NEW YORK JETS LOGO CREATOR SUES TEAM, NFL ... Pay Me For My Design!!!

[SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN]

5 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

71?  It was 108 years. 

The famous line by Cubs' broadcaster Jack Brickhouse was "any team can have a bad century".

The Jets are almost there .

[Greensleeves]

On 7/2/2024 at 12:30 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

This is what I was thinking, but the team used it for so long (and so many years ago), that by now the IP is probably implied as team ownership (not just not-his, but not-public domain either; it's Woody's now, and was Leon's before him).

But yeah, unless this guy was employed as a designer (or employed by the team as whatever and they specifically asked him to take a crack at this), then it should/would have been his own IP -- that is, if he'd made a stink about it decades ago.

There's also a chance that, had he made such a, "Hey this is mine," stink before they decided to use it back then - which may have required royalties & such - that they may not have used it in the first place (let alone use it again now). Then again if he had created such a conflict back then, his job may have found its way into being in jeopardy by some suddenly-appearing, unrelated offense. 

Regardless, it's been almost 50 years. He's SOL, and frankly - other than the David/Goliath optics - he should be SOL; businesses can't operate like that, where decades later such claims are made about any number of things. He's had all the time in the world. What this is isn't being screwed-over; it's his regret at not acting when he had the chance. I've got no love for Woody Johnson, but sorry that's just tough titty and should be.

Woody could give him some free gear & such with that logo on it just to be nice, but that's it, and on paper it'd have to be a gift, not compensation. That's my guess / Holiday Inn Express level of expertise lol.

You have a copyright in your artwork as soon as it has been created and fixed in a tangible object. It does not need to be registered with the copyright office or have a copyright notice attached to receive copyright protection. A copyright lasts for the life of the artist, plus 70 years after the artist's death. Going by this standard copyright information, the Jets do not own the logo and never have. It was informally licensed to them at the time but do not own it. This is most likely why a lawsuit has been filed.

[Greensleeves]

18 hours ago, Dunnie said:

Unless the guy copyrighted/trademarked that logo to himself before handing it over .. he has no case.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

This isn't true. He doesn't have to trademark his own design - he automatically owns it. Proof of creation is important. I don't have to copyright anything  that I design - I own if for my lifetime plus 70 years.

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Would that even matter 46+ years later? If it's new evidence that was just uncovered/discovered, does that therefore restart the clock ("I couldn't sue way back when because I had no case/proof, but now I've got proof for the first time")? 

I'm sure it wouldn't but it is all I could think of.  Unless he claims they promised him something nd didn't come through.  Also unlikely 50 years later

[Sperm Edwards]

18 minutes ago, Greensleeves said:

You have a copyright in your artwork as soon as it has been created and fixed in a tangible object. It does not need to be registered with the copyright office or have a copyright notice attached to receive copyright protection. A copyright lasts for the life of the artist, plus 70 years after the artist's death. Going by this standard copyright information, the Jets do not own the logo and never have. It was informally licensed to them at the time but do not own it. This is most likely why a lawsuit has been filed.

That lifetime + 70 years presumes the copyright was his in the first place.

If the company said, "Hey Joe why don't you take a crack at this?" then he's eff'd because it was a task given to him by his employer as part of his paid duties (i.e. he got paid, in the form of a paycheck). He probably has to prove otherwise, that he did this on his own time, and that he did so voluntarily and not as part of his job.

If he can do that - and power to him if he can - then he's got a case. But everyone who creates original artwork isn't therefore the owner of a copyright for said artwork. If he got paid to do it, that's that. If he was a salaried employee it'd probably be even more difficult for him since there's no timecards to punch in and punch out (i.e. working from home is a thing).

If it was otherwise, no company would ever own a copyright for anything original created by its employees (or any individuals contracted to create it). Every company logo. You think every company CEO/owner was the original artist/creator of their respective company logos? They paid someone to do it. Their argument will surely be that he was paid as an employee. 

Don't get me wrong -- I'd think it was hilarious if he prevailed, but it's extremely doubtful he will. 

[Dcat]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Lifetime? Shrewd idea seeing how he's 81.  

+ free flights on Jet Blue

solved!

[Integrity28]

9 hours ago, neckdemon said:

lol is this legit? i thought you were kidding at first

Haha, yes.

[Thai Jet]

On 7/2/2024 at 1:20 PM, Rich Thornburgh said:

Florio is a dumb guy

I was thinking in stronger terms like DBag but this will do. 

[TuscanyTile2]

3 hours ago, SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN said:

The Jets are almost there .

[TBJ]

On 7/1/2024 at 10:50 PM, Dunnie said:

This happens all the time .. Reminds me of a story my character design instructor shared w me. There was an artist that used to do cartoon drawings for kids on the Santa Monica pier. One day Don Bluth passes by and asks him to draw a cute mouse with a little bit of a spunky attitude as an immigrant... Pays the guy $500... Two years later An American Tale gets nationwide release making $75 ($200m today) million profit in the 80s and Fievel the mouse goes down in history as an iconic animated character.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Stop lying. Everybody knows Zach had the Ape ghost draw the mouse for him to impress his mom's 55 year old girl friend.

Then Zach's mom stiffed the Ape.

[Jimmy 2 Times]

On 7/2/2024 at 12:19 PM, Rich Thornburgh said:

Hopefully this forces us to go back to the classic uniforms

Now I'm secretly hoping for a lawsuit!

