<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;logos&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:44:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Things You Don't See Every Day: MPAA Argues For Fair Use In Court</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130409/14320522648/things-you-dont-see-every-day-mpaa-argues-fair-use-court.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130409/14320522648/things-you-dont-see-every-day-mpaa-argues-fair-use-court.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ April Fool's Day has already passed, so it appears this is legit.  Yes, the MPAA has jumped into a court case <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/nfls-baltimore-ravens-logo-why-435543" target="_blank">to argue in favor of fair use</a>.  A few years ago, we wrote about the fact that there are actually lawyers whose main job is to watch movies to make sure every single thing that's in there that might be covered by trademark or copyright is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0319025726.shtml">licensed</a>.  This leads to some crazy situations, such as the re-release of <i>Titanic</i> requiring a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120425/02202418647/cultural-insanity-you-cant-show-painting-movie-without-paying-copyright-holder.shtml">new license</a> to show some of the paintings hanging in the film.
<br /><br />
But what happens when a work in a film is infringing?  Well, that's the case at hand here.  Apparently, the Baltimore Ravens football team used a logo designed by a fan for a few years, violating his copyright.  The court ruled against the team, but also didn't give the artist any money, since it noted that any profits from the team had nothing to do with the logo.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/Jzeq2Rs"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Jzeq2Rs.jpg" /></a>
</center>
The artist, Frederick Bouchat, has continued to sue, trying to find creative ways to get some cash.  Here's THREsq summarizing the recent lawsuits and the result:
<blockquote><i>
Then, in 2008, Bouchat sued the NFL and the Baltimore Ravens again. This time, he objected to use of the old infringing logo in highlight films, on the stadium's display of old players and memorabilia. Then, a few years after that, he sued yet another time over use of the logo in documentary videos, in pictures on the stadium wall and in the Madden NFL football game, which allows users to compete with throwback uniforms.
<br /><br />
Last November, a federal judge declared most of the uses -- including in NFL television series and documentaries such as one that featured the player draft -- to be covered as "fair use." The judge factored in the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work. The only use that fell outside of fair use was the way in which Bouchat's logo was incorporated into a video game.
</i></blockquote>
Bouchat appealed.  And suddenly, the MPAA woke up and realized that fair use matters to the MPAA too.  If the ruling goes in favor of Bouchat, suddenly many, many movies may be on the hook for things that happened to show up in movies that weren't properly licensed.  And then, the very same MPAA, who has worked hard to limit fair use around the globe, wouldn't be very happy.  So it actually had some Stanford fair use lawyers (who aren't often on the same page as the MPAA) help it draft an <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/682392-134957061-bouchat-v-nfl-amici-ida-mpaa-find.html" target="_blank">amicus brief explaining why fair use is important</a>.
<blockquote><i>
Bouchat asks this court to adopt a rule that would depart from well established
precedent and would have the potential to interfere with important
speech and expression rights. Bouchat seeks nothing less than a de facto right to
control the depiction of facts&#8212;in this case, events that actually happened on the
football field&#8212;simply because those facts include the fact that the players wore
uniforms that include Bouchat&#8217;s copyrighted logo. It is antithetical to the purposes
of copyright to use it to force an inaccurate depiction of actual events.
<br /><br />
The potential impact of Bouchat&#8217;s claims is not limited to the Baltimore
Ravens or the NFL. Many historical subjects cannot be discussed effectively
without the use of copyrighted material. It would be difficult, for example, to make
an effective biography of an actor without including audiovisual clips depicting his
work, in order, for example, to illustrate a point about his career and impact,
Hofheinz v. A & E Television Networks, 146 F.Supp.2d 442, 446&#8211;47 (S.D.N.Y.
