Trademark or Copyrighting A Logo

[griffin128]

Are you submitting to anyone? Because if it's just a project that you did for yourself, don't waste money copyrighting it.

[sugarloaf]

I just want the following answered....

I'm still a little confused. I'm not saying I've done this but I'm just using it as an example. Let's say you have two logos, you took one logo and modified 30% of it. Since there's some modifications would that be considered a new design/logo or would that fall under copyright infringement?

[ElwoodCuse]

If you modified it and can't claim fair use or parody or something then yes it is an infringment.

[sugarloaf]

If you modified it and can't claim fair use or parody or something then yes it is an infringment.

But what would make you not be able to use the new 30% changed logo?

[griffin128]

So you are saying that you took a logo that you didn't design, and changed it a tad and are wanting to copyright your change.

No there's no way you can do that. Copyright would not be an option in your case.

[quantum]

First off, when you go to court, don't start by saying you used someone elses work as a starting point.

Beyond that, the look of your logo has to be different enough that the average person wouldn't think one is derived from the other. I'd guess that 30% needs to be closer to 90% different to claim copyright protection.

[sugarloaf]

So you are saying that you took a logo that you didn't design, and changed it a tad and are wanting to copyright your change.

No there's no way you can do that. Copyright would not be an option in your case.

No I didn't, it was just an example. There's plenty of logos out there that look similar, I just want to know where they draw the line.

[griffin128]

I think the rule is that it needs to have 5 differences. So basically it needs to be completely different.

[Gothamite]

Is it that defined? I thought it was along the lines of "would cause confusion in the mind of a reasonable person."

It's a little like how you can't copyright a movie title, but you also can't have a title that would cause confusion in the mind of our reasonable person. So you can have a dozen films entitled "MISTAKEN IDENTITY," or whatever. But you can't use the title "STAR WARS" without everybody thinking that it's Lucas at work again.

[Mingjai]

Is it that defined?  I thought it was along the lines of "would cause confusion in the mind of a reasonable person."

Actually, the "confusion" test Gothamite refers to is for showing trademark infringement. The copyright infringement test is along those lines.

To show copyright infringement, the plaintiff must show: (1) actual copying (which can be inferred from access and "substantial similarity") and (2) improper appropriation. While the test may vary from circuit to circuit, improper appropriation asks whether the defendant took much from the copytrighted material such that an ordinary observer would tend to regard the two works' aethetic appeal as the same.

All this is complicated by the fact that the question of improper appropriation could possibly be decided by 12 people off the street (who probably don't want to be there). That's why it's hard to say up front whether one copyright infringes on another, but my gut feeling is that the example of taking 70 percent from an existing logo is likely infringement.

An example, in the Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D. N.Y. 1987), the court found that Columbia's movie poster for Moscow on the Hudson infringed on Steinberg's New Yorker illustration. Despite the fact that Columbia changed the buildings, streets, cities, and even the perspective, the court decided that Columbia had illegally captured the expression from Steinberg's picture.

[griffin128]

Is it that defined?  I thought it was along the lines of "would cause confusion in the mind of a reasonable person."

Actually, the "confusion" test Gothamite refers to is for showing trademark infringement. The copyright infringement test is along those lines.

To show copyright infringement, the plaintiff must show: (1) actual copying (which can be inferred from access and "substantial similarity") and (2) improper appropriation. While the test may vary from circuit to circuit, improper appropriation asks whether the defendant took much from the copytrighted material such that an ordinary observer would tend to regard the two works' aethetic appeal as the same.

All this is complicated by the fact that the question of improper appropriation could possibly be decided by 12 people off the street (who probably don't want to be there). That's why it's hard to say up front whether one copyright infringes on another, but my gut feeling is that the example of taking 70 percent from an existing logo is likely infringement.

An example, in the Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D. N.Y. 1987), the court found that Columbia's movie poster for Moscow on the Hudson infringed on Steinberg's New Yorker illustration. Despite the fact that Columbia changed the buildings, streets, cities, and even the perspective, the court decided that Columbia had illegally captured the expression from Steinberg's picture.

Columbia's biggest mistake was, if it liked the illustration so much why didn't they have Steinberg recreate it for them. Who better than the guy who did the original.

[ElwoodCuse]

An example, in the Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D. N.Y. 1987),

I read that case in IP law last semester. Loved that class.

Just typical Hollywood plagiarism. "Do it just like this--only BETTER!"