If I recall correctly, I had not yet summarized one of my podcast episodes in this newsletter. But I recently got a crash course in a (rapidly growing) corner of intellectual property law that was previously a complete and utter mystery to me: Web 3.0.

It appears that the 12th time is the charm. 😅

In case you haven’t heard, Eli Manning has a new title: Team Owner. It took this announcement to finally get me thinking about the parallels between these athletes and our expertise-based businesses.

When you spend every day immersed in a topic, it is easy to assume that key concepts are widely understood. In the course of proselytizing about the importance of turning your expertise into intellectual property, I have come to realize that what constitutes intellectual property, also known as IP, is still a bit of a headscratcher for many people.

I hesitated to even write about website terms and conditions. I promise that all TBIP content is a no legalese zone. Also, I’ve considered them minor issues to the expertise-based business. I am pretty militant about saying that I don’t have an “online business” (I’ll unpack that in another post.)

Finally, we wrap up our first accidental series (surely, there will be more) on restrictive covenants.

As a quick reminder, a restrictive covenant is a condition that restricts, limits, prohibits, or prevents the actions of someone named in an enforceable agreement.

Previously, we covered:

Non-Disclosure which prohibits you from (i) disclosing your client's confidential information to third parties, or (ii) using your client's confidential information for any purpose other than providing services to the client. Find the discussion here.

Non-Compete which prohibits you from providing services (i) to competitors of your client, or (ii) that compete with your client. Find the discussion here.

I did not start July with the plan to make it Restrictive Covenants Month! But here we are.

A restrictive covenant is a condition that restricts, limits, prohibits, or prevents the actions of someone named in an enforceable agreement.

When talking about our expertise-based businesses, the restrictive covenants we worry about are (cue spooky font):

Love ‘em or hate ‘em, confidentiality agreements aka non-disclosure agreements aka NDAs are everywhere.

These days, NDAs are the entrance ticket to almost every 2-party interaction. Every pitch meeting. Every RFP. Every hire. Pull out the NDA.

They are important and necessary…sometimes. But do you know what is even better than an NDA? Discernment.

Every time you share confidential information it becomes a little less confidential.

Fair Use. These two little words are vexing.

Here is the most important thing that you need to know about fair use: It is a defense. A defense against a claim of copyright infringement.

It is not a right you can get ahead of time to use the IP, like you get from a license agreement. It is not standardized permission to use IP like you get with a Creative Commons license. It is not a free pass to use IP, such as use of materials that are in the public domain.

How do you know whether your use of someone else’s IP without their permission is fair use? The only way to get a definitive answer is to have it resolved in federal court. Every analysis of whether a use is a fair use is fact specific.

I recently stumbled upon Portia Nelson’s poem, “Autobiography in Five Short Chapters” [please scroll down to read the poem]. Turns out it is among the most popular self-help writings of all time and the backbone of twelve-step programs used by various self-help groups and psychotherapists.

Perhaps I’d never come across it before because I’ve never been in a recovery program, but it smacked me right between the eyes when I read it because I have certainly been stuck in self-defeating cycles.