2001) (finding transformative film footage used for the purpose of enabling the
viewer to understand the actor Peter Graves&#8217; modest beginnings in the film
business), or to create a comprehensive study of surrealist art without including
works by Salvador Dali, to accompany the author&#8217;s commentary, see Warren
Publ&#8217;g Co. v. Spurlock, 645 F.Supp.2d 402, 419 (E.D. Pa. 2009). It would be
nearly impossible to document any sliver of life in a major American city without
capturing vast numbers of logos, signs, billboards, and other copyrighted works
along the way. Cf. ESS Entm&#8217;t 2000 v. Rock Star Videos, 547 F. 3d 1095, 1100 (9th
Cir. 2008) (&#8220;Possibly the only way, and certainly a reasonable way, to&#8221; recreate
&#8220;look and feel&#8221; of city was &#8220;to recreate a critical mass of the businesses and
buildings that constitute it,&#8221; even if protected by trademark). It would be similarly
impossible to make a documentary about the healthfulness of McDonald&#8217;s food
(Super Size Me) or Wal-Mart&#8217;s business practices (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of
Low Price) without depicting each company&#8217;s logo.
<br /><br />
Bouchat asks this Court to set forth a rule that would require permission for
uses like these. That rule would have a profoundly negative impact on free speech
and expression because rights-holders would demand some control over the way
individuals or organizations are portrayed, or simply choose to prohibit unflattering
or disfavored depictions.
</i></blockquote>
Funny, isn't it, that this is the very same MPAA who insists that nothing about copyright law can be construed to be a limit on free speech.  Well, until it's the free speech of the MPAA's studio members, I guess.
<br /><br />
Not surprisingly, I actually agree strongly with the MPAA (who thought they'd ever see that come out of me?) that this should be fair use.  I just find it funny to see the MPAA making such an argument.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130409/14320522648/things-you-dont-see-every-day-mpaa-argues-fair-use-court.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130409/14320522648/things-you-dont-see-every-day-mpaa-argues-fair-use-court.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130409/14320522648/things-you-dont-see-every-day-mpaa-argues-fair-use-court.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>say-what-now?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130409/14320522648</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Make The Logos Bigger, Better</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Logos can convey all kinds of messages -- and instill a sense of confidence or demonstrate a lack of attention to detail. Some logos are fun. Others are serious. Some company logos don't change very much over a long period of time, but others seem to change with every passing design fad. Some logo <a href="http://branddunk.com/2008/10/31/can-pepsi-afford-to-spend-1-billion-on-a-butt-crack/">re-designs</a> are more successful than others. Here are just a few interesting logo collections of some branding campaigns that you might recognize.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/its_a_sports_nation_we_are_only_living_in_it.php" href="http://bit.ly/URsF7M">SB Nation's network of 300 blogs redesigned all their logos for a re-launch -- with just a single designer, Fraser Davidson, in 7 weeks.</a> Designing 300 logos is hard enough, but add in the complication that none of these logos should in any way infringe upon their related sports teams' official trademarks.... [<a href="http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/its_a_sports_nation_we_are_only_living_in_it.php">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://hipsterbranding.tumblr.com/" href="http://bit.ly/SkvQo3">Imagine some popular corporate logos redesigned for a hipster blog or startup.</a> You don't have to imagine it, there's a Tumblr blog for it. [<a href="http://hipsterbranding.tumblr.com/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://best-ad.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolution-of-logos.html" href="http://bit.ly/P2cYFv">The evolution of corporate logos is kinda fascinating.</a> Apple's first logo in 1976 is really different from its current minimalistic logo. [<a href="http://best-ad.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolution-of-logos.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.graphicdesignblog.org/hidden-logos-in-graphic-designing/" href="http://bit.ly/OSHUxm">Some logos have hidden messages in them.