Logo artist files copyright lawsuits against Ravens, NFL

[Blue Falcon]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-ravens-logo-lawsuit-20120702,0,2251374.story

All Frederick E. Bouchat says he wanted years ago was recognition for his idea for the Ravens team logo.

Since the South Baltimore resident first sketched a flying raven clutching a shield with a "B" and faxed it to the Maryland Stadium Authority 16 years ago, he has won a court case crediting him with creating the Baltimore Ravens' first logo. But he has never been compensated.

Bouchat's long-running dispute with the Ravens took a new turn last week when he accused the franchise of another copyright infringement, this time because it appears in photos displayed at M&T Bank Stadium. The security guard and amateur artist also is challenging the National Football League's use of the old logo, saying in two pending lawsuits that he's getting no credit for a design that has resurfaced on television, on the Internet and in popular video games.

The cases, which accuse the Ravens and NFL of continuing to profit from Bouchat's design, will likely revolve around a novel legal question ? whether the design has become a piece of history and therefore can be used freely. The Ravens and NFL deny they are profiting from using the logo.

Bouchat's attorney, Howard J. Schulman, characterizes the situation as a David and Goliath fight that has spanned years. Bouchat, who declined through his attorney to be interviewed, has long maintained the "Flying B," logo used from 1996 through 1998 was stolen from a drawing he created months before the team announced its name and logo.

A federal jury ruled in Bouchat's favor in 1998, and the Ravens adopted a new logo the next season. The team said it was unaware of the Bouchat artwork, credited NFL Properties with the design and appealed the ruing all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined to take the case.

In that case, Bouchat asked for $10 million in compensation, but none was awarded. Then last November, a federal judge ordered the NFL and the Ravens to compensate Bouchat for the logo's appearance in highlight films sold by the NFL, a result of a lawsuit Bouchat filed in 2008. The compensation has not yet been determined.

"He was an individual who was forgotten and shunned in the rush to market the team," Schulman said. "He's never gotten the appropriate credit, either personally or commercially. He's created something that was of value in an intellectual property sense."

And the Ravens continue to use the Bouchat logo, Schulman said. At M&T Bank Stadium, nine large photographs prominently show the Bouchat logo, according to the lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court in Baltimore. The photos show former players such as Vinny Testaverde, Jonathan Ogden and Jermaine Lewis sporting the old logo.

The lawsuit argues Bouchat has exclusive rights under copyright laws to reproduce, publish or display his work and that "any commercial reproduction or display of the infringing logo" is in violation.

The Ravens declined to discuss the cases.

"While we are aware of the matter, we will withhold comment at this time, as it is now in litigation," Patrick Gleason, a Ravens spokesman, said in an email.

In two separate lawsuits, Bouchat accuses various NFL entities of copyright infringement for showing the former logo on an NFL television channel, on an NFL website and in Madden NFL video games. Nfl.com showed the logo in online film segments called "Top Ten Draft Classes: 1996 Baltimore Ravens." Members of the public viewed the work more than 66,000 times since 2007, the lawsuit says. The segment also was shown on the NFL network, the complaint says.

An NFL spokesman, Brian McCarthy, declined to comment on the federal lawsuits, filed in May and last October in Baltimore.

A defendant in one of the lawsuits, Redwood City, Calif.-based video game maker Electronic Arts Inc., used the Bouchat-copyrighted logo on retro uniforms in its games, such as Madden NFL 11 for the Sony PlayStation 3 game console, the lawsuit alleges. The logo appears as part of an option that lets players create historically accurate virtual football teams.

Gerard P. Martin, a Baltimore-based attorney for Electronic Arts, said the extent of the former logo's appearance in the video games has yet to be determined. He said the court will look at whether "the primary motive (is) to make money on it, or is it an historical fact." He contends that historical use is permitted, and the company argues it didn't profit from the use of the Flying B logo.

"There might have been some limited use, and more likely than not it was inadvertent," he said.

Copyright infringement cases involve two issues ? the copyright breach and the resulting damages, said Ned T. Himmelrich, head of the intellectual property and technology section for Gordon Feinblatt LLC in Baltimore.

In Bouchat's initial suit against the Ravens, "he won, but he lost, because he won the infringement but he lost the damages," Himmelrich said. "And if a court found that way for the first infringement, it could be a reasonable guess that a court would find the same in the current cases."

The damages question in the new cases could hinge on whether consumers are buying products because of the old design.

"The fact that there's some nostalgia could be a new fact, in the posters and the video games, but there's a very high hurdle to get around a prior court case on what could be very similar facts," Himmelrich said.

Bouchat, who was taught to draw by his father, has sketched as a hobby, mostly drawing super hero characters, according to a brief filed in one of the earlier cases. In 1995, while working as a security guard at the Maryland Insurance Administration, Bouchat began drawing designs for a logo for the former Cleveland Browns football team moving to Baltimore.

State officials set up a meeting with John Moag, who as head of the stadium authority in 1995 and led the effort to bring an NFL franchise back to Baltimore. Bouchat was asked during that meeting in March 1996 to fax his logo to the stadium authority, court documents show.

Schulman says the first Bouchat heard of the team using his logo was when the team and logo were unveiled publicly in June 1996.

"He's been discouraged by the whole experience," Schulman said. The Ravens organization has "refused to pay royalties. We're asking the Ravens to play by the same rules they impose on other people when it comes to their intellectual property."

[chuckymack]

Good for him. Hope he gets compensated.

[tajmccall]

The NFL just can't not come off as a bunch of d-bags. Its impossible.

