Author Topic: Logos and names (Read 19360 times)

SA · « **on:** March 16, 2012, 09:16 »

Hi!

Say for example that I want to do something that illustrates social media, like facebook and twitter.

Can I write the words "Facebook" and "Twitter" and use it? Can i create similar logos, that are my own and not exactly the same as facebook and twitter logos?

I see there is a lot of facebook and twitter logos around in the microstock collection if you search. Is ok to use these simple logos, or very similar, in your illustrations?

helix7 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2012, 09:56 »

I've done it, and most agencies accept these sorts of images. At lease with regard to icons that sort of resemble social media logos. I did this set of icons that includes a bid icon, a book icon, etc., things meant to represent twitter and facebook. There's lots of stuff out there like this. As long as you're not doing anything that's too similar to an existing logo, it's probably fine.

The one thing I would say against doing this is that there are tons of images out there like this already. My icons don't sell particularly well because there are just so many other image like this. It's a very saturated segment of the market.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #2 on:** March 16, 2012, 11:06 »

As far as the words "Facebook" and "twitter" go you can use them as long as they are not in the typeface and color that make up the logo. The logo is protected, the word isn't.

Helix7 has covered the rest. You'll know your made up fake logo is too similar when they reject it.

SA · « **Reply #3 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:02 »

Ok, thx for good answers!

subandit · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2012, 23:44 »

hi,
i just created this image. and its rejected in SS and iS.
any thought? is it really forbiden doing such image?

PinnacleAnimates · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2012, 00:12 »

Quote from: subandit on April 17, 2012, 23:44

hi,
i just created this image. and its rejected in SS and iS.
any thought? is it really forbiden doing such image?

what was the reason provided for rejection?

subandit · « **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:53 »

Quote from: Pinnacleanimates on April 18, 2012, 00:12

Quote from: subandit on April 17, 2012, 23:44
hi,
i just created this image. and its rejected in SS and iS.
any thought? is it really forbiden doing such image?

what was the reason provided for rejection?

from SS its said; Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement.
from iS its similar reason : ++Twitter++ This file includes content that may be subject to copyright or trademark protection. Certain use of this file creates risk of copyright/trademark infringement and we regret that it cannot be accepted, unless this content is removed from the file.

i just wondering how is "blue bird" can be copyright infringement to Twitter brand recently?

stormchaser · « **Reply #7 on:** April 18, 2012, 05:54 »

Quote from: digitalexpression on March 16, 2012, 11:06

As far as the words "Facebook" and "twitter" go you can use them as long as they are not in the typeface and color that make up the logo. The logo is protected, the word isn't.

Helix7 has covered the rest. You'll know your made up fake logo is too similar when they reject it.

Sorry, but both words are protected as they are both registered trademarks. In fact in the case of facebook they even want to limit the use of the word Book by others, which of course is a bunch of crap, but they see things differently.'

http://mashable.com/2010/08/25/facebook-teachbook-lawsuit/

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #8 on:** April 18, 2012, 08:24 »

Quote from: stormchaser on April 18, 2012, 05:54

Quote from: digitalexpression on March 16, 2012, 11:06
As far as the words "Facebook" and "twitter" go you can use them as long as they are not in the typeface and color that make up the logo. The logo is protected, the word isn't.

Helix7 has covered the rest. You'll know your made up fake logo is too similar when they reject it.

Sorry, but both words are protected as they are both registered trademarks. In fact in the case of facebook they even want to limit the use of the word Book by others, which of course is a bunch of crap, but they see things differently.'

http://mashable.com/2010/08/25/facebook-teachbook-lawsuit/

Paris Hilton tried to trademark the term "that's hot" and failed. Donald trump tried to trademark the term "you're fired" and failed. I could sue you right now for the use of the term stormchaser which I'm currently in the process of trademarking. Will I win a lawsuit like that? Doubtful. Referencing a lawsuit is not evidence of anything since anyone can sue anyone for anything. You can protect logos but not words and while facebook didn't exist as a word in common usage prior to the website the word twitter certainly did. It would be surprising if the courts allow facebook to control the use of the word book in any context but until they rule, it's not a fact.

The rejections here are a case of SS and IS playing it safe because they don't want any hassles and the reviewers are generally uninformed and make poor judgements much of the time.

Edit: The issue here is the specific context of a stock illustration, not in general terms. Here is a definition from a legal website on trademark: "a trademark is a distinguishing mark that one can readily associate to a person or business. One example of a symbol trademark is Nike's swoosh design. We all know that swoosh is identified with Nike." The swoosh is an element of the logo which is trademarked. That doesn't mean you can't ever use a swoosh in an image, you just can't use that particular swoosh design. A blue bird is associated with twitter but that doesn't mean you can't have a blue bird in an illustration. The key term in the definition above is "distinguishing mark" and I don't think a word alone qualifies unless it also resembles the style and design of the logo.

SA · « **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2012, 15:20 »

Say someone gets a picture like this approved. A picture where there is a potential copyright problem with facebook, twitter or whatever. Who gets in trouble if it is discovered by the company? The agency or the contributor that made the image?

click_click · « **Reply #10 on:** April 18, 2012, 15:22 »

Quote from: Simon Alvinge on April 18, 2012, 15:20

Say someone gets a picture like this approved. A picture where there is a potential copyright problem with facebook, twitter or whatever. Who gets in trouble if it is discovered by the company? The agency or the contributor that made the image?