</a> The Big Ten collegiate conference logo has a little nod to the fact that there are actually eleven teams in its organization. [<a href="http://www.graphicdesignblog.org/hidden-logos-in-graphic-designing/">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101007/10185011324</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:37:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Feeling Threatened By Online Grocery Store, Apple Challenges Polish Site A.pl</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/14350920362/feeling-threatened-online-grocery-store-apple-challenges-polish-site-apl.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/14350920362/feeling-threatened-online-grocery-store-apple-challenges-polish-site-apl.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apple is <i>very</i> protective of its Apple name and logo trademarks. We have noted in the past that it seems to think that no company can use a logo that even remotely <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/01124516464/apple-continues-to-insist-only-it-can-use-apple-logo-threatens-small-german-cafe.shtml">resembles an apple</a>. So it really should be no surprise to learn that Apple is going on the offensive, double time, in order to <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/apple-trademark-idINL5E8KB2HD20120911" target="_blank">stop a Polish online grocery store from receiving a trademark for A.pl</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>"Apple brand is widely recognised and the company says that A.pl, by using the name that sounds similar, is using Apple's reputation," patent office spokesman Adam Taukert said.</i></blockquote>
There also seems to be a <a href="http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/10/apple-reportedly-suing-polish-online-supermarket-trademarking-name-a-pl/" target="_blank">dispute over a logo trademark sought by A.pl for its site Fresh24.pl</a>. You can see the logo in question below.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/CFFXx"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/CFFXx.jpg" width=400 /></a>
</center>
Or how about  this side by side comparison:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/RUUcW"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/RUUcW.jpg" width=400 /></a>
</center>
Last time I checked, Apple had no business endeavors in online grocery sales, so it would seem to be a stretch to think that consumers would be confused and think that A.pl was an offering by the electronics company. Additionally, A.pl and Fresh24.pl seem to be regional and limited to Poland at this time. So there would be limited harm if any to Apple's global brand. In the end, this just ends up looking like a bunch of trademark lawyers on Apple's payroll looking to keep busy and gain billable hours.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/14350920362/feeling-threatened-online-grocery-store-apple-challenges-polish-site-apl.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/14350920362/feeling-threatened-online-grocery-store-apple-challenges-polish-site-apl.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/14350920362/feeling-threatened-online-grocery-store-apple-challenges-polish-site-apl.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>comparing-apples-to-a.pl's</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120912/14350920362</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:47:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple Still Seems To Think That Only It Could Possibly Have An Apple Shaped Logo</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/13240615842/apple-still-seems-to-think-that-only-it-could-possibly-have-apple-shaped-logo.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/13240615842/apple-still-seems-to-think-that-only-it-could-possibly-have-apple-shaped-logo.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few years ago, we noted that Apple was threatening the New Zealand supermarket chain Woolworths (not connected to the now defunct US retailer of the same name) for daring to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0028486413.shtml">have an apple-shaped W</a> as its logo:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Hc2kG.jpg" width=400 />
</center>
It's hard to see anyone being even remotely confused.  But it's not stopping Apple lawyers.  Vic alerts us to the news that Apple is threatening Sichuan Fangguo Food Co., Ltd. in China for its logo:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/QifI4.jpg" width=400 />
</center>
Once again, I'm at a loss as to how anyone, a moron in a hurry or not, would be confused about these two logos.  And, I bring up the moron in a hurry standard purposely here, as it was Apple's own lawyers who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060330/1829246.shtml">repopularized</a> the "moron in a hurry" standard for use in trademark law in its own trademark fight with The Beatles' Apple Corp.
