ok, so the new emblem got leaked today. i've seen it, but i'm not going to post it. i don't want others to post it. not even a link. the club will release it officially when they are ready.

my question is, what is the legality of posting this emblem? it was published on a government trademark website. the person who leaked it was apparently looking for information regarding the gold coast, and stumbled upon it. have they breached any laws by posting it? if the logo was just leaked via a link, is this any different to posting it as an image (as it has been hosted on another website, eg imageshack?). would the website that it has been leaked on have any onus to remove it?

purely interested.

ps. it's a magnificent logo

ok, so the new emblem got leaked today. i've seen it, but i'm not going to post it. i don't want others to post it. not even a link. the club will release it officially when they are ready.

my question is, what is the legality of posting this emblem? it was published on a government trademark website. the person who leaked it was apparently looking for information regarding the gold coast, and stumbled upon it. have they breached any laws by posting it? if the logo was just leaked via a link, is this any different to posting it as an image (as it has been hosted on another website, eg imageshack?). would the website that it has been leaked on have any onus to remove it?

purely interested.

ps. it's a magnificent logo

Call a lawyer !!! Or move to America where you can sue for anything. GIVE US A SPELL !!!

ok, so the new emblem got leaked today. i've seen it, but i'm not going to post it. i don't want others to post it. not even a link. the club will release it officially when they are ready.

my question is, what is the legality of posting this emblem? it was published on a government trademark website. the person who leaked it was apparently looking for information regarding the gold coast, and stumbled upon it. have they breached any laws by posting it? if the logo was just leaked via a link, is this any different to posting it as an image (as it has been hosted on another website, eg imageshack?). would the website that it has been leaked on have any onus to remove it?

purely interested.

ps. it's a magnificent logo

As I understand it the Copyright is still pending. It is not copyrighted yet. It has been submitted for copyright. I will tell you this much, prosecuting and claiming damages from internet sources is a gold mine for law firms and a nightmare for those that suffer damage. Issues regarding copyright and the internet are complex and undeveloped in many ways. Think about this for a moment, say I use the current Demons Logo on this website, it is copyrighted (registered), what gives me authority to make use of it?

Remedies that the Club may seek would include an injunction to prevent further use of the image on any media based site or forum. If damage or loss can be established (very difficult in this case) they may seek to claim damages against those he reproduced the image.

That is a very basic analysis.

Edited July 21, 201015 yr by Yeats_08

Is a tattoo publishing?

As I understand it the Copyright is still pending. It is not copyrighted yet. It has been submitted for copyright. I will tell you this much, prosecuting and claiming damages from internet sources is a gold mine for law firms and a nightmare for those that suffer damage. Issues regarding copyright and the internet are complex and undeveloped in many ways. Think about this for a moment, say I use the current Demons Logo on this website, it is copyrighted (registered), what gives me authority to make use of it?

Remedies that the Club may seek would include an injunction to prevent further use of the image on any media based site or forum. If damage or loss can be established (very difficult in this case) they may seek to claim damages against those he reproduced the image.

That is a very basic analysis.

Copyright occurs when it is created by the artist.

Is a tattoo publishing?

Moot point. It reproducing. You have to prove damage or loss suffered though in order to sue and recover damages.

So lets say Ben Cousins has 'Twisties' logo tattooed on his chest instead of the ned kelly saying, Twisties my argue its image has been tarnished and that sales have suffered as a result of Cousins' image being sprawled on newspapers after being arrested for drugs. They will argue that he or the artist, had no right to reproduce the image. Its a very remote legal argument though.

Copyright occurs when it is created by the artist.

This is true in the cases of some works, not ideas of course. As I said, it is too complex to explain in a short thread. If you want info on copyright or patents refer to this website. Good overview. http://www.copyright.org.au/information/cit014/wp0125

I'm surprised the club wouldn't know that as soon as they applied for registration as a trademark, the design was immediately publicly accessible via the registration website. It would have been found eventually and it was.

There are also fair-use provisions in the Copyright Act allowing for criticism and review (S.41, S.103A), or for reporting news (S.42).

Beyond that it's a matter of etiquette and trust between Demonland and the club.

Edited July 21, 201015 yr by maurie

ok, so the new emblem got leaked today. i've seen it, but i'm not going to post it. i don't want others to post it. not even a link. the club will release it officially when they are ready.

my question is, what is the legality of posting this emblem? it was published on a government trademark website. the person who leaked it was apparently looking for information regarding the gold coast, and stumbled upon it. have they breached any laws by posting it? if the logo was just leaked via a link, is this any different to posting it as an image (as it has been hosted on another website, eg imageshack?). would the website that it has been leaked on have any onus to remove it?

purely interested.

ps. it's a magnificent logo

I agree, it is magnificent. It's bold and new but it also honours our history and heritage.

I love it.

I'm surprised the club wouldn't know that as soon as they applied for registration as a trademark, the design was immediately publicly accessible via the registration website. It would have been found eventually and it was.

There are also fair-use provisions in the Copyright Act allowing for criticism and review (S.41), or for reporting news (S.42).

Beyond that it's a matter of etiquette and trust between Demonland and the club.

Well put Maurie, and I think you make an important point, that is that the website that it was taken from was a TM website, not copyright. Two different things

Well put Maurie, and I think you make an important point, that is that the website that it was taken from was a TM website, not copyright. Two different things

I am assuming it is AFL owned ? Are they the party obtaining the copyright...?

ok, so the new emblem got leaked today. i've seen it, but i'm not going to post it. i don't want others to post it. not even a link. the club will release it officially when they are ready.

my question is, what is the legality of posting this emblem? it was published on a government trademark website. the person who leaked it was apparently looking for information regarding the gold coast, and stumbled upon it. have they breached any laws by posting it? if the logo was just leaked via a link, is this any different to posting it as an image (as it has been hosted on another website, eg imageshack?). would the website that it has been leaked on have any onus to remove it?

purely interested.

ps. it's a magnificent logo

And cannot wait to see it!!

I am assuming it is AFL owned ? Are they the party obtaining the copyright...?

The AFL is the organisation listed on the Trademark application.

Copyright generally exists as soon as something original is created. You don't need to apply for it, just claim it. It generally belongs to the artist.

MFC won't sue if someone published the new logo on a web forum, they can't afford the legal costs

...The AFL will sue. They own the copyright to the TM.

it looks quite good actually, i think we should change our away strip to the MFC carlton symbol style thing in the middle of the jersey. i mention it because its on the new logo.

...The AFL will sue. They own the copyright to the TM.

Why would you say that? It's incorrect.

Just had a look at it and I love it great work.

...The AFL will sue. They own the copyright to the TM.

Why would yo suggest the AFL own either the copyright or trademark to a business it doesnt own. It only licences the team ( MFC ) to compete in the competition

Ok its moot at this point that they own the copyright to the TM.

But they would bankroll any contingent legal action. I doubt if it will get to that.

Just had a look at it and I love it great work.

Ok I just had to have a look, if this is the new emblem, what can I say it's brilliant, no Faaaaaarrrrrkkkkkkking awesome, well done for the thought process and new dawn a new era will begin.

Ok its moot at this point that they own the copyright to the TM.

Under the Trademark application:

Owner/s:

Australian Football League

ACN 004155211

AFL House

140 Harbour Esplanade

DOCKLANDS VIC 3008

AUSTRALIA

Address for Service:

MIDDLETONS

Level 25 South Tower

525 Collins Street

MELBOURNE VIC 3000

AUSTRALIA

its a [censored] emblem

How the hell is everyone seeing the new emblem!!??!!??

How the hell is everyone seeing the new emblem!!??!!??

Bigfooty pal