Surprised it took them so long...

[gtsully]

A little off the subject, but in looking at the cornellbigred.com site, I couldn't help but notice the "Listen to the game!" links all over any area where the hockey team's schedule is posted.  I don't think those audio links were so rampant last year when it was free...

[Beeeej]

What you believe about Age's picture doesn't matter very much.  Trademark holders need to enforce their mark on every apparently unauthorized use of it, or they lose their mark.  If Age mounts a reasonable defense under "fair use," they can back down, or they can take him to court and risk losing.

As for "loser pays" laws, most of them are really designed to protect corporations from frivolous lawsuits, not individuals like Age.  Next time you lose your eyesight because of a defective product but for whatever reason the manufacturer wins the lawsuit, come back and tell me how you feel about "loser pays" laws.

And lastly, Cornell also does not benefit from scholarship endowments.  Students who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford college benefit from scholarship endowments.

Beeeej

[kaelistus]

Then why did Cornell not enforce its trademark on the old (non-screw) bear. No, they let that one slide. So much for enforcing every unauthorized use of the bear...

Unless, of course, Keith's old page had permission from Cornell to use that bear. I'm assuming he didn't.

[jeh25]

I'm with Beeeej here. Cornell was correct to send Age the letter given that they must enforce their trademarks or lose them. Cornell cannot pick and choose when to enforce their trademarks; they must do it each and every time. You can whine that isn't fair but tough cookies, that is the way the system works.  

HOWEVER, it seems to me (and IANAL) that Age is justified in using the modified image given that there is a parody exemption in the case law surrounding trademark. My understanding is that to be exempt, the parody must "convey two simultaneous and contradictory messages". Moreover, the parody must diminish the risk of consumer confusion "by conveying [only] just enough of the original design to allow the consumer to appreciate the point of parody.  (http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/faq.cgi#QID88)

Then again, satire is *not* protected so what the hell do I know...
(http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cni-copyright/msg03098.html)

It is also my understanding that "first amendment considerations are much stronger in the non-commercial context, in which the parodist is attempting to express an idea, than in the commercial context, in which the parodist uses the parody of the mark in association with his own goods or services."
(http://www.usip.com/articles/parodytm.htm)

Of course, this is all moot when we consider this is a battle best waged in press rather than in a courtroom. I suspect the senior Cornell administration would rein in Athletics pretty quickly before letting this degenerate into a PR debacle. But just to be safe, maybe Age should contact the EFF.

(See Age, all that surfing and reading on IP when I was supposed to be working on my thesis wasn't pointless after all )

http://www.eff.org/Activism/activismtraining.html#parody

[nshapiro]

Age,

Through this site, you provide a tremendous service to Alumni. I think the appropriate question is really "Why isn't this site given permission to use Cornell trademarks?"  

I would appreciate it if Age could take a minute to explain his relationship with Athletics and the University.  I know that they let you run those feeds, so in some way they are sanctioning elynah.

If Athletics were the least bit pro-active, they could have found someone connected with the university - not necessarily Age - who would have been happy to provide the audio on the web, maybe as part of a research project or knowing Cornell, for Gym credit.


And didn't Cornell try something like a Cornell Sports Network a few years ago?  I was really proud of athletics striking out and trying to get the sporting events aired to as many alumni as possible.  Things sure have changed.

[Adam \'04]

Yeah. Why don't they just say;

"Hey you there!!! Come over here! OK, good. Now spread your legs while I put my steal-toed boots on."

::twitch::

"No. No... I promise you will enjoy the experience unequivocally."

 ::help::

[CowbellGuy]

The old bear logo is owned by the university and every time athletics needed to use it for something, they had to get permission from the university. They got tired of the red tape and decided to have their own logo made, which they could use to their hearts' content. I certainly  don't blame them for having their own logo made. The situation was pretty ridiculous. The design is somewhat regrettable, however.

I have some experience with the logo business. I had to get permission to use the university logo on the FSAE racing team t-shirts when I was on the team. If I wanted to use the actual logo, I could probably jump through the hoops and fill out the forms and get permission to, but frankly I'm not in the slightest way affiliated with athletics, they've never given me a damn thing, and they can rot in hell for all I care, so I wouldn't want to be linked to them in any way, even if it was just a logo.

As for the LynahCam, they had an opportunity to help out, but wouldn't lift a finger. All I get is the video feed from the team camera (which I'm sure coach is glad I had, for the aforementioned tape incident). The hardware is all mine, the software is mine, and the servers reside at my places of employment on campus (with full knowledge of my employers, despite the unfounded slander propagated by ::rolleyes:: on that account). As I said, I even had to run my own ethernet wire to the press box, which I share with whomever needs it (including Adam this year). So really, I get jack from athletics.

[Beeeej]

They're required to attempt to enforce their trademark in every instance in which they know about the potential infringement.  I'm sure you must be able to comprehend that a trademark holder can't be expected to enforce ownership of a mark when they don't know it's being used.  (As Age has theorized, someone in Athletics has only very recently been kind enough to notify University Relations, and UR almost certainly wasn't aware of eLF before that.)

Which brings an interesting question to my mind.  If Cornell University is the trademark owner of record, but Athletics consciously let it slide as long as eLF bore the proper image (and they would have had to; Laura has been reading eLF for several years) and only notified the larger entity known as Cornell when they felt the image had been used rudely, did Athletics - acting as Cornell's agent - fail to enforce vigorously?

I suspect the answer in a court of law would be "no," but it's an argument I'd enjoy trying to make.  Shame I'm not a member of the Bar yet.

Beeeej

P.S. Age, any reason you wouldn't want to ask UR for legit permission to use the old logo on eLF?  We all preferred it, anyway.

[CowbellGuy]

Heh. That's actually a good idea. However, I didn't have any of the logos before the satire one.

[Josh '99]

OK, now THAT is a funny image.

[crodger1]

I'd kind a like to see one with http://www.sonypictures.com/tv/shows/sgn/sh/cast4.html (from Sony Pictures -- CYA).

[Erica]

>And my class dues, as far as I know, mostly go into a Cornell scholarship >with the class's name on it. Thus its pretty much the same as giving to >the school directly.

Your class dues go to your class fund, which is controlled by class officers from your class, hence the name.  And, if they were for a scholarship, then it would be giving to a current or prospective student, which is not giving to Cornell.  I don't think Athletics gives a damn if you are withholding money for your class, I just hope you are not in the same class as me..

>Also, in my Cornell Magazine renewal, I didn't see a box marked "Order >magazine only, do not give the donation", so that went away.

Actually, you can order the magazine only. I almost did it by accident when I paid my dues. The dues are only $5 more than the subscription or something, so it doesn't really pay to get the magazine only.

[Math Guy]

Well sure it pays.  $5 is 71% to my monthly Bend Over And Take It Webcast fee.

[Will]

Adam '01 wrote:

[Q]Ya know what we did to Voloninno? Yeah.....[/Q]

Yeah, I remember what we did to Volonnino! :-D But I'm not sure this warrants that exact kind of treatment. While pissing them off would be nice, I'd be much happier to actually get the old screw logo back, or, better yet, get them to ditch the whole CornellPass thing all together.

[marty]

Note in the article linked that the issue is not completely different.  Satire and noncommercial use have been used as criteria to allow use of trademarked items.   An email based group called the Stella awards used this topic as the basis of its current posting.  For more information see:

 http://www.stellaawards.com/

Note the following sentence:

[Q]The court held that "Barbie Girl" fell under the noncommercial-use exception. [/Q]

from

http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawArticle&cid=1028321273186&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0