Author Topic: Obama Campaign Sues PPD for Copyright Infringement (Read 4848 times)

Dottonedan · « **on:** January 10, 2012, 05:24:20 PM »

Obama Campaign Sues PPD for Copyright Infringement

WASHINGTON—According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Obama for America, the principal campaign committee for President Barack Obama in the 2008 election, is suing Washington Promotions & Printing Inc. and its Demstore.com retailer website for trademark infringement.
The complaint claims that the Washington-based company used the “rising sun” trademarks, from both the 2008 and upcoming 2012 campaigns, without authorization.
Steve Schwat, the owner of Washington Promotions & Printing, says he is "really disappointed'' in the campaign for filing the suit.
"I thought presidential campaigns were like the Grateful Dead, who never enforced their intellectual property rights, but encouraged people to record their music and print their logos.'' He cites most of his customers as grass-root organizers who need large quantities of materials for their campaigns at a discounted cost of what the official websites offer, he tells Businessweek.
The Obama campaign is asking the court for “orders barring further infringement and for the seizure of all allegedly-infringing merchandise and promotional materials.” It is also seeking financial damages for deliberate infringement, attorney fees and litigation costs. Printwear will report on any updates to this story.
Sources: PRINTWEAR MAG, Promo Marketing, Bloomberg Businessweek

screenxpress · « **Reply #1 on:** January 10, 2012, 08:11:49 PM »

Pretty damn funny when a politician (needs to) copyright something.

Wonder who's money paid for the lawyers fees and copyright registration?

You don't suppose that came from income earned as a politician, which came from our (well, someone's) taxes, do ya?

mk162 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 10, 2012, 09:46:29 PM »

Isn't he the one push patent reform? Maybe this is what he meant.

Personally, I think campaign should be able to own their own copyrights. I know, a lot of people would disagree with that, but they are government figures...running for office.

They also went after Pepsi.

I think as long as the use is positive and promotes the candidate, they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Dottonedan · « **Reply #3 on:** January 11, 2012, 12:15:52 AM »

A campaign group is funded by donations and personal funding so it seems they are on the outside of the government that enables them to try to protect the copyrights for personal gain. Probably more so to maintain profits from product sales to help fund the campaign. In the same breath, they are also policing it's use so that it is not miss used. That part is waaaaay too late. it's really all about money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dottonedan · « **Reply #4 on:** January 11, 2012, 12:28:22 AM »

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tagless Threads · « **Reply #5 on:** February 28, 2012, 07:47:29 PM »

They should use this for the "Really?" skit on SNL with Amy and Seth. All politicians and company have nothing better to do than do nothing good with their time.

hazeremover · « **Reply #6 on:** February 28, 2012, 08:41:32 PM »

I thought Oblahblah was all about the redistribution of wealth.

brandon · « **Reply #7 on:** February 28, 2012, 11:39:04 PM »

Both parties are full of crap. I know Bush got busted for printing the majority of their garments/stickers/merch in China. I just don't understand why people complain then vote for either party. The situation our economy is in because capitalism is working like it should right now and we the people are on the bottom more than ever before. As Steve Jobs mentioned it is not up to Apple to create jobs, just make the best product and answer to the the shareholders. Then everyone complains about bringing those manufacturing jobs to the US and all the engineer jobs Apple could have created here. Then 5 minutes later everyone forgets and jumps back on their iphones or ipads. I don't even like Steve Jobs. But this economy was set up a long time ago to bleed dry the worker and public. I am rambling. Never mind!

mk162 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 29, 2012, 07:43:29 AM »

Careful guys, this will get moved into the politics section. It's really not a political issue.

ScreenFoo · « **Reply #9 on:** February 29, 2012, 10:49:45 AM »

The weird thing is, aren't all legal actions, civil and criminal, political by their very nature? Politicians decide whether or not actions like this are successful, and if they aren't, and they wanted them to be, they change the laws.
Not to say I think it should be moved, it is necessary information for any printer--there's even more crap you can't print or you'll get sued.

This is not the hope you're looking for indeed...

mk162 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 29, 2012, 11:01:56 AM »

Umm, technically, laws are enforced by the judicial branch, which can also decide them to be unconstitutional. While laws are created by politicians, they are ultimately enforced by the judicial system and in a perfect world, the legislative/executive branch should not have influence over the judicial branch.

ScreenFoo · « **Reply #11 on:** February 29, 2012, 12:37:19 PM »

I just edited the politics of this post out. Like I said, I think everyone needs to know this kind of stuff is going on.

And for the record, all three branches are *supposed* to have checks and balances, but no perfect world here yet--and I believe the executive branch is supposedly the enforcement branch--hence the execution of legislature.

mk162 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 29, 2012, 01:48:24 PM »

actually, you are correct about the enforcement.

Are his emblems owned by him, or his campaign? Or a PAC? I would think that a campaign wouldn't be able to copyright a logo. But what do I know.

Gilligan · « **Reply #13 on:** March 28, 2012, 12:53:08 PM »

So is that website not making a profit off those logos?

I mean, if they are then they should be paying the royalties for it.

It's one thing to say "my customers are 'grass roots' organizations" all you want... but are THEY selling them the products at "cost"? If not then they should be paying the royalties.

Plain and simple.

As far who funded the copyrights to start with... well, probably his campaign which was funded by donations. That really makes the most sense. Not our "tax dollars".

Command-Z · « **Reply #14 on:** March 28, 2012, 01:33:50 PM »

Campaigns are funded by private donors, not taxpayers. Any logo can be copyrighted and often, it's not about profits on goods sold, but protecting and controlling a BRAND.

Branding can be an expensive and time-consuming process, with the purpose of creating an identity for a company or organization. THat's a main reason for copyright protection, not just someone else making money on your brand, but controlling and protecting the identity of the company itself.

The parody examples Dan posted are usually exempt... parody is an acceptable use.

I used to work for a company that made clip art volumes and one of our volumes was a collection of corporate and government logos we'd sell to sign shops, screen printers, etc. We'd compile BW logos in a volume and wait for the companies to notice and complain. More often than not, lawyers would send cease/decists and we'd oblige by deleting the files from any future production runs. No big deal. BUT, once in a great while, a company would see the value of what we were doing, and actually send us their official vector files for use in the volume. These companies saw the value of what we were doing... It was better to ensure their brand was being represented correctly in use, not eliminate it altogether. The emphasis was not on "oh, you're using our logo for your own profit, you can't do that" but rather, "we know people need these logos and are going to use them anyway, we want to make sure its done right."

News: