TSB
Artist => Copyrights/Trade Marks info/questions => Topic started by: mk162 on November 04, 2013, 01:34:40 PM
-
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/11/01/sauk-rapids-graphic-artist-challenges-national-security-agency/ (http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/11/01/sauk-rapids-graphic-artist-challenges-national-security-agency/)
If it's a parody, how can they issue a cease and desist? I am glad he is suing though.
-
As I understand it you can't use or alter the seal. I agree it is parody, but this may fall within some specific prohibition because of the seal.
-
but they are a government agency, thus it's owned by the people...unless you are trying to impersonate an agent, which I could see that argument.
-
you would think its owned by the people....Like when the gov't shut down...national parks and monuments were closed..they are owned by the people, correct? why could we not go in?
the people do not own anything. Even look at your house..you bought it..you do not pay your taxes, even after you own it, well its not yours anymore.
Up in the adirondacks here, people have been in there homes for years, payed off there homes. Well they are lakefront, the towns raise the taxes, people can not afford to stay there, have to sell, peoplpe from nyc and what not that have money buy them up.
I know it was off topic, but wanted to show you do not own anything.
-
Not to say the government is right Rob... but how does one truly go about OWNING land?
-
To add to the off subject, Christopher Columbus is known for the discovery of America right? well how can he discover what is not lost, I'm sure the Indian's saw them coming, I kinda think the Indians knew where they were, old Chris there me think was lost. I laugh about this all the time, how do you find what is not lost just cause you didn't know it was there yourself.
Darryl
-
Columbus is just the guy in the older history books, America was visited from over the ocean many times before Columbus. But yeah, the First Nations were already here.
-
land has switched hands in peaceful and non-peaceful means since the beginning of man...and it will continue until the end of time.
-
Govt seals, symbols and logos are copyrighted just like corporate ones.
Still, that's a great shirt and I think it would fall under the "parody" limitation... but in the end it's the lawyers who win.
-
So we have three different prints we run for two different customers that say F.B.I. and then a different definition under it. Would this fall under the same deal?
The whole think is a joke(literally) is it really worth the time and $$$ for the government to pursue this? Plus, if the NSA was on top of it's spying job shouldn't they of caught this when the artwork was emailed over, before they went to press? ;) ;D
-
In DC airports they were selling FBI shirts in the gift shops; they may have stopped this but it was apparently legal as block letters cannot be copyrighted or trademarked.
Remember the Fleur de Lis fiasco in N.O.? The printers took it to the media and NFL had to back down. Sometimes the little guy wins.
-
In DC airports they were selling FBI shirts in the gift shops; they may have stopped this but it was apparently legal as block letters cannot be copyrighted or trademarked.
Remember the Fleur de Lis fiasco in N.O.? The printers took it to the media and NFL had to back down. Sometimes the little guy wins.
Which brings me to this guy.
(http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1348/5147776358_a28a56ebf0_z.jpg)
Can they REALLY TM that? I know with the UL logo they can or when it has the fire behind it as it usually does... but just the plain FDL with some color accents?
-
In DC airports they were selling FBI shirts in the gift shops; they may have stopped this but it was apparently legal as block letters cannot be copyrighted or trademarked.
Remember the Fleur de Lis fiasco in N.O.? The printers took it to the media and NFL had to back down. Sometimes the little guy wins.
Which brings me to this guy.
([url]http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1348/5147776358_a28a56ebf0_z.jpg[/url])
Can they REALLY TM that? I know with the UL logo they can or when it has the fire behind it as it usually does... but just the plain FDL with some color accents?
Yes, they can TM that. They're not claiming rights to all fleurs, just that one. It has characteristics that make it unique.
-
Do the colors matter?
If done with subtracting or changing colors would that change anything?
-
Do the colors matter?
If done with subtracting or changing colors would that change anything?
Sports teams have specific PMS colors, so yes, they matter, but if a judge determines a copy as derivative, then no, it doesn't. In other words, it may look like any other fleur, but the proportion, shapes of the highlight/shadow areas, and overall outline are in fact unique to this trademark. A sufficient combination of those elements could lead a copyright tribunal to judge in the holder's favor even if the colors are changed.
-
Do the colors matter?
If done with subtracting or changing colors would that change anything?
I don't remember exactly the number anymore, but for some reason 15% sticks in my mind. I thought you could change a image a certain % to not the the trademark apply. This could be totally bunk info, so don't quote me on it, but when I first started the shop I worked at ran into something back in the day, and I think that was how they "fixed" it.
-
Do the colors matter?
If done with subtracting or changing colors would that change anything?
I don't remember exactly the number anymore, but for some reason 15% sticks in my mind. I thought you could change a image a certain % to not the the trademark apply. This could be totally bunk info, so don't quote me on it, but when I first started the shop I worked at ran into something back in the day, and I think that was how they "fixed" it.
You're right, the "15% Rule" is an urban legend. If there's any evidence of copying, it will get the lawyers' attention.
-
From my experience the "First Amendment" issue is a last resort. The ACLU has more important things to deal with, believe it or not. Only a US Court can make him stop producing the shirts. The decision will be based on previous case law and there are plenty of examples. If it does go to a lawsuit he better keep great records of everything involved in producing the shirts. During "discovery" they will want a copy of everything. Think paralegals making copies and stapling things together all day long at $85.00 per hour. Even if his attorney is pro bono the firm will never write off all the misc. paper bs. What should happen is it will be decided with a Judges "Summmary Judgement" Hearing, if it goes that far. The printer will win and still be able print the shirts and all his counter suits will be thrown out at the same time. I believe this shirt has a small shelf life, so you need to strike the iron when it is hot. People are already printing similar shirt as we speak and they will not be sued. So after he wins no one will be buying his shirts anymore and the market will already be flooded with similar shirts. He will have no recourse against other printer making "parody" NSA" t-shirts. It is all total nonsense.