pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This is a logo, isn't it?  (Read 3857 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2010, 17:41 »
0
I understand, but your example is only "one site"s terms and conditions and it doesn't prevent any other sites to offer different licenses. Some sites permit such usage as long as the buyer does not attempt to trademark it.

You are thinking too much:) Waay too much.. Even if they are a company and making a lot of money, they can still use it within the limits of RF license..

As long as they don't register the logo or trademark it, they are free to use it. I am sure they didn't trademark it as their logo. They are surely aware that other people can purchase the same sun and use it the same way. If they don't mind using an image "that you own" in their logo, that's fine. Not really something that should bother you as long as they pay for the standard RF license.

Yes, not an EL is required.

No need to dig it deeper as there is no money in this..

No, that's not how I read it. Here is the paragraph:

Quote
(a) Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are Prohibited Uses and you may not:
[snip 1-3]
   4. use any of the Content as part of a trade-mark, design-mark, trade-name, business name, service mark, or logo;

It clearly says OR logo. To me, that means the logo does not have to be trademarked or be registered. But I agree, it is all a moot point. I clearly believe it's a logo, in both pixel-pizazz's case and in this one, but no one is going to do anything about it.


« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2010, 17:55 »
0
As long as someone does not copyright or trademark the image as part of their logo, usually this use is acceptable as part of most image licenses on most sites. We permit such use, but make it clear that the customer cannot copyright or trademark the image:
http://www.clipartof.com/info/faq#can_I_use_the_images_for_my_logo

Jamie Voetsch
http://www.ClipartOf.com/


Then I believe the wording in the License Agreement is misleading and should be changed to reflect that acceptability, because the way it is worded now it is NOT acceptable to use images in logos, trademark or no. It's like they are saying one thing in the agreement, but then, oops, just kidding. No problem, it can be used in that way. We decided that that is NOT a logo (even though the image fulfills the definition of a logo). The rules of the game are clearly written, but then they kind of get made up as the agency goes along, as long as it suits them and makes them money.

Maria's logo is probably being used in a small time way. Not that that makes it any more acceptable. But clearly the mwah logo is being used all over the place and very publicly. That they are allowed to do that, to me, constitutes copyright infringement per the wording in the license agreement on most sites.


Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2010, 00:44 »
0
As long as someone does not copyright or trademark the image as part of their logo, usually this use is acceptable as part of most image licenses on most sites. We permit such use, but make it clear that the customer cannot copyright or trademark the image:
http://www.clipartof.com/info/faq#can_I_use_the_images_for_my_logo

Jamie Voetsch
http://www.ClipartOf.com/


Thanks for the input.

Please help me with my way of understanding.  What I understand is that we need to protect our copyright.  If we allow our image to be used that way (like my lips) and the user can prove that they have been 'allowed' to use it in such a way and that is serves as a recognizable brand of theirs - then they can actually take up ownership of the copyright.  I have always thought of it as being similar to property (land) rights and how someone else can claim title to your land if you allow them to squat on it for a (set out) period of time.  That is why I understand that some are fierce in protecting their copyright.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding about how I can lose copyright of my image by allowing someone to use it in such a way that it may very likely become enmeshed with their identity.

« Reply #29 on: November 29, 2010, 02:23 »
0
Logo is often a loose term for a trademark. Whether a design is a trademark or not is NOT determined by an application for registration. It is determined by how the trademark is used, through the interpretation of statutes or common law (case law). In common law countries such as US and Canada, an unregistered trademark may still be considered as a trademark under common law precedents and unfair competitin legislations.

A trademark or logo is used to identify the owner of the goods and services, so the owner will benefit from the goodwill through the recognition.

The legislation in each country provides for the definition of "USE". A trademark must be used as a trademark in order to be considered a trademark. Courts will interprete "USE" according to case law as well.

In Madelaide's case, it does not look like that her design was used as a trademark, it looks like as a decorative feature. But to be sure, you have to look deeper.

Ok, the logo thing is a grey area. Let's assume it's not a logo, and FD confirmed they are not a company, but a support group.  That doesn't bother me.

I believe they didn't buy any images.  Some of the thumbnails in the site are in IS.  Mine isn't.  Some larger images Tineye found in those wallpaper sites.  I believe they have no idea that they are doing something wrong.  But since I have no proof the images were not purchased, I can't even say anything.  :-\

You are thinking too much:) Waay too much.. Even if they are a company and making a lot of money, they can still use it within the limits of RF license..

As long as they don't register the logo or trademark it, they are free to use it. I am sure they didn't trademark it as their logo. They are surely aware that other people can purchase the same sun and use it the same way. If they don't mind using an image "that you own" in their logo, that's fine. Not really something that should bother you as long as they pay for the standard RF license.

Yes, not an EL is required.

No need to dig it deeper as there is no money in this..
« Last Edit: November 29, 2010, 02:31 by Orchidpoet »

Microstock InsiderPhotoDune

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
3856 Views
Last post September 05, 2008, 01:10
by Magnum
New Logo Poll

Started by Allen « 1 2 3  All » Site Related

63 Replies
8588 Views
Last post January 26, 2009, 11:48
by lisafx
3 Replies
1070 Views
Last post February 25, 2010, 18:24
by Digital66
5 Replies
2645 Views
Last post March 09, 2011, 03:18
by Uncle Pete
15 Replies
3380 Views
Last post June 22, 2011, 14:10
by melastmohican

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors