Perhaps the NSA has finally met its match: copyright infringement. You may have seen the logo that the NSA is using for the PRISM program (shown here upside down for a reason that will become clear shortly): Well, it turns out that the prism image that they used is being used without permission. The photo was actually taken by Adam Hart-Davis, a well-known BBC presenter. You can see the original below:
Photo by Adam Hart-Davis/DHD Multimedia Gallery As Adam's son, Damon, notes in the link above, the image is free for use via his gallery under some simple terms, including acknowledging the author. Damon jokingly suggests asking the NSA for a small donation, though he worries about any undue attention from the folks at the NSA.

Of course, in a country where copyright laws trump all, perhaps Damon could sue for infringement and seek discovery to find out all the documentation on PRISM.

There's no better way to treat your paying customers than by taking away some functionality. Most people would consider the previous statement to be completely full of shit, but when you look at it from the perspective of a proud bookstore chain that seemingly adores its own tasteful logo, it all begins to... Nope. It's not working. The thought process involved in the following debacle seems to have short circuited somewhere between the marketing team and the IT squad, resulting in this bit of branding stupidity.

Remember how Waterstones was going to sell the Kindle and take a sales commission on the hardware and any ebooks bought from that device? Apparently they decided that the subtle but positive relationship of simply making money off the Kindle wasn't good enough; now they've turned the Kindles they sell into billboards.

The Kindles sold by Waterstones got a firmware update in early November. This update wasn't rolled out to all the Kindles, and for good reason. According to a couple different users (this story has also been confirmed by Waterstones) the only change in the update was a new screensaver.

I have not yet seen it myself, but the Kindle owners are reporting that all the screensavers have been replaced by a Waterstones logo. Furthermore, there's no way to disable or replace that screensaver, so every time these Kindle owners pick up their device they will be reminded where they purchased it.

Advertising on the Kindle is nothing new. The ad-supported version is available at a discount if the buyer's willing to put up with being advertised at in exchange for a price break. But, as The Digital Reader points out, Waterstones-branded Kindles aren't discounted.

Instead, as thanks for purchasing a portable Amazon ecosystem from a brick-and-mortar, Waterstones' customers are now locked into a single screensaver that will constantly remind them who they need to contact for a full refund... which, unbelievably, Waterstones is actually offering.

Thank you for your email regarding your Kindle Paperwhite from Waterstones.

I am sorry you are disappointed by the addition of a Waterstones screensaver after the recent software update to Kindle. It is our view that this screensaver does not constitute advertising and differs substantially to the advertising-supported Kindles available to the US market. The Waterstones screensaver is a non-dynamic, static image that will change infrequently and not advertise any specific product, offer or website.

It is not possible to remove the Waterstones screensaver to replace it with the former Amazon screensaver. We apologise that this change was made without consultation, and hope it does not detract from or alter your reading experience. However, if you feel it does, please let us know and we will arrange for the return of the device and a full refund.

I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.

Yours sincerely,

**********
Customer Service Team
Waterstones.com

This should do some serious damage to what was already a rather sketchy hookup. Back in September, Waterstones' CEO James Daunt made the following ostensibly cheerful statement announcing its partnership with Amazon.

"There are substantial difficulties for us around working with our major competitor," Daunt said at the Independent Publishers Guild Digital Quarterly Meeting on Tuesday, according to The Bookseller. "But we think we have an agreement which protects some of the most significant bear traps that sit there, and there are some major upsides for us."

Notably, Daunt didn't say that the agreement protects Waterstones from "significant bear traps." Instead, his Freudian slippage states that the traps themselves will be unharmed, even if, as it appears, Waterstones has to trigger the traps on its own.

The deal was never advantageous, what with Waterstones making the most money when purchasers bought ebooks using its in-store wifi network. It's hard to believe this strategy of getting customers into the physical store in hopes that they'd spend part of the time shopping on their Kindles has paid off. Perhaps the always-on "W" is meant to remind customers where they purchased their Kindles and why not go have a look around the bookstore a bit then.

On the plus side, Waterstones customers were threatened with warned about promised some additional bonuses for their branded Kindles during this rollout announcement:

At yesterday's IPG event, Daunt revealed a few more details about Waterstones' Amazon partnership. "Waterstones-specific Kindle screensavers, bestseller lists and a Read For Free offer are among the plans," The Bookseller reports.

That's a pretty frickin' specific screensaver, Daunt. Shame it changes so "infrequently" as to be completely undetectable.

Via Asher Wolf, we learn that a French company by the name of Early Flicker, who appears to focus on making and selling pop-culture referencing t-shirts, has applied for a trademark on Anonymous' logo and slogan (pdf and embedded below). This does not seem wise.

If you look around, there are others selling Anonymous apparel, but trying to trademark the logo, and limit its use by others isn't just playing with fire, it's directly taunting a large group of people with weapons that shoot fire... and who have little hesitation in using them.

