4 ms·

At the very least, the name of the tool is trademark infringement and the derivative logo is copyright infringement. If the main goal behind the suspension was

by natrius 15y ago

At the very least, the name of the tool is trademark infringement and the derivative logo is copyright infringement. If the main goal behind the suspension was user retention rather than just bypassing the API limits, whoever made the decision chose poorly. Flickr users who find out about this will know that it will be difficult to get their photos out if they decide to use something else in the future, so they have a greater incentive to seek alternatives beforehand.

true_religion 15y ago
The name of the tool is Flick Raft, two words. Logos are typically tried under trademark, not copyright protection. This is a good thing for Flicr because trying to claim that having two colors in your logo highlighting the text is something unique to your logo wouldn't make a very good fight in the copyright court.
- natrius 15y ago
  Your first point is silly, so I'll skip it. Logos are protected by both trademark and copyright in many cases. Judging a work to be too trivial for copyright is a job for an actual lawyer. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#title http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#title
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    - anthonyb 15y ago
      Colours would be under trademark, not copyright, but in this case they're also ripping off the Flickr logo. Same colours, same font.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        anthonyb 15y ago
        Well, whether they will be successful is a matter for the courts, but they are on pretty shaky legal ground. It's not clearly a parody, they are clearly a competitor and the colours and font, if not identical, are similar enough to evoke the Flickr logo. I wouldn't be surprised if a cease and desist was already on its way...
        ceejayoz 15y ago
        > Similar fonts are not the same---if similarity were enough to sue upon then every free sans-serif font would be forced to pay money to the professional font they're inspired by. You pointed out earlier in this thread that trademarks are different from copyrights, and now pretend to not understand that fact?
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  C'mon. The logo on the page was the Flickr logo with "aft" appended. If you made a drink in a red can with the Coca-Cola logo plus a couple extra letters on the end you'd get legitimately sued into oblivion too.
  - true_religion 15y ago
    R+aft is an actual word. If I created a drink called Coca-Colada, I'd probably have a legitimate grievance if someone claimed I was ripping off Coca-Cola. Or how about a bowl to wash off coca plants, marketed as a Coca Collander? Are they still going to sue me into oblivion?
    - ceejayoz 15y ago
      > If I created a drink called Coca-Colada, I'd probably have a legitimate grievance if someone claimed I was ripping off Coca-Cola. Not if you used their logo verbatim in yours. Look at the screenshot TechCrunch features: http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/flickraft.jpg?w=288 http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/flickraf... > Or how about a bowl to wash off coca plants, marketed as a Coca Collander? Are they still going to sue me into oblivion? Again, if you used their logo, probably. A collander isn't in direct competition with a soft drink, though, so it's a pretty poor analogy.
      - true_religion 15y ago
        That isn't the Flickr logo verbatim. Artistically---its not even the same font, nor the same colors (not all blues and light pinks are created equal). It's apparent just by glancing at it that its not the same thing. Any argument that it'll create confusion in the marketplace is null. Even the nature of the service further differenciates FlickRaft from Flickr. Did you really look at FlickRaft, and think "gracious, Flickr want's me to move from their servers to Snapjoy!" Do you think anyone ever could? If there's no problem there, then there's no trademark violation. All that's left is calling this a copyright issue. However with a word logo, there's only 4 points to its artwork: 1. The actual words (Different in the case of FlickRaft) 2. The font (also different) 3. The color combination (reminiscent but actually different) 4. The pattern (there's just two colors, a protectable pattern this does not make).
barefoot 15y ago
> At the very least, the name of the tool is trademark infringement and the derivative logo is copyright infringement. I wouldn't say that for sure. I'm not a lawyer but I would guess that the use of the name and logo would pass as a parody.
- natrius 15y ago
  It is definitely not a parody. It's a feature of a competing product.

by natrius 15y ago

true_religion 15y ago

The name of the tool is Flick Raft, two words. Logos are typically tried under trademark, not copyright protection. This is a good thing for Flicr because trying to claim that having two colors in your logo highlighting the text is something unique to your logo wouldn't make a very good fight in the copyright court.

natrius 15y ago
Your first point is silly, so I'll skip it. Logos are protected by both trademark and copyright in many cases. Judging a work to be too trivial for copyright is a job for an actual lawyer. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#title http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#title
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - anthonyb 15y ago
    Colours would be under trademark, not copyright, but in this case they're also ripping off the Flickr logo. Same colours, same font.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
      - anthonyb 15y ago
        Well, whether they will be successful is a matter for the courts, but they are on pretty shaky legal ground. It's not clearly a parody, they are clearly a competitor and the colours and font, if not identical, are similar enough to evoke the Flickr logo. I wouldn't be surprised if a cease and desist was already on its way...
      - ceejayoz 15y ago
        > Similar fonts are not the same---if similarity were enough to sue upon then every free sans-serif font would be forced to pay money to the professional font they're inspired by. You pointed out earlier in this thread that trademarks are different from copyrights, and now pretend to not understand that fact?
ceejayoz 15y ago
C'mon. The logo on the page was the Flickr logo with "aft" appended. If you made a drink in a red can with the Coca-Cola logo plus a couple extra letters on the end you'd get legitimately sued into oblivion too.
- true_religion 15y ago
  R+aft is an actual word. If I created a drink called Coca-Colada, I'd probably have a legitimate grievance if someone claimed I was ripping off Coca-Cola. Or how about a bowl to wash off coca plants, marketed as a Coca Collander? Are they still going to sue me into oblivion?
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    > If I created a drink called Coca-Colada, I'd probably have a legitimate grievance if someone claimed I was ripping off Coca-Cola. Not if you used their logo verbatim in yours. Look at the screenshot TechCrunch features: http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/flickraft.jpg?w=288 http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/flickraf... > Or how about a bowl to wash off coca plants, marketed as a Coca Collander? Are they still going to sue me into oblivion? Again, if you used their logo, probably. A collander isn't in direct competition with a soft drink, though, so it's a pretty poor analogy.
    - true_religion 15y ago
      That isn't the Flickr logo verbatim. Artistically---its not even the same font, nor the same colors (not all blues and light pinks are created equal). It's apparent just by glancing at it that its not the same thing. Any argument that it'll create confusion in the marketplace is null. Even the nature of the service further differenciates FlickRaft from Flickr. Did you really look at FlickRaft, and think "gracious, Flickr want's me to move from their servers to Snapjoy!" Do you think anyone ever could? If there's no problem there, then there's no trademark violation. All that's left is calling this a copyright issue. However with a word logo, there's only 4 points to its artwork: 1. The actual words (Different in the case of FlickRaft) 2. The font (also different) 3. The color combination (reminiscent but actually different) 4. The pattern (there's just two colors, a protectable pattern this does not make).

barefoot 15y ago

> At the very least, the name of the tool is trademark infringement and the derivative logo is copyright infringement. I wouldn't say that for sure. I'm not a lawyer but I would guess that the use of the name and logo would pass as a parody.

natrius 15y ago
It is definitely not a parody. It's a feature of a competing product.