RE: one more comment on logos

["Ford, William K." <7Ford@xxxxxxxx>]

"There's a lot to be considered when we use slogans, logos, and other marks
and images-- from use of recognized fonts--google's is copyrighted by the
designer of the font, and one can purchase it in a digital format for $100"

I was not aware that Google is claiming copyright protection in its font. At
http://googlefont.com/, there is a claim of trademark protection near the
bottom of the page, but not copyright protection. If Google attempted to
register a copyright in its font, the Copyright Office would presumably refuse
under 37 C.F.R. 202.1, which says, "The following are examples of works not
subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be
entertained: . . . (e) Typeface as typeface."


"I do not believe 107 and 110 exceptions are applicable to the use of
trademarks like logos even if the nature of the use in non-commercial and
educational."

A simple word mark, like Coca-Cola or Ford, is not subject to copyright
protection, but a logo with more than just a word or short phrase could be
protected, such as the well-known Ford logo in the blue oval. In these
situations, the fair use provisions of 17 U.S.C. 107 and the additional
limitations in 110 should be relevant.


"or Indiana Jones' face--could be Disney's could be Harrison Ford's rights we
are stepping on."

With Harrison Ford's face there is a Lanham Act question and a right of
publicity question. I would answer the Lanham Act question in the same way as
I did in my previous e-mail: there would be no confusion about whether
Harrison Ford endorsed or sponsored a lecture in which his face showed up in a
slide. No confusion, no violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125, the relevant provision of
the Lanham Act. (As before, I'm still ignoring the trademark use and "use in
commerce" issues.)

As for the right of publicity question, the variations in state law make it
more difficult to offer a quick answer, but under the view expressed in the
Restatement (3rd) of Unfair Competition, there would be no right of publicity
violation. Use in a classroom is not a commercial use as defined in the
Restatement, which defines such uses mainly in terms of advertising. (The
Restatement actually uses the phrase "use for purposes of trade" rather than
"commercial use.")

-Bill


William K. Ford
Assistant Professor of Law
The John Marshall Law School
315 S. Plymouth Court
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 386-2851
www.elsblog.org

________________________________________
From: Kathrine Henderson [kathrinehenderson@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 5:59 PM
To: digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: one more comment on logos

Not a lawyer--so this is not a legal opinion, but I do not believe 107 and
110
exceptions are applicable to the use of trademarks like logos even if the
nature of the use in non-commercial and educational. I'm not sure who
mentioned the Latham Act, but I agree it is what is applicable here.
Although
attributing is always a good idea from a plagiarism perspective, I'm not sure
that it would make any difference if one was accused of infringing on the
mark.

Although chances are slim to none that a student or professor would be
called on the carpet for this kind of use, my view is we still have to make a
good faith effort to follow whatever intellectual property laws are
applicable.  There's a lot to be considered when we use slogans, logos, and
other marks and images-- from use of recognized fonts--google's is
copyrighted
by the designer of the font, and one can purchase it in a digital format for
$100...to use of that famous Nike swoosh or Indiana Jones' face--could be
Disney's could be Harrison Ford's rights we are stepping on.

My $.02,

Kat