Waffles Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 http://www.juicedsportsblog.com/2007/10/gu...-didnt-get.htmlFrederick E. Bouchat, the security guard who originally designed what became the Ravens' original 1995 logo, has been fighting the Ravens and others for a few years, for proceeds from his logo, lost his appeal yesterday in the 4th Circuit Court of U.S. Appeals, though I'm sure he is going to appeal again.There is no dispute over the fact that the Ravens' logo was Bouchat's design, though the team tweaked it some. What is under dispute is Bouchat's right to royalties from the sale of Ravens products bearing the logo. Bouchat faxed his design to the Ravens asking only for an autographed helmet. Later, he decided that he somehow deserved money for all products sold bearing the logo, as if companies had to go to the logo designer and not the team for rights to use the logo.The name of the case reads like a novel. It's like a class action suit where the defendants are the class. Some of them include ESPN, Burlington Coat Factory, and NFL Shop (hmm, they are the league that the Ravens play in, why shouldn't they use the logo?).The jury did find that the Ravens had violated Bouchat's copyright by using the logo, but he wasn't awarded any money. For one thing, he filed his copyright after the Ravens had adopted the logo, and for the other thing, the logo didn't influence the sale of merchandise; love for the Ravens did. Good ruling, I say, though I'm kind of confused about how filing for a copyright to late would hurt him. My understanding was that copyrights applied to anything anyone creates whether or not they are registered with the US Copyright Office. Which is why the court ruled that the Ravens violated his copyright...I thought it was interesting that the court reached the conclusion that the Ravens' merchandise sales were completely motivated by love of the team. I know I'm not the only person who's bought merchandise from a team besides my favorite because I liked the logo or design, so that determination seems rather dubious. At any rate, the designer :censored:ed up by not protecting himself early on (and asking for only a souvenir helmet in return) and unfortunately deserved what he got in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Fool Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I loved that set.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fonz Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 What did his version look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_prankster Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 http://www.juicedsportsblog.com/2007/10/gu...-didnt-get.htmlFrederick E. Bouchat, the security guard who originally designed what became the Ravens' original 1995 logo, has been fighting the Ravens and others for a few years, for proceeds from his logo, lost his appeal yesterday in the 4th Circuit Court of U.S. Appeals, though I'm sure he is going to appeal again.There is no dispute over the fact that the Ravens' logo was Bouchat's design, though the team tweaked it some. What is under dispute is Bouchat's right to royalties from the sale of Ravens products bearing the logo. Bouchat faxed his design to the Ravens asking only for an autographed helmet. Later, he decided that he somehow deserved money for all products sold bearing the logo, as if companies had to go to the logo designer and not the team for rights to use the logo.The name of the case reads like a novel. It's like a class action suit where the defendants are the class. Some of them include ESPN, Burlington Coat Factory, and NFL Shop (hmm, they are the league that the Ravens play in, why shouldn't they use the logo?).The jury did find that the Ravens had violated Bouchat's copyright by using the logo, but he wasn't awarded any money. For one thing, he filed his copyright after the Ravens had adopted the logo, and for the other thing, the logo didn't influence the sale of merchandise; love for the Ravens did. Good ruling, I say, though I'm kind of confused about how filing for a copyright to late would hurt him. My understanding was that copyrights applied to anything anyone creates whether or not they are registered with the US Copyright Office. Which is why the court ruled that the Ravens violated his copyright...I thought it was interesting that the court reached the conclusion that the Ravens' merchandise sales were completely motivated by love of the team. I know I'm not the only person who's bought merchandise from a team besides my favorite because I liked the logo or design, so that determination seems rather dubious. At any rate, the designer :censored:ed up by not protecting himself early on (and asking for only a souvenir helmet in return) and unfortunately deserved what he got in this case.You're not alone. I used to have a set of window clings with the old identity package, and I also had a pin of the old helmet. The Fictional Story of Austus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Fool Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Large version of the guys drawing below me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopard88 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Ask and you shall receive. The original:I never really liked the shield logo when the Ravens were using it. However, I have to say that it has grown on me.EDIT: About one minute too late. Damn "dynamic image tags." Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017 ///// Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008 Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaftDu Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I loved that set..they still could do that since they have the black pants in the set. They just bring it out during the all black look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 This is old news, but it's still worth bringing up now and again. First off, Mr. Bouchat got absolutely screwed here, and it's unfortunate that he decided not to appeal the matter further - the 4th Circuit's ruling is incorrect and potentially very dangerous for designers of any type.If you read their ruling (I did back when it was first made available), it could be interpreted in such a loose fashion that, if I were to produce a similarly colored shirt with just the word "RAVENS" written across the chest, the team could (1) swipe the design, produce their own merchandise line, and keep the profit, or