<br /><br />
And, honestly, as almost everyone notes on seeing the Sichuan Fangguo Food Co. logo, if anyone should be upset, it should be LG, whose logo looks a lot closer:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/8U4gE.gif" />
</center>
Or, you know, we can just admit that absolutely no one is confused about any of these... and move on with our lives.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/13240615842/apple-still-seems-to-think-that-only-it-could-possibly-have-apple-shaped-logo.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/13240615842/apple-still-seems-to-think-that-only-it-could-possibly-have-apple-shaped-logo.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/13240615842/apple-still-seems-to-think-that-only-it-could-possibly-have-apple-shaped-logo.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>uh,-that's-not-how-trademark-law-works...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110907/13240615842</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:13:20 PST</pubDate>
<title>Colleges Cracking Down On High Schools Using Their Logos</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101113/16105011852/colleges-cracking-down-on-high-schools-using-their-logos.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101113/16105011852/colleges-cracking-down-on-high-schools-using-their-logos.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently had a story of a high school caught with a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100210/0048218105.shtml">logo copied</a> from the Dodge Ram logo.  Apparently, this idea of high schools copying their logos is hardly an isolated instance.  For decades, it's been commonplace for high schools to just copy the logos of various colleges (or, at least use them for very close "inspiration"), but lately <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102106526_pf.html" target="_blank">colleges have started cracking down on this practice</a>, threatening high schools, or even demanding payment.  This is really the latest result of a trend we've noted in the past, where universities and colleges have taken trademarks to a new level after some court rulings suggested <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/1111117566.shtml">exclusive rights in college logos existed</a>.  Of course, it seems a bit silly.  It's not as if anyone's going to buy a high school t-shirt instead of the college shirt, but it seems like these universities and colleges want to be aggressive with their trademark efforts.  At least some appear to have very reasonable licensing programs.  Apparently KSU lets anyone use their logo for $1 every two years -- but does put some restrictions on it, such as not letting you sell t-shirts with the inspired logo unless they use a KSU-connected vendor, who gives a percentage to the university.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101113/16105011852/colleges-cracking-down-on-high-schools-using-their-logos.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101113/16105011852/colleges-cracking-down-on-high-schools-using-their-logos.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101113/16105011852/colleges-cracking-down-on-high-schools-using-their-logos.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>logo-wars</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101113/16105011852</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:20:54 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Daily Variety Refuses To Back Down On Vandals Lawsuit</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100909/04322810952.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100909/04322810952.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, we wrote about how publishing giant Reed Elsevier had decided to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100418/2352599064.shtml">sue the band The Vandals</a>, for supposedly violating a previous agreement not to use an album logo that parodied Reed's publication, Daily Variety:
<center>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4538650915_21e4ec865e.jpg"/><br />

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2740/4539276040_9c019f506f.jpg"/>
</center>
While the band had agreed not to use the logo, images with the logo were being found on various websites, but it was other sites using it, not the band promoting it itself.  Furthermore, it's clearly a parody, which should be legal (though it's complicated by the band's agreement to stop using the logo, so the contractual issues take precedence over the trademark/parody questions).  What's amazing is that after all the negative attention being put on Reed over such a ridiculously minor issue, <a href="http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/09/did-you-know-that-daily-variety-is-suing-a-popular-rock-band.html" target="_blank">the company refuses to back down</a> and is still pushing forward with the case.  It's difficult to see why this makes sense in any way.  Reed is a publishing giant.  It hardly needs to win this lawsuit, and it's got nothing to do with protecting its trademark any more.  Besides, this lawsuit has done a hell of a lot more to promote the old logo than anything that happened before.
