Slashdot Mirror
Wal-Mart Trying to Trademark the Smiley Face
Ellis D. Tripp writes to tell us BBC News is reporting that mega-retailer, Wal-Mart, is now fighting it out with a man who claims to have invented the 'smiley face' logo, and has been marketing it since the '70s. From the article: "Until now the smiley face had been considered in the public domain in the US, and therefore free for anyone to use. Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley told the Los Angeles Times that it had not moved to register the trademark until Mr Loufrani had threatened to do so."
Forest Gump?
----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
John Smiley. There's no irony there. But it is a conincidence. Or maybe a conspiracy.
After all, I am strangely colored.
:(
That's it... (cat filter)
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Whatever the outcome, I'm sure the loser will be entitled to use the SaddyFace.
And since this is a trademark dispute, can't SmileyWorld keep selling its smiley icons while Wal-Mart keep sellings its items. I don't see a dispute here unless Wal-Mart employees start smiling.
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
How about a time frame that is put into place? Lets say you can't patent or trademark an idea/logo if it's been used for over a year. That would solve a lot of problems.
Sig: I stole this sig.
I'd wish them luck, but I'd rather they lose a lot of money trying to fight this instead. There's no lawyer alive that could give them the smiley face with so many examples of prior art. I'd rather see it be renamed the Faceball before the Wal-Mart Man...
In the article, the spokesman's name is Simley. Why is it an anagram of smiley??? WHY?!
Limina.Log
Don't worry... be litigious....
You can't copyright a logo. That's what trademarks are for.
for two months to pay bills.
NO ONE that worked there smiled. Why? We were all miserable. The only time we were happy was when our shifts were ending at 7am, coincidentally when they started selling alcohol each day. I can't speak for walmart in general, but the store I worked at had HORRIBLE management, directly contributing to the lack of smiles amongst the night shift.
Back on topic, its horsepucky. People see a smiley face, they do NOT think "walmart".
There is no emoticon for how I am feeling.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
Despair Inc. already has the frowny emoticon trademarked.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
Harvey R. Ball invented the yellow smiley in 1963 for a life insurance company. He was paid $45.
This space available.
The Cheshire Cat will take exception to all this...
Oh well, what the hell...
Threesome
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
Wal-Mart's smiley face is a very distinctive one - the elongated eyes, the wide smile, the button-ised bevel around its edges, the ray-man-esque gloves. If they included its whistling personality and the song they use for the whistling, there is a GOOD chance they can copyright that specific interpretation of the smