I love to post on this topic, but it is a pet peeve and more people need to wake up to the wide implications of continuing to broaden intellectual property rights.
The entitlement mentality resulting from the ownership of ideas brings us remedies such as the above– erasing three years of history because a) this guy “feels” slighted, and b) he doesn’t agree with losing in court, so he is grasping at straws in another attempt to enrich more lawyers.
Look at the news just this week — there is a class action lawsuit against the recording industry for unilaterally assuming the rights to distribute tracks, but not compensating the artists and simply putting them on a pending list– that’s pending both artist compensation and rights to distribute. While at the same time they are bringing lawsuits against poverty class individuals for millions of dollars for downloading a few tracks off the internet and lobbying in secret for treaties like ACTA (look it up). At the punitive rate these very organizations have been demanding in court, their liabilities amount to $60,000,000,000 (yes, sixty BILLION dollars). Pot, meet kettle.
Another obvious sign of the downslide of our society as a whole. Instead of simply looking for recognition, he’s moving to get paid. I’m sure he’d have no problem with the NFL films if he was getting royalties from their airing. We’ve become a “get mine” society slowly disintegrating in chaos.
Wait a minute! The Baltimore Ravens aren’t exactly a charitable foundation. They’re a business, looking to make money. They pay their players. They pay their groundskeepers. They pay for their uniforms. Why shouldn’t the guy who designed their logo be paid for his efforts? Do you think the insurance broker who places insurance for the Ravens is entitled to compensation for their efforts? Or should the broker just be satisfied with “recognition”? How about some equitability here?
Wait a minute, read the article; he’s not asking for money. In the 1998 case the jury agreed that the logo was stolen from him, ie that the logo is his intellectual property, however they didn’t award back damages. This motion is seeking to stop the Ravens franchise from further profiting off of (what has already been declared as) his property. It seems like it is a reasonable thing to ask, on the surface. The debate is over whether the Ravens are actually still profiting over the use of his property (doubtful) and if so, whether erasing history is a reasonable solution (doubtful). The Ravens should just offer him some money.
Holy sauce for the gander! I am sure that if the Ravens found this guy making royalties by using Raven’s intellectual property that there would have been lawsuit and damages awarded. This is just a guy who wins his case but gets nothing? As someone said, the Ravens are a business and when they rip off this guys design, they should have paid; but without an award, he then asked to just at least pay him for those instances where they MARKETED their team, and made money, using his logo. Why is that not the same when the shoe is on the other foot? What’s sauce for the goose should be….”
I love to post on this topic, but it is a pet peeve and more people need to wake up to the wide implications of continuing to broaden intellectual property rights.
The entitlement mentality resulting from the ownership of ideas brings us remedies such as the above– erasing three years of history because a) this guy “feels” slighted, and b) he doesn’t agree with losing in court, so he is grasping at straws in another attempt to enrich more lawyers.
Look at the news just this week — there is a class action lawsuit against the recording industry for unilaterally assuming the rights to distribute tracks, but not compensating the artists and simply putting them on a pending list– that’s pending both artist compensation and rights to distribute. While at the same time they are bringing lawsuits against poverty class individuals for millions of dollars for downloading a few tracks off the internet and lobbying in secret for treaties like ACTA (look it up). At the punitive rate these very organizations have been demanding in court, their liabilities amount to $60,000,000,000 (yes, sixty BILLION dollars). Pot, meet kettle.
What a waste of court resources!
Another obvious sign of the downslide of our society as a whole. Instead of simply looking for recognition, he’s moving to get paid. I’m sure he’d have no problem with the NFL films if he was getting royalties from their airing. We’ve become a “get mine” society slowly disintegrating in chaos.
Wait a minute! The Baltimore Ravens aren’t exactly a charitable foundation. They’re a business, looking to make money. They pay their players. They pay their groundskeepers. They pay for their uniforms. Why shouldn’t the guy who designed their logo be paid for his efforts? Do you think the insurance broker who places insurance for the Ravens is entitled to compensation for their efforts? Or should the broker just be satisfied with “recognition”? How about some equitability here?
“Why shouldn’t the guy who designed their logo be paid for his efforts?”
Because a jury decided against him.
So he is filing additional claims against the Ravens and the Ravens are, in my opinion correctly, presenting a strong fair use argument.
Too bad the Ravens can’t do anything about how poorly they played against Green Bay last night!
Wait a minute, read the article; he’s not asking for money. In the 1998 case the jury agreed that the logo was stolen from him, ie that the logo is his intellectual property, however they didn’t award back damages. This motion is seeking to stop the Ravens franchise from further profiting off of (what has already been declared as) his property. It seems like it is a reasonable thing to ask, on the surface. The debate is over whether the Ravens are actually still profiting over the use of his property (doubtful) and if so, whether erasing history is a reasonable solution (doubtful). The Ravens should just offer him some money.
Holy sauce for the gander! I am sure that if the Ravens found this guy making royalties by using Raven’s intellectual property that there would have been lawsuit and damages awarded. This is just a guy who wins his case but gets nothing? As someone said, the Ravens are a business and when they rip off this guys design, they should have paid; but without an award, he then asked to just at least pay him for those instances where they MARKETED their team, and made money, using his logo. Why is that not the same when the shoe is on the other foot? What’s sauce for the goose should be….”