Woman Sues Yankees Over Their 75 Year Old Logo
from the ownership-society dept
Another day, another ridiculous lawsuit in a society that teaches people you can “own” anything. This time it’s a woman, Tanit Buday, who claims that the NY Yankees owe her money because of the team’s famous tophat logo, which she says was designed by her uncle in 1936, for which he was never paid:
As for why it took so long, the woman is not particularly clear. She says that part of it was due to “trust in [the] Yankees owners.” Um. Okay. While she claims that her uncle didn’t realize the team had used his design until 11 years after he designed it… she also notes that he helped the team revise the logo in 1952… so it doesn’t sound like he was all that upset about not getting paid the first time around.
Comments on “Woman Sues Yankees Over Their 75 Year Old Logo”
Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
Why can’t we get that simple rule passed?
Answer: Because lawyers have to create the law to effectively cut off a big source of income.
Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
Lawyers don’t write the laws; however, they will sue anyone who tries to put this into law.
Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
Technically true but most law makers in Wash are or were a lawyer.
Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
LAWYERS DON’T WRITE THE LAWS?????
Ask your representative who ACTUALLY did the writing of the Health Care Reform Bill.
Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
Yea, dude, sorry about this, but that’s exactly wrong. Almost everyone in the law-writing business is a lawyer. Add to that the judges (lawyers) who make law from the bench in the form of written opinions, and…fail. Sorry: I know you didn’t mean to do wrong.
Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
If that’s the rule, then good luck finding any help when a big entity violates your right.
Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
That’s the intent. Just fell off the turnip truck, did you? Reading comprehension is nontrivial your forte.
Re: Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
Goddamned predictive speller! How the hell misspelling not became nontrivial, I’ll never know. Better proofread before hitting submit.
Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
Agree. Loser should pay the winner the lower of the 2 legal bills at each level, regardless of appeal.
Situation 1: Corp sues individual and wins. The individual pays double what they pay now. Since awards are almost always based on ability to pay in this situation, nothing much would change, since this amount would be extracted out of their “ability to pay”.
Situation 2: Corp sues individual and loses. The individual’s legal fees are paid in full by the corporation. People cannot be bankrupted by corporations by “dragging it out”, because if they win, they get their legal fees paid. And this happens at each stage, so repeated appeals can’t be used for financial punishment to the individual.
Situation 3: Individual sues corporation and wins. Their legal fees are paid by the corporation, in addition to whatever awards are due. This causes corporations to want to settle quickly if they know they are wrong, instead of the current strategy of dragging it out until the individual runs out of money.
Situation 4: Individual sues corporation and loses. Frivolous lawsuits are curtailed, because double legal bills are harder to come up with.
Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
Uh, for this to be good you must presume that everybody who sues a corporation and loses had a frivolous lawsuit.
“situation 4” should say “frivolous lawsuits are curtailed, along with any suit that is not a slam dunk”
She’ll probably win because the judge will be a huge Red Sox fan and he won’t recuse himself because he’ll want the Yankees to lose as much as possible no matter the cost.
I can’t wait for the apocalypse. When someone asks what a person did, and they say lawyers, we’ll just kill and eat them. Lawyers aren’t human, afterall.
Re: Dunno
That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Re: Re: Dunno
that’s what she said
Re: Re: Re: Dunno
We’re not talking about your mom.
Re: Re:
A Cannibal ate a lawyer. He turned to his friend and said, ” This isn’t murder because he was trespassing on my property and I was in fear of my life.”
Re: Re: Re:
Brilliant. Meaningless and illiterate–thanks for that. If you’re going to attack an entire profession, at least don’t stammer the punchline.
Re: Re:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I’m not asking you to say something nice or nothing at all–I’m asking you to say SOMETHING or say nothing at all. The empty-headed lawyer-bashing is some of the lamest stuff I see on TD. Too bad, because it grossly lowers what is otherwise often great conversation.
So, Scythe, I’ll ask you: if you were a DOE defendant in an open-wifi downloading case, where would you turn for help or advice? EFF? ACLU? A friend of yours who’s (gasp) a lawyer? Let me spin a quick yarn for you: a woman leaves her wifi open, and someone siphons it and uses it to illegally download a movie; then the owner of the wifi gets sued as a DOE by Big Content and offered a $3,000 “settlement.” I’m a lawyer, and I help her avoid this brand of extortion, and I do it for free. Am I part of the problem?
Please think a little.
Normally I would laugh at the woman, but like most of the world, I hate the Yankees.
Um, copyright
Not a trademark lawsuit. A copyright lawsuit.
first why didn’t the uncle demand the money years ago!! You mean to tell me that now after all these years a women who by the way had nothing to do with the design now thinks she is entitled to the money. If you ask me if the uncle wasn’t smart enough to get paid then too bad for her espically after 75 years.
“75 years seems an unreasonable delay in my book”
well, the flipside is worth thinking about too.
copyright law protects any company from infringement for 99 years – thanks to eisner at disney. which is, well, longer than her claim against the yankees. copyright law also says that if the artwork wasn’t paid for then it remains the property of her uncle. so the statute protecting her still has some legs. assuming she can claim the inheritance.
now flip this puppy over and see what happens.
she goes to the cheapest cut and sew operation in china and starts selling original-real-deal-merchadise-just-like-old-man-drew-it-in-’36 which she buys for 3 bucks a pop, to yankees fans for 100 bucks a pop. now it is the yankees lawyers turn to say hey, that’s our IP! pay up sweety or stop. and she sez. good luck with that. talk to my lawyer.
nice work if you can get it. and you can get it if you try.
xnxx.com