3 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoColours 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 agoWell, 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?