User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.3306 seconds
48 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Friday, August 27, 2021Phillies can continue using altered Phillie Phanatic as team mascot, federal judge rules
RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)
Posted: August 27, 2021 at 08:39 AM | 11 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: phillies |
Login to submit news.
Support BBTFThanks to You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: Yankees, White Sox benches clear after Josh Donaldson calls Tim Anderson 'Jackie' Robinson
(43 - 9:28am, May 23) Last: BDC Newsblog: Former Giants fan-favorite infielder Joe Panik retires from MLB (13 - 9:14am, May 23) Last: Mefisto Newsblog: JOEY VOTTO IS THE GREATEST REDS PLAYER OF ALL TIME (6 - 8:50am, May 23) Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Newsblog: Sports teams love crypto. What happens when their sponsor strikes out? (12 - 8:35am, May 23) Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Newsblog: Adley Rutschman, MLB's No. 1 prospect, called up to O's (25 - 8:18am, May 23) Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave) Newsblog: 2022 NBA Playoffs thread (1721 - 8:03am, May 23) Last: Cagerfan Newsblog: WEEKEND OMNICHATTER for May 20-22, 2022 (119 - 7:15am, May 23) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Juan Soto trade rumors: Nationals may be 'motivated' to trade outfielder (57 - 5:51am, May 23) Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Newsblog: Seattle Mariners sign Justin Upton (14 - 12:33am, May 23) Last: bookbook Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - Crowning Champions and Pro-Rel (156 - 10:52pm, May 22) Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Newsblog: Roger Angell, Who Wrote About Baseball With Passion, Dies at 101 (52 - 10:48pm, May 22) Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Sox Therapy: One Step Forward (18 - 4:59pm, May 22) Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Newsblog: Zach Davies’ estranged wife says MLB pitcher ghosted her for a year (56 - 12:32pm, May 21) Last: base ball chick Newsblog: New York Mets' Max Scherzer out 6-8 weeks with oblique strain (16 - 12:25pm, May 21) Last: nick swisher hygiene Newsblog: Sports Venues Create Quiet Refuge for Fans with Sensory Needs (2 - 7:23pm, May 20) Last: AndrewJ |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.3306 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. JRVJ Posted: August 27, 2021 at 03:18 PM (#6036751)it just doesnt seem to make much sense, the ruling. There's a similar doctrine having to do with Trademarks, although just to clarify the issue in this case is copyright of the character.
In trademarks there's a whole body of law that's sprung up having to do with when your mark evolves. Like the Betty Crocker lady she's changed over the years. or the NBC peacock remember when that got an upgrade from the old fashioned peacock? I think Aunt Jemima has changed too. Countless products. Well you cant change your TM too much otherwise there's no connection to the past character and you can't count as part of your continuous use. Its one part of TM law that's really got a whole body of case law on it.
No. But let's say you bought the rights to the "Red Sox" logo. Could you then issue the logo with a slightly redder sock? The ruling here is, that if the logo is still recognizably the Red Sox logo, you could under the rights agreement. If you altered the logo enough that it _wasn't_ recognizably the Red Sox logo (making them pink?), then it would be a different logo. Under neither condition could the original rights holder sue you for infringing on their rights.
Under the alternate theory, when you buy the rights to "the Red Sox logo", that only allows you to reproduce the logo as it then exists, with no alterations at all. Any alteration, however slight, then becomes an infringement on the original rights holder.
H/E the original creators of the Fanatic, legally ended their agreement with PHI, that had allowed PHI to use the Phanatic. The judge agreed that they had the right to end the permission.
So the PHI dont have the right to use the Fanatic. SO they modified the old fanatic gave it scales or some such and claim its not a copyright violation. That seems wrong because it still very much resembles the original work. That sort of thing is known as "derivative work" and in most cases it will not allow you to avoid the original copyright owner.
Mr. Northey's analogy in no. 7 seems quite on pt. to me. (Other than the fact that he's talking about a logo which is TM law not copyright.) If we pretend that instead of a logo he's talking about a costume or a character, then yes, I agree. You cant simply change one small aspect of a copywritten artwork and then avoid the copyright
OK but whats different here is that H/E the creators of the Fanatic, and owner of the copyright, terminated PHI right to use the likeness. So its not like you bought the rights to the Red Socks logo. Its like the Red Sox told you your agreement with us is over. and you proceed to use pink socks and the same everything else.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main