worse (2) sue me for royalties, claiming that any sales I achieve would be predicated on the existence of their team.This, obviously, is a dangerous precedent, and while it is one that no sports team has dared pursue (thankfully), a future test of this ruling would send shockwaves through the professional sports merchandising industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddball Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I say this as a designer and say that I don't think he got screwed at all nor is he entitled to anything. First of all he sent this to the team and said what he wanted was a souvenir helmet? There's his signed contract giving and all that he deserves, a helmet and the letter. He was smart and faxed it to them not giving up the original artwork, but there's a reason why he and many are amateurs, he didn't ask for money; you design something for someone, you deserve money. I've learned as a designer, you do nothing for free. It sounds bad, but that's the difference between successful designers who do it for a living and ones who don't. Why would you send something off and tell them that they could use it and then get mad when they do? Also is it true that you can change (an image) something like 25% and be clear of trademark/copywrite infringement? I don't know if that was proven, I will admit to saying that they did take the design and tweak it. I just find this lawsuit dumb since he willingly sent it to them and gave them permission to use it without any protection for himself. Before he sent it off he should've consulted a lawyer or someone who could've told him the proper way to do it. It's his own fault for not doing his research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcgd Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 There is no 30%, 25%, etc. law. Its something bad designers say so they can get away with copying. Any changes to a logo are a derivative work and the copyright holder has sole ownership of derivative work. Meaning, if you change something 10% or 50% it was stupid of you to figure out how many percentage points you changed the logo, because you have produced a derivative work and have violated the original copyright.All work produced after March 1, 1989 is copyrighted automatically to the creator. However, in this case, the creator clearly signed his rights away when he faxed the design to the Ravens. The settlement should be for one autographed helmet.BTW...this is the that scares most teams from looking at unsolicited designs.... just so you all know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschoolvikings Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 That "25%" stuff is a myth... and a dumb one. Tell me, how do you quantify 25% of a visual image? http://dstewartpaint.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njmeadowlanders Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 That "25%" stuff is a myth... and a dumb one. Tell me, how do you quantify 25% of a visual image?Only if it's a pie chart I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kid_17 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 That logo was hideous, and did he ever get his helmet?edit: just noticed too, the raiders logo on my sig...I'd say I changed it about 16.8% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddball Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I only asked that 25% rule because I have no clue where I heard it and as you guys pointed out, how do you tell what is 25% of a logo or a painting. My theory would be you take the image and squeeze it into a pie chart and then take that quarter and you can change just those parts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conesbeans Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 "The logo didn't influence the sale of merchandise; love for the Ravens did."What does it mean then when an existing team revitalizes their brand with a newly-designed identity and realizes an increase in merchandise revenue?Does that mean that all of a sudden their fans just coincidentally started loving the franchise more?OF COURSE NOT!Good sports identity design has a DIRECT affect on merchandise sales, and if the ruling did indeed include that quote above (or even if it was something along those lines), then that is NOT good news for brand identity professionals, as it makes the statement that what they do does not matter.If that's the case, worry not -- the McDonald's down the street is hiring, so there's still work out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leedsunited Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 BTW...this is the that scares most teams from looking at unsolicited designs.... just so you all know.100% right. Frankly, Bouchat should just piss off at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldRamsFan Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Maybe they'll go back to that logo now. It's so much better than the Raven head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agentrygraphics Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I loved that set..they still could do that since they have the black pants in the set. They just bring it out during the all black look.sorry for steering off course...but that set's pants always bothered me. A thick white stripe, with no purple stripe to coincide? baffling. "This isn't just the Oregon Ducks, it's Football's Future Turf Soldier War Hero Steel Robot Tech Flex Machine Army." -CS85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy! Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Frankly, Bouchat should just piss off at this point.It reminds me of that Happy Days episode where Fonzie was telling Potsie, "Always consult a good copyright attorney BEFORE you fax your design to a professional sports franchise and only ask for an autographed helmet in return."...right before he nailed Paula Petralunga. "I secretly hope people like that hydroplane into a wall." - Dennis "Big Sexy" Ittner POTD - 7/3/14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korkie Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I love that old set too, I still have my Vinny jersey from that era. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."Dr. Kelso: My son is a big baseball fan. Not so much playing it, but more the designing and sewing of uniforms.Tyler: That's neat.Dr. Kelso: No, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.