Copyright infringment/ and or Fair Use?

[Dan Antonelli]

Agree, VALID POINTS however the reality of it.....: A lot of back and forth here and skipped over a couple posts but from my understanding your designed logo, has been put on the internet, which is a public domain and as long as someone didnt sell the logo for a profit they can use it as they please (BLOG: freedom of speech?) . Would this be any different than (example) SideShow ...using the USMC logo as his avatar and saying something in one of these posts that the USMC doesnt completely agree with.....or someone using a team logo or whatever....?

No they bastardized a logo we designed, and used it without permission to parody a national candidate. I don't think anyone 'profited' from it, but nonetheless, they used my client's mark in unflattering context, which in theory, is harmful to their brand. The original post shows both original and altered logos.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

No they bastardized a logo we designed, and used it without permission to parody a national candidate. I don't think anyone 'profited' from it, but nonetheless, they used my client's mark in unflattering context, which in theory, is harmful to their brand. The original post shows both original and altered logos.

I think though (and I'm not a lawyer, my dad yes, but not me) unless they can show actual damages, not just theoritical, it's going to be hard.

Now if someone called up your client, said that they saw the unflattering use and they will not be doing business anymore with your client. Then, in my non-lawyer opinion, I would think that there would be a case for your client.

With just theoritical damages it's a lot harder to go in your favor, especially when it comes to evaluating those theoritical damages. If "you" can show that someone actually terminated a contract due to what they saw in regard to that logo and then I would say it would be much easier to show the damages "you" suffered as it would be spelled out in what "you" lost by the contract being terminated.

Once again, I'm not a lawyer, so keep that in mind when reading this.

 

[signswi]

You don't want to say they used parody as that IS a protected right.

 

[ucmj22]

I think the first thing would be to have your client issue a cease and desist order. This alone might be enough to scare them in to taking it down.

 

[TyrantDesigner]

interesting feature now. Personally, I think this would be considered fair use if they aren't going to be making money off it and it seems to be a parody of the original for a satire purpose. The original should be attributed to though.

 

[Gino]

No they bastardized a logo we designed, and used it without permission to parody a national candidate. I don't think anyone 'profited' from it, but nonetheless, they used my client's mark in unflattering context, which in theory, is harmful to their brand. The original post shows both original and altered logos.

I think though (and I'm not a lawyer, my dad yes, but not me) unless they can show actual damages, not just theoritical, it's going to be hard.

Now if someone called up your client, said that they saw the unflattering use and they will not be doing business anymore with your client. Then, in my non-lawyer opinion, I would think that there would be a case for your client.

With just theoritical damages it's a lot harder to go in your favor, especially when it comes to evaluating those theoritical damages. If "you" can show that someone actually terminated a contract due to what they saw in regard to that logo and then I would say it would be much easier to show the damages "you" suffered as it would be spelled out in what "you" lost by the contract being terminated.

Once again, I'm not a lawyer, so keep that in mind when reading this.

I'm no lawyer either, but have been around plenty of them on both sides of the fence.... in and out of court.

You say no one profited ?? Perhaps not money-wise, but character-wise and credibility-wise.... regardless of what your political cause if any there is..... someone is spending money to hurt another individual's chances of achieving his/her goal and in slandering. Those are costs.

There is such a thing as intent to do business in a normal manner, and this was not the original manner it was intended. Someone has reached across the intent of this logo and in this case, has changed it enough to cause considerable pain and losses to both you and your client. This damages and impedes your ability for possible other and/or future clients who now might associate you with this so-called parody. Parody shit, it's a total misuse of someone else's property and creativity.

Honestly, I think you could find quite a few lawyers that would gladly take this one on... on a contingency basis. This could really turn out in your favor... regardless of your political beliefs.




Besides, why should you take on the burden of defending yourself, every time someone sees this so-called parody and might possibly relate it to you ?? It's a total disgrace to the political machine and what it will do.... to get it's filthy point across.

I'd beat the livin' snot out of them, if I could find the culprits responsible. ​

 

[Steve C.]

Dan, the place to start is by letting them know you and your client are aware
of the infringement and politely ask them to remove it.
If they do not comply, register a DMCA complaint with their internet provider,
Google and their advertisers, if any.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

You say no one profited ?? Perhaps not money-wise, but character-wise and credibility-wise.... regardless of what your political cause if any there is..... someone is spending money to hurt another individual's chances of achieving his/her goal and in slandering. Those are costs.

I didn't say anything about the person having or not having a profit. You have to show that someone caused damages.

If you go by "in theory" that they caused damages. What are those damages in theory?

You may not have lost any clients, any profit what so ever.

You could have lost one client's contract(let's assume for simplicity that all clients bring in the same amount).