Some companies spend a lot of effort tweaking their logo and making sure their brand image stays shiny and new. But how much does it really matter? There are some truly iconic corporate logos, but it's really the businesses behind the logos that create the image of the company. Not the other way around. Or maybe a nice reliable-looking logo really does inspire a company and its employees to bleed purple or something....

• Would you even notice if the name and logo didn't match? A project by Tommaso Guerra mixes up a few recognizable logos and brands; Guerra isn't the first to do this and he won't be the last... [url]
• A hundred web brands and their logos make a pretty rainbow. Except the main colors are either blue or red -- with just a little green, yellow, orange, purple and gray. [url]
• LogoLounge has published its 10th annual logo trends report, pointing out a few common logo elements that some designers are (over-)using. With the potato chip logo, perhaps once you pop, you can't stop. [url]
• To discover more interesting advertising-related content, check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Governments are pretty touchy about their logos. Last year, the FBI threw a hissy fit when it discovered that Wikipedia accurately displayed its logo on a page about (you guessed it) the FBI. Similarly, the White House got upset with a blogger who used the White House logo in a post about a meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. And, while there is a federal law against misuse of logos, that's for people using the logos to misrepresent themselves. Going after Wikipedia or journalists for using logos in a descriptive manner is silly.

However, Fluvanna County, Virginia, decided that it had nothing better to do than to pass an ordinance similarly banning the use of its logo, in an effort that appeared to have been directed at a blogger who used the logo... on stories about the county. Thankfully, a court has struck down the law as being a First Amendment violation:

This sweeping prohibition encompasses a substantial number of uses of the seal that would not suggest government endorsement, such as the display on a website of an exact copy of an official County news release that contains the image of the seal next to the text, or the publication in a newspaper of a photograph of a County official delivering a speech from a podium upon which the County seal is attached and visible.

The court does compare it to the similar federal law, but notes that at least the federal law makes it clear that it's only intended for use where there may be confusion over a potential endorsement. And, with that, here's the damn logo that the county can't sue us over.

Shakespeare wrote: What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet. -- but how much does a company's name really matter? Here are a few quick links on corporate logos and some branding twists.

• Graham Smith is swapping the names behind various logos in an ongoing project -- that looks a bit confusing at times. Modified logos are fun -- hopefully, though, the artists behind them won't be sued for trademark violations.... [url]
• The ninth annual LogoLounge report on logo trends is out, covering 2011. This year's colors are lighter and seem to include a lot of leaves. [url]
• Graphic designers from 2007 might remember this catchy song with the refrain: "Make The Logo Bigger!" "I don't wanna tell you how to do your job, but could you make the logo bigger?" [url]
• Coca-cola is going to make its Diet Coke logo so big -- that it won't quite fit on the can. Thankfully, they didn't mess with the formula for Diet Coke. [url]
• To discover more interesting advertising-related content, check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Last year, we wrote about the FBI threatening Wikipedia for having the FBI logo on its site. Wikipedia, thanks to its General Counsel Mike Godwin (of Godwin's Law fame), responded with a wonderful snarky reply. While the FBI backed down, it does not appear that the administration got the message that there are situations in which a website might post federal logos and not break the law. The latest involves the White House, who apparently got upset that blogger Keith Cowing (of SpaceRef.com -- a blog about science/space policy) included the White House logo in his post about a meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. In response, the White House actually called Cowing and demanded he take down the logo. In case you're wondering, this is the logo: Now, this is a perfectly reasonable use of the logo. We're discussing it, and it's relevant to the news story. It was also relevant to Cowing's post. The issue that the White House has is with 18 U.S.C. sec. 701, which is designed to prevent someone from falsely passing themselves off as working for the government by misusing such a badge. Posting the badge on a website where it makes sense clearly does not qualify. No one was reading that blog post thinking he represented the White House. The White House also mentioned the "proximity to advertising," suggesting they were afraid that it would be seen as being associated with the White House. However, as the EFF notes in the link above, that's a pretty ridiculous interpretation:

Cowing's use isn't deceptive either. The seal is plainly used in conjunction with the news article and the advertisement is no closer on this blog than ads are on news websites and in most newspapers and magazines for that matter. In fact, the seal of the Executive Office of the President of the United States is used extensively all over the internet, sometimes even in promixity to advertising. Threatening phone calls from the White House only serve to chill free speech. Indeed, Cowing has replaced the image of the seal with a pixelated version and the words “OSTP Logo Pixelated Due to a Phone Call Complaint from the White House.”

Finally, we agree with the EFF in noting: "surely the White House has better things to do than to threaten bloggers engaged in legitimate free speech."

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: Um. Yeah. So, I would imagine that the Yankees will pretty quickly point the court to the principle of laches, which is regularly used to dump trademark infringement lawsuits where there was an "unreasonable delay pursuing a claim." 75 years seems like an unreasonable delay in my book.

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.