 

 

 

WHITE HELMETS!!! 

[Jimmy 2 Times]

19 hours ago, JetsfaninNorthHollywood said:

Similar thing happened with the Ravens logo. 

Logo artist files copyright lawsuits against Ravens, NFL – Baltimore Sun

 

I think you gave me spam-ware from that link.....thanks. 

[Jimmy 2 Times]

Half of me wants them to pay for his logo.  The other half wants me to tell him to piss off.  

 

 

Funny thing is, if they gave him a $100 for his logo in the 70's he'd been happy. 

Give the man a bone (2-5 million).... it's a drop in the bucket to Woody. 

[JetsfaninNorthHollywood]

20 minutes ago, Jimmy 2 Times said:

I think you gave me spam-ware from that link.....thanks. 

Damn I'm sorry about that. 

[Doggin94it]

On 7/2/2024 at 12:59 PM, Claymation said:

That's exactly how that works, when you are hired, companies make you sign a waiver stating anything created while working for the "Said" company is the property of the "Said" company. His job was film and video director. That is in the scope of his job.

Plus, The mark in question has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for nearly 50 years. The mark has been used continuously in numerous iterations since that time. 

 

1) the reason they say a little knowledge is dangerous is because when you think you know something, you're much more likely to fail to recognize when you're wrong about it

2)yeah, if he signed a contract that said "anything you create while an employee belongs to us, even if not on the scope of your job and on your own time" that would be enforceable. That's not what employment agreements typically say, and he doesn't have one that does. 

3) no, being a film director doesn't make "creating new team logos" part of his job duties. 

4) registering a trademark doesn't mean you own a copyright in the art, or can use that art without infringing the copyright if you've stolen it. Continuous use doesn't change that. 

14 hours ago, Dunnie said:

This ... Is awesome ... But I'm still not sure ... Any material rights lawyers out there ??

If I create a yo yo ... Sell them unregistered for years ... Then a corporation registers their copy ... I always thought I'd be outta luck.

I can see your point ... I'm curious now. There are reasons logos are trademarked right?

He would have definitely had to have drawn the original away from the office to avoid it being the companies IP id assume.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk


 

Yes. I do copyright and trademark registration and litigation along with commercial litigation. Since we started representing videogame studios its become a big part of my practice. 

 

8 hours ago, Greensleeves said:

You have a copyright in your artwork as soon as it has been created and fixed in a tangible object. It does not need to be registered with the copyright office or have a copyright notice attached to receive copyright protection. A copyright lasts for the life of the artist, plus 70 years after the artist's death. Going by this standard copyright information, the Jets do not own the logo and never have. It was informally licensed to them at the time but do not own it. This is most likely why a lawsuit has been filed.

This is also wrong. The Jets own the trademark. The copyright in the trademarked logo probably belongs to Pons, assuming the Jets can't prove he created it in the scope of his employment. 

But that won't matter. By giving it to them, for free, to use as their logo, he gave the Jets an implied license to the art (which means they can use it without infringing). And since logos are intended to be used essentially forever, that's an implied license that is still available to them. 

That said, I'm a pretty damn creative lawyer, so I can think of one argument Pons could make that might survive dismissal. But I don't think I particularly want to publicly post it given that this is essentially a hold up I have no reason to want to help

[mfmartin]

This is also wrong. The Jets own the trademark. The copyright in the trademarked logo probably belongs to Pons, assuming the Jets can't prove he created it in the scope of his employment. 
But that won't matter. By giving it to them, for free, to use as their logo, he gave the Jets an implied license to the art (which means they can use it without infringing). And since logos are intended to be used essentially forever, that's an implied license that is still available to them. 
That said, I'm a pretty damn creative lawyer, so I can think of one argument Pons could make that might survive dismissal. But I don't think I particularly want to publicly post it given that this is essentially a hold up I have no reason to want to help

I watched his documentary and while creating the logo wasn’t part of his job duties, he entered it in as part of an inter office contest for the next Jets logo.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[Sperm Edwards]

14 hours ago, Dcat said:

+ free flights on Jet Blue

solved!

Whoa, slow down there — airline perks may be the team’s way of selecting a franchise QB but logo ownership compensation is really serious stuff here!  

cc: @bitonti

[Green DNA]

He was an employee of the team and created the logo as part of his job so this is the intellectual property of the Jets.  Doesn't seem fair but the law is on the Jets side.

[OilfieldJet]

On 7/2/2024 at 8:06 AM, Dcat said:

Happens in the world of art as well.  An early Halloween painting by my wife was copied and sells regularly on apparel and many other items from China.  We've seen it on the internet all over for 2 decades now. 

Great painting!

[Doggin94it]

On 7/4/2024 at 12:00 AM, mfmartin said:

 

I watched his documentary and while creating the logo wasn’t part of his job duties, he entered it in as part of an inter office contest for the next Jets logo.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

Exactly. So... He probably owns the copyright (unless the contest rules provided for it to be transferred to the team), but by entering it in the contest he gave them irrevocable permission to use it

[Maxman]

On 7/4/2024 at 8:51 AM, Green DNA said:

He was an employee of the team and created the logo as part of his job so this is the intellectual property of the Jets.  Doesn't seem fair but the law is on the Jets side.

Also the fact that this happened in 1864 and he is just mentioning it now kind of hurts his case as well.