cybersquatters’ own websites for such business as selling counterfeit goods, or at worst, websites loaded with viruses, malware, and other malicious content.
The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)
You can file a federal lawsuit to challenge a domain name under the ACPA, a law enacted in 1999. ACPA allows you to challenge domain names that are similar to your business name and other trademarks. ACPA makes it “illegal to register, “traffic in” or use a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive or famous. If a trademark owner successfully wins a claim under the ACPA, the Court will grant an order that requires the domain be transferred back to the trademark owner. In certain cases, the Court can also award monetary damages.
Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP)
Another (and likely cheaper) way to challenge a domain name is through the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), a process created by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the non-profit corporation that manages and controls domain name registrations. UDRP provides a relatively quick legal mechanism to resolve a domain name dispute by providing a streamlined procedure to transfer or cancel ownership of domain names.
Beyond offering a quicker dispute resolution process beyond federal court litigation, UDRP proceeds are also nice because it does not matter whether the trademark owner and domain name holder live in different countries. Filing a lawsuit in U.S. federal court generally comes with jurisdictional issues that are tricky if the domain name holder lives in another country.
If your business needs help with a trademark or domain name issue, please contact us today!
So after you have been in a car accident, you’ve made the first step in your personal injury claim: scheduling an appointment with a personal injury lawyer. Here’s what you may expect during this initial consultation:
- Details about the accident. Your lawyer will likely want to know everything leading up to and after the accident. The time of day, the weather conditions, what you were doing when you were hit, what you experienced upon impact, and all information that you obtained from the other driver. If you have the police report, pictures of the vehicles, and/or exchange of information sheet, make sure to bring a copy for your lawyer to review.
- Your insurance coverage. Specifically, whether you have UM/UIM (uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage) through your own insurance provider. Make sure you bring your policy information to the appointment.
- Your medical history. This includes past injuries and past motor vehicle accidents, especially if the car accident has aggravated any previous injuries.
- Your injuries. What injuries did you incur from the accident, and what medical attention you have sought. Bring the contact information for each medical provider that you have seen, along with any referrals that you have been given.
- The effect that the car accident has had on your life. Outside of injuries and medical appointments, how have your injuries affected your home life, personal life, work life, physical, emotional, and social health.