<br /><br />
Where this gets even more interesting (or potentially dangerous, depending on your opinion), is that the band's bassist, Joe Escalante, is a former entertainment lawyer who is representing the band in the case.  Despite not being a litigator, he's been learning about litigation and even got himself admitted to practice law in Delaware, where the lawsuit was filed (the band is trying to get the case moved to LA).  Escalante has been publicizing all of the aspects of the case, and the band is even holding a "fundraising" concert to fund the legal defense.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100909/04322810952.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100909/04322810952.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100909/04322810952.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pick-your-battles</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100909/04322810952</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:08:21 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Questions Raised About Logo Artist Who Was Accused Of 'Stealing' From Himself</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090409/2257424461.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090409/2257424461.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, well, well... a few folks have been sending in some of the investigations that have been going on concerning the logo designer, Jon Engle, who caused a big stir on a variety of sites (including <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/1849164399.shtml">ours</a>) by claiming that he was being accused of infringing on his own logo artwork.  However, as more people started investigating the matter, <a href="http://www.thelogofactory.com.nyud.net/logo_blog/index.php/stock-logos-copyright-twitter/" target="_new">his story has become increasingly suspect</a>, both with certain elements not adding up, and additional evidence suggesting that Engle himself may have, in fact, used images from others in the logos he had uploaded to sites.  There are also some other <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20090405/1849164399#c1313">claims</a> that Engle had absolutely nothing to do with some of the logos that he said he designed.  However, as the public scrutiny of Engle's story is spreading, Engle's reputation is taking a big hit -- showing how the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml">damage</a> done to one's own reputation by plagiarism can be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080529/1914021263.shtml">punitive</a>, even without invoking copyright law.  Reputation is a scarce good... destroying it by lying and duping a bunch of folks is going to come back to bite you.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090409/2257424461.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090409/2257424461.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090409/2257424461.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>look-again</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090409/2257424461</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 2 Apr 2008 21:44:55 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Microsoft Claims Patent On Popular Children's Magazine Feature</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080323/142632.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080323/142632.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <b>theodp</b> writes <i>&quot;Remember those cute <a href="http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/imageviewer.asp?ean=9780824915018">Highlights for Children rebus stories</a> that <a href="http://www.highlights.com/shopping/product/alternateviews.jsp?iProductID=2617&#038;picindex=1">pair pictures with words</a>? Well, <a href="http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;d=PG01&#038;p=1&#038;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;s1=%2220080071612%22.PGNR.&#038;OS=DN/20080071612&#038;RS=DN/20080071612">Microsoft has laid claim to a patent</a> for bringing the same concept to your e-mail and the web, <a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2329/2350276578_4dfb5bf922_o.jpg">replacing words with corporate logos</a> (logocons in Microsoft parlance), which may someday make the web <a href="http://www.franciscodacosta.com/media/r/rebus.gif">look like this</a>.&quot;</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080323/142632.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080323/142632.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080323/142632.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>rebus-indeed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080323/142632</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:36:15 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Major League Baseball Deletes Popular MySpace Page For Using Cubs Logo</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070824/015037.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070824/015037.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ By now, it certainly shouldn't come as any surprise that Major League Baseball mis-interprets various intellectual property laws to pretend is has total control over certain content.  After all, this is the organization that has insisted repeatedly that it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070614/165928.shtml">owns facts</a>, despite court after court explaining that facts aren't copyrightable.  MLB also seems confused about copyright law when it comes to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070530/003414.shtml">the legality of placeshifting</a>.  In the past, MLB also freaked out about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20020731/0914238.shtml">fan websites</a> potentially violating trademarks -- but that was a long time ago.  Or so we thought.  Apparently the fun lawyers at MLB <a href="http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kaufman/2007/08/24/friday/">shut down an immensely popular MySpace page for Chicago Cubs fans</a> that was linked to a fan website called <a href="http://www.cubbiesbaseball.com/">Cubbies Baseball</a>.  That fan website actually has a license to use the official Chicago Cubs logo, but MLB claims that the license didn't extend to MySpace as well -- just the Cubbies Baseball site.  King Kaufman, the sports writer at Salon, blames MLB for not asking the owner of the site to remove the logo -- but puts more blame on MySpace for simply shutting down the site the second MLB complained, without giving any warning.  He seems to think MLB isn't totally in the wrong in demanding the logo be removed, but again that's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070817/192302.shtml">not necessarily true</a>.  If the site was clear that it was a fan site and had no official endorsement or association with the Cubs, it should be fair use to use the logo.  MLB trots out the tired explanation that it <i>has</i> to defend its trademarks or risk losing them, but that's not so in a case where there's an obvious fair use exception.  Either way, from a common sense standpoint, it's ridiculous for MySpace and MLB to shut down a vibrant fan community -- and it's made worse when you realize that the use of the logo probably isn't even a real violation of trademark law.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070824/015037.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070824/015037.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070824/015037.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-many-fans-can-we-alienate-this-week?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070824/015037</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>