[Buffalo]

Isn't this SUPER SUPER OLD NEWS???

[RyanB06]

And this is why we tell you not to send stuff to professional teams for consideration.

[tajmccall]

True, but it doesn't dismiss them from liability.

[TheOldRoman]

The court previously ruled that Bouchat holds all rights to the logo and can profit from it. Here's the question, though. How can one own the rights to another's likeness? I mean, he created the logo, but it says "Baltimore Ravens" on it, and that is a registered trademark of the team. Suppose he makes vintage t-shirts with the logo on it, the NFL can do nothing even though he is using the team's name?

The NFL needs to just stop being bitches, cut the guy a check and buy the damn logo. The guy was requesting $10mil in damages, but this saga has been going on for 15 years and the guy hasn't seen a dime yet. The whole situation is silly. Also, that logo, while still bad, is miles ahead of their current B-crow logo.

[Gothamite]

And this is why we tell you not to send stuff to professional teams for consideration.

Actually, it's why most teams will refuse unsolicited submissions.

The team assumed ownership of this mess when they asked him to come in to pitch his logo, and when they asked for additional materials. Then his concept went from being an unsolicited submission to full-on work for hire.

[officeglenn]

Isn't this SUPER SUPER OLD NEWS???

No, because if you actually read the story:

Bouchat's long-running dispute with the Ravens took a new turn last week when he accused the franchise of another copyright infringement, this time because it appears in photos displayed at M&T Bank Stadium. The security guard and amateur artist also is challenging the National Football League's use of the old logo, saying in two pending lawsuits that he's getting no credit for a design that has resurfaced on television, on the Internet and in popular video games.

[aci]

The NFL is clearly liable and open for damages in this case. Knowing full well that the logo is owned by someone else, they have chosen to use and display it publicly. In old videos from 1996, etc, it should be blurred like the WWE did with some WCW and WWF signs in their old videos, and those 'nine large photographs' at the stadium could easily be photoshopped so that the stolen logo is replaced by the newer logo, even if it isn't exactly historically accurate.

Yes, they used the logo historically speaking, but the courts have essentially ruled it was stolen property. I don't know about you, but if I was doing a documentary about me, or writing an autobiography, and felt obligated to include a certain photograph that happened to show me doing something illegal in the background (maybe a storeroom door open just far enough to see a huge stash of illegal fireworks, or a meth lab or something, I'd probably want to censor that out somehow.

The NFL and the Ravens really need to just suck it up and flat-out buy the rights to the logo in perpetuity, then forget about this guy.

[BrandMooreArt]

what makes them look even worse is this logo probably would have cost them a couple thousand dollars originally (no idea who this guy is though, his invoice may even have been hundreds). they just decided he wasnt even worth that. i hope he does get 10 mil

[WSU151]

The NFL is clearly liable and open for damages in this case. Knowing full well that the logo is owned by someone else, they have chosen to use and display it publicly.

Are the Ravens and EA Sports continuing to use the old logos for a profit though?

[hockey week]

At what point are you altering history though? If you can't have photographs with that logo in it, isn't that severely altering our knowledge of the past? Can you ever display a Ravens' logo history without problems now? I agree this guy should be paid for his work, but as an historian, I can't help but focus on the historical ramifications of copyright trumping the display of history. I hope they make a deal so this issue goes away

[Blue Falcon]

The team assumed ownership of this mess when they asked him to come in to pitch his logo, and when they asked for additional materials. Then his concept went from being an unsolicited submission to full-on work for hire.

What else should anyone have expected from Art Modell?

[Gothamite]

The NFL is clearly liable and open for damages in this case. Knowing full well that the logo is owned by someone else, they have chosen to use and display it publicly.

Are the Ravens and EA Sports continuing to use the old logos for a profit though?

Are they giving away the game for free?

At what point are you altering history though? If you can't have photographs with that logo in it, isn't that severely altering our knowledge of the past? Can you ever display a Ravens' logo history without problems now? I agree this guy should be paid for his work, but as an historian, I can't help but focus on the historical ramifications of copyright trumping the display of history. I hope they make a deal so this issue goes away

Our knowledge of the past isn't being altered in any way. One can have photos with the old logo in them. The team just can't use or profit off those photos.

Blame the team. They're the ones who caused this mess in the first place.

[hawk36]

Sad. I'm sure the Ravens/NFL will just continue to stretch this out and then he'll eventually get a $1 award like the USFL got. Hopefully not but that would be my fear with little guy vs corporate Goliath.

[WSU151]

The NFL is clearly liable and open for damages in this case. Knowing full well that the logo is owned by someone else, they have chosen to use and display it publicly.

Are the Ravens and EA Sports continuing to use the old logos for a profit though?

Are they giving away the game for free?

Do you buy the game for the old Ravens uniforms? Or something else? Would EA sell as many games if the old uniforms weren't in the game?

[Gothamite]

IANAL, but I don't think that's relevant. Besides, they wouldn't be included if EA didn't think they brought value to the game.

[WSU151]

IANAL, but I don't think that's relevant. Besides, they wouldn't be included if EA didn't think they brought value to the game.

The "would you buy it if it didn't include it" is a very relevant argument.

They could be included for historical purposes. Value = / = profit.

[Gothamite]

Again, IANAL. Are you? My understanding is that they cannot profit by the logo in any way, but would welcome real legal knowledge.

If a gaming company that didn't have an NFL license put out a game with 31 made-up teams and the Jacksonville Jaguars in it, would that be okay? Few people would buy it just for the Jags, but some would. Just as few might buy the EA game primarily for its ability to customize old logos, but some would.