Re: one more comment on logos

[John Mitchell <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the Lanham Act issue was addressed by a lawyer previously in  
this thread, and more authoritatively than I do here. While I agree  
with you that 107 and 110 (which are part of the Copyright Act) do not  
apply to trademarks, which are completely separate creatures than  
copyrights, I believe that the only relevance of the Lanham Act is  
that, as applied to this example, there appears to be no trademark  
infringement concern. The professor is not trying to pass off the  
presentation as that of McDonald's, is not taking an IBM work product  
and pretending it s the professor's own, is not suggesting Nike  
endorsed the views expressed, and so on.

I use trademarks and logos quite regularly in my presentations, and  
even in a paper submitted to the FTC and DOJ. I've used them as part  
of criticism of the owners of the marks (and of the product), I've  
used them to illustrate a point with humor, and I've used them as  
filler, where any well-known random company in a particular category  
would do. I consider my uses fully protected by the First Amendment,  
and not at all in furtherance of any of the evils the Lanham Act  
guards against. As you advise, I "make a good faith effort to follow  
whatever intellectual property laws are applicable," which, in the  
case of my myriad uses of logos is, fortunately, none.

John

On Jan 28, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Kathrine Henderson wrote:

> 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