You could have lost all your clients. You close up shop.

Which value do you use to ask the courts for a judgment on? No damages(why bother with court)? One client leaves? Or you in theory would have closed up shop?

The above is for simplicity. There are other variables that go into this. Which further goes in favor for actually showing actual damages not just damages "in theory".

In the end, what happens if the person suffered no damages at all? Business in every was is normal and yet he sued and won the judgment for say, if in theory closed up shop?

You have to look at it beyond just this one case. If this one case actually won, imagine the pandora box that would have been opened and imagine the lawsuits that would be brought about based on "what if's" and "in theory"?

I'm not saying I agree and morally defending this person, but just food for thought. Legal cases have ramnifications beyond the single case.

Someone has reached across the intent of this logo and in this case, has changed it enough to cause considerable pain and losses to both you and your client. This damages and impedes your ability for possible other and/or future clients who now might associate you with this so-called parody. Parody shit, it's a total misuse of someone else's property and creativity.

Maybe, maybe not. It would be good to show termination of contracts that stipulated that the parody was why they lost faith in Dan and his client. Or letters from people that said that they didn't want to do business with them because of that, but otherwise they would have.

That's showing actual damages that are able to be quantified in numbers. I doubt many courts want to shift through all that on their own to come up with a figure.


Like I said, if you go by "in theory", "what if", and/or "maybe this happens" it's going to let loose with the floodgates. Some legitimate, some not.

 

[Gino]

I'm not arguing with you at all, WildWest. Law is a very tricky business and a 'Class C' lawyer finds all kinds of ways to make things stick. They're no good as lawyers, so they rely on trickery and deceit, thus why so many people hate lawyers.

In this case, these drawings [Dan's Designs, Dan's thoughts and his client's name and logo].... not to mention possibly they are connected with this silly advertisement of the pig, but things were used completely out of context or in a manner in which they were intended. Therefore, and only in this case, could someone misread their originator's intentions, hence making his client possibly misread also.

Having to show and prove this by providing a paper trail and countless lost clients won't be needed due to the simple fact... one doesn't need to have a smoking gun in your hand to be proven guilty. Intent is generally enough to at least have someone investigated.

There is no need to have this case go to court. The simple findings of this will make the guilty party come clean. Will Dan and his client make any money, probably not, but does the guilty party want the world to know they actually got caught doing this. It's no Watergate, but as more and more evidence piles up against this party.... it could eventually become a real sore spot for whomever originated it and who initially was responsible for stealing honest Americans identity and using it for foul play.

That is news no one wants these days. Perhaps it could cost the guilty some bucks to make it go away, but then Dan and his client would have an even better case against them. Bribery in high places.........................

:ROFLMAO:Ahhhh.....hahahahaha..... the story just keeps getting better and better.........................​

 

[the graphics co]

Have a lawyer issue a cease and desist with threat of a lawsuit or some other consequence attached and that will likely get whomever to take it down. Most people would see it as to much of a hassle to deal with any type of court or legal battle and just remove it from their site, unless they are profiting from it, in which you have a real case.

 

[charissabuskirk]

OK, that's cool, I suppose, but first, I nor my client was asked permission to feature them in said blog, and two, there are no credits to my agency for the logos they are featuring in their blog. Is that a 'fair use' - pick logos off sites, and use in your blog? I don't derive a benefit to have the logos featured in your blog unless theres a link back to my site.

There's not a link to your site, or your clients, but there is a link to where he/she acquired the original images from, here. At least this gives you credit, but this would make me a little upset!

 

[Mike F]

Check out the comments at the bottom of the page, looks like someone decided to bring the issue up over there.

 

[Dan Antonelli]

There's not a link to your site, or your clients, but there is a link to where he/she acquired the original images from, here. At least this gives you credit, but this would make me a little upset!

Yeh I don't mind Chuck at LHF using it and I had given him permission long time ago. Wow, the other logo site ripped it off though, sheesh. I didn't see the comments you were referring to.

Yes, I saw the anti-meat site use the logo too. I'm awaiting to see if the client intends to pursue anything.

 

[charissabuskirk]

I didn't see the comments you were referring to.

There's some talk going on in the comment section of her blog... basically saying parody is fair use. Thanks to the internet and a few minutes of reading... fair use and parody, OR is it satire in this case?

One would think that if she's monitoring S101 and this thread that she might have contacted you, and removed your design from her blog all together by now. Honestly with her abilities to search the web, i can't see HOW she couldn't find your contact information but someone helped her out with that already.

I would inform my client about the original article and pursue that as well. Does it make it right to rob from a thief, maybe only if your Robin Hood...

 

[Marlene]

keep us updated on how this all works. we have all been ripped off in some way or other, but this seems like a first for something like this and it is interesting.