Both or at least the contributor.

stormchaser · « **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2012, 15:28 »

Quote from: digitalexpression on April 18, 2012, 08:24

Quote from: stormchaser on April 18, 2012, 05:54
Quote from: digitalexpression on March 16, 2012, 11:06
As far as the words "Facebook" and "twitter" go you can use them as long as they are not in the typeface and color that make up the logo. The logo is protected, the word isn't.

Helix7 has covered the rest. You'll know your made up fake logo is too similar when they reject it.

Sorry, but both words are protected as they are both registered trademarks. In fact in the case of facebook they even want to limit the use of the word Book by others, which of course is a bunch of crap, but they see things differently.'

http://mashable.com/2010/08/25/facebook-teachbook-lawsuit/

Paris Hilton tried to trademark the term "that's hot" and failed. Donald trump tried to trademark the term "you're fired" and failed. I could sue you right now for the use of the term stormchaser which I'm currently in the process of trademarking. Will I win a lawsuit like that? Doubtful. Referencing a lawsuit is not evidence of anything since anyone can sue anyone for anything. You can protect logos but not words and while facebook didn't exist as a word in common usage prior to the website the word twitter certainly did. It would be surprising if the courts allow facebook to control the use of the word book in any context but until they rule, it's not a fact.

The rejections here are a case of SS and IS playing it safe because they don't want any hassles and the reviewers are generally uninformed and make poor judgements much of the time.

Edit: The issue here is the specific context of a stock illustration, not in general terms. Here is a definition from a legal website on trademark: "a trademark is a distinguishing mark that one can readily associate to a person or business. One example of a symbol trademark is Nike's swoosh design. We all know that swoosh is identified with Nike." The swoosh is an element of the logo which is trademarked. That doesn't mean you can't ever use a swoosh in an image, you just can't use that particular swoosh design. A blue bird is associated with twitter but that doesn't mean you can't have a blue bird in an illustration. The key term in the definition above is "distinguishing mark" and I don't think a word alone qualifies unless it also resembles the style and design of the logo.

Companies do submit Wordmarks only and many times do not register a drawing. The question that was asked is "Are Twitter and Facebook words protected?" Yes they are. This in direct opposition to your statement if "The logo is protected, the word isn't." Please go back to trademark school 101 and then talk to me.

stormchaser · « **Reply #12 on:** April 18, 2012, 15:34 »

Quote from: click_click on April 18, 2012, 15:22

Quote from: Simon Alvinge on April 18, 2012, 15:20
Say someone gets a picture like this approved. A picture where there is a potential copyright problem with facebook, twitter or whatever. Who gets in trouble if it is discovered by the company? The agency or the contributor that made the image?
Both or at least the contributor.

It's actually the end user that would get the shaft depending on usage. A contributor can make whatever image he wants and the agency can be stupid enough to take it and sell it. About the only way a shooter gets in trouble is if he lies about a model release or breaks into a premises such as a desirable abandoned property to take photos and sell.

click_click · « **Reply #13 on:** April 18, 2012, 15:40 »

Quote from: stormchaser on April 18, 2012, 15:34

Quote from: click_click on April 18, 2012, 15:22
Quote from: Simon Alvinge on April 18, 2012, 15:20
Say someone gets a picture like this approved. A picture where there is a potential copyright problem with facebook, twitter or whatever. Who gets in trouble if it is discovered by the company? The agency or the contributor that made the image?
Both or at least the contributor.

It's actually the end user that would get the shaft depending on usage. A contributor can make whatever image he wants and the agency can be stupid enough to take it and sell it. About the only way a shooter gets in trouble is if he lies about a model release or breaks into a premises such as a desirable abandoned property to take photos and sell.

The end user will be the first person a copyright holder will go after. However, if the end user can bring proof that he/she unknowingly used the image in a prohibited way (IS, SS legal guarantee!!!) then the end user has done their homework to protect themselves.

So if the agency IS so stupid to accept that picture BUT also has us sign a contract saying that WE are NOT allowed to upload copyright protected content they could push the buck to us.

I know for a fact that both agencies and contributors got sued for such cases.

helix7 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 18, 2012, 16:34 »

Quote from: subandit on April 18, 2012, 04:53

i just wondering how is "blue bird" can be copyright infringement to Twitter brand recently?

I was thinking the same thing. Seems agencies are getting a bit overly cautious when it comes to this stuff. Twitter would have no case over the use of a generic blue bird in a stock image. They have no rights to every image of a blue bird. And surely the agencies know this. Maybe it's an issue of misinformed reviewers pretending to be lawyers.

leaf · « **Reply #15 on:** June 10, 2012, 07:54 »

.. another thought here. What keywords were you using? Perhaps it was a problem with that if you used iPad, Twitter or Facebook in the keywords.

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** June 10, 2012, 08:02 »

Quote from: Simon Alvinge on March 16, 2012, 09:16

Hi!
Say for example that I want to do something that illustrates social media, like facebook and twitter.
Can I write the words "Facebook" and "Twitter" and use it? Can i create similar logos, that are my own and not exactly the same as facebook and twitter logos?

I don't know about any other micro, but iStock don't allow trademark words like Twitter and Facebook in the commercial collection (i.e. non-editorial). You will find brand names on some editorial files, so either they're slipped past an inspector or they've been added post-inspection. They do get removed from time to time when a keyword cull occurs.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Logos and names (Read 19360 times)

SA

helix7

digitalexpressionimages

SA

subandit

PinnacleAnimates

subandit

stormchaser

digitalexpressionimages

SA

click_click

stormchaser

stormchaser

click_click

helix7

leaf

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors