WSU151 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 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.The fair use doctrine is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Of course not. Nothing in the law ever is.But "fair use" gets a little more clear when we're talking about a commercial venture. The burden gets a little higher on the user. The Ravens already have the right to display the old logo in the stadium in a free-of-charge "museum-like setting." But when they're charging for something that features the old logo, they'll likely have to pay him for it. He's already won on this issue before, so it'll be interested to see where this one goes. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 WSU is correct as far as damages go, I believe. That's why the original ruling went as it did.They ruled that the Ravens stole his artwork, but he was awarded NO damages because the court ruled that merchandise was not sold because of the logo but rather because of the team itself.Now, I think that was and remains an absurd ruling and basically undermines the entire field of design, but the principle in which it was ruled on is solid. And that is, just because a profit is being made does not mean a profit is being made because of the inclusion of infringed upon property/artwork.(Again, I think the original court botched it. I think merchandise for an NFL team frequently IS sold because of the design. But there would certainly be other situations where the inclusion of stolen property has no real bearing on sales. I think Madden is likely an example of that.) JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I think the rise of throwback games and the merchandise that invariably accompanies them proves your point. Sometimes people do buy merchandise for the design itself if not the team.Besides, does anybody really think that Mase is a Brewers fan? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 All it took was an autographed helmet and a letter of recognition and we wouldn't be talking about this Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 As far as Madden goes, well look at it like this. EA pays for the NFL licence, right? As a perk of paying that fee they get to use, among other things, logo and uniform designs owned by the NFL and its respective teams. That is to say that the NFL is compensated for EA's use of the intellectual property they own. By using the old Ravens logo EA Sports is using a logo they never bought the rights to. Neither the NFL or the Ravens own that logo. So technically EA never bought the right to use it when they payed for the NFL licence. So unless EA payed Mr. Bouchat a separate fee to use his logo alongside the IP they payed the NFL to use, they're using the logo illegally and Mr. Bouchat is entitled to compensation. Now I understand the principal behind the "no one bought Ravens gear for the design of the logo/no one's buying Madden for that logo" argument, but I think letting it stand sends a bad precedent. It allows an organization or organizations to continue stealing this man's work without any real consequences beyond being told to stop every few years. Either the courts need to award the man the money owed to him or the NFL/the Ravens just needs to buy it off of him and try to put this all behind them. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 By using the old Ravens logo EA Sports is using a logo they never bought the rights to. Neither the NFL or the Ravens own that logo. So technically EA never bought the right to use it when they payed for the NFL licence. So unless EA payed Mr. Bouchat a separate fee to use his logo alongside the IP they payed the NFL to use, they're using the logo illegally and Mr. Bouchat is entitled to compensation. You don't need to buy the rights if it's fair use. Are the Ravens highlights in this clip fair use for historical purposes? I'm guessing the poster will take it down if asked, but I don't think his primary intent is to make a profit off this clip. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I can't see that clip for some reason, but intent to sell does have a substantial impact on a fair use claim. And we're talking about commercial products here.The Ravens already won the right to display the old logo at the stadium in a "museum-like setting", but they've lost so far where merchandise is concerned. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 As far as Madden goes, well look at it like this. EA pays for the NFL licence, right? As a perk of paying that fee they get to use, among other things, logo and uniform designs owned by the NFL and its respective teams. That is to say that the NFL is compensated for EA's use of the intellectual property they own. By using the old Ravens logo EA Sports is using a logo they never bought the rights to. Neither the NFL or the Ravens own that logo. So technically EA never bought the right to use it when they payed for the NFL licence. So unless EA payed Mr. Bouchat a separate fee to use his logo alongside the IP they payed the NFL to use, they're using the logo illegally and Mr. Bouchat is entitled to compensation. Just to add to that, the license that EA buys from the NFL doesn't include the names or likenesses of any real players. The NFL doesn't own those rights, therefore they can't sell them. So EA has to secure a license from the NFLPA. And when they decided they wanted to use real coaches, that wasn't included on either of the two licenses they already had, so they needed to negotiate a third license for the game, this time with the NFL Coaches' Association. That's why Bill Belichick isn't in the game - he's not a member of the union. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I can't see that clip for some reason, but intent to sell does have a substantial impact on a fair use claim. And we're talking about commercial products here.The Ravens already won the right to display the old logo at the stadium in a "museum-like setting", but they've lost so far where merchandise is concerned.Ahhh...it's a NFL Primetime clip of an Eagles/Ravens game from 1997 (old logo). There are three parties that thoeretically could go after the clip - ESPN, NFL, and the guy who created the logo. It all depends on profitability, from my non-lawyer POV. And from what I read in the link you posted, Goth, the court said logo can't be used to "identify players as Ravens". So while a logo in the office is okay, any helmet or jersey with the mark used for commercial purposes is in violation. If that precedent is set and followed, then the guy has a strong case. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaytonBlue Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 The Ravens should have done what many IT companies do. If a big tech company sees a threat, they just buy it up and make it go away. "I did absolutely nothing and it was everything I thought it could be." -Peter Gibbons RIP Demitra #38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddball Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I see this lawsuit as having absolutely no basis whatsoever. First of all, as people have said before, the Ravens and the NFL have rights to display the logo in a historical sense (aka poster and NFL films). Strike one against him. Secondly, EA Sports is not part of the Ravens or the NFL, and therefore they've used the logo on their own free will, unless you are part of the conspiracy (aka had way too many beers) theorists out there who believed the NFL forced EA to use the logo. Any one with any intelligence will tell you that this will be thrown out of court as a baseless lawsuit. I can see him suing EA Sports for the use of the logo, but he has no claims against either the NFL or the Ravens... except they haven't paid him yet, but they don't have to based on the ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Fool Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I think it was around Madden 09 that the original Ravens uniform set finally appeared in the games as a throwback. It surprised me, because they never had a throwback in games, or if they did, it wouldn't have the B shield helmet like in NFL 2K5.I don't think the NFL, EA Sports or the Ravens are trying to piss this guy off, but I think they're just using it for historical purposes at this point, because I remember for a long time, you never saw the B shield logo, then it's reappeared lately. Sure, the guy got screwed over, but I'll be damned if I'll be forced to "forget" something ever existed like WWF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymie Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Buy out the guy. It might cost a little more, but what's the cost of righting a wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I see this lawsuit as having absolutely no basis whatsoever. First of all, as people have said before, the Ravens and the NFL have rights to display the logo in a historical sense (aka poster and NFL films)....and that's where you're wrong. Far from "having absolutely no basis whatsoever", his argument has convinced an appellate court. NFL Films has already been ruled a commercial use, not covered by fair use or historical purposes. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5524391 The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.