We've written a couple times about the absolutely ridiculous lawsuit that publishing giant Reed Elsevier filed against the punk band The Vandals. At issue was the fact that, years ago, the band put out an album, in which its logo was designed to parody the logo of Daily Variety, the Hollywood trade rag published by Reed Elsevier.

Way back when the album was first coming out, Variety had sent a cease and desist letter, and rather than fighting it (with a very strong fair use/parody claim) The Vandals caved and agreed not to use the image. However, the image can still be found online -- but not on sites controlled by the band. So Reed Elsevier and Variety are suing the band for somehow not magically stopping these other sites from using the image.

I had thought that once the ridiculousness of this became public, Reed Elsevier would quickly back down, but instead it dug in. Even more ridiculous is that it sued in Delaware, knowing that this would make life more difficult for the band, which is based in LA. Making things even more interesting is that the band's bassist, Joe Escalante, is also a former entertainment industry lawyer, though not a litigator. But, not one to back down from a fight, he decided to represent the band, went about learning the basics of litigation, and even got himself admitted to practice in Delaware.

Escalante emailed us to let us know that all of this has paid off so far, as the band has won the first round of the legal fight, and got the suit tossed out in Delaware and sent to California where it should have been filed in the first place. The short and sweet court order makes it clear that the judge finds it distasteful that Reed appears to have purposely filed the lawsuit across the country from the band to make life difficult for the band. You can see the full order below, but the key point is in the footnote, where the court notes that it certainly could have jurisdiction on the case, but given the circumstances, it feels that it is not appropriate, clearly suggesting that it recognizes the use of the court in Delaware was mainly to inconvenience the band:

The court recognizes that it could, if it were so inclined, choose to exercise jurisdiction over this matter and permit this case to proceed here in Delaware, given that a settlement agreement between the parties contains a clause that names Delaware as the forum for litigating disputes arising from the agreement. That settlement does not bind this court, however, and given the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, the court has decided in its discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction. First, all relevant conduct and activities appear to have taken place in California, where the defendants reside and operate. Similarly, it appears that the Central District of California would be a far more convenient forum for trial, since the court's reading of the complaint and other documents in the record is that the vast majority of documents and witnesses pertaining to this case are in California. Furthermore, the consent judgment that underlies the plaintiffs' complaint was entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and states that that court retains jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing the consent judgment and related permanent injunction. It would be far better for that court to determine whether the conduct in question falls within the scope of the consent judgment and permanent injunction. Finally, given the defendants' apparently limited financial resources and the significant costs associated with litigating in Delaware, the court finds that the defendants would be unfairly prejudiced if they were forced to litigate in this district.

In response to this ruling the band has been mocking Variety and its lawyers relentlessly. The link above goes to a pretty incendiary blog post which, frankly, might also open the band up to defamation charges, but that would really only be digging Reed Elsevier deeper into a truly pointless legal battle. Separately, the band has used our favorite movie creation tool, Xtranormal to create this rather hilarious (and probably NSFW) video of a "fictitious meeting" between Variety's outside lawyer on this case and Variety's editor. It made me laugh:

Apparently the FBI has some free time on its hands. How else can you explain this bizarre, and almost certainly legally questionable attempt to force Wikipedia to remove its logo on Wikipedia's article on the FBI: Wikipedia's General Counsel, Mike Godwin (yes, of Godwin's law fame) responded to the FBI with a delightfully snarky reply (pdf) noting that the FBI's reading of the law concerning displaying an FBI badge is clearly written to prevent people from falsely presenting themselves as being with the FBI or directly profiting from the use of the seal: Godwin notes that the version of the law that the FBI conveniently sent him just happened to omit some parts of the law, which basically show that the law is entirely focused on such attempts to use the logo to deceive. Among the key passages:

Entertainingly, in support for your argument, you included a version of 701 in which you removed the very phrases that subject the statute to ejusdem generis analysis. While we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it, the fact is that we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version of Section 701 that you forwarded to us.

In your letter, you assert that an image of an FBI seal included in a Wikipedia article is "problematic" because "it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting violations" of 18 U.S.C. 701. I hope you will agree that the adjective "problematic," even if it were truly applicable here, is not semantically identical to "unlawful." Even if it could be proved that someone, somewhere, found a way to use a Wikipedia article illustration to facilitate a fraudulent representation, that would not render the illustration itself unlawful under the statute. As the leading case interpreting Section 701 points out, "The enactment of § 701 was intended to protect the public against the use of a recognizable assertion of authority with intent to deceive." ... Our inclusion of an image of the FBI Seal is in no way evidence of any "intent to deceive," nor is it an "assertion of authority," recognizable or otherwise.

Godwin also points out that the Encyclopaedia Britannica appears to have an image of the logo as well. As for our own usage here, I'll first note that the NY Times is also displaying the logo with its story, and it would seem that all three of us are similarly not running afoul of this law, in that none of us are using the logo with any attempt to deceive at all, but to display factual information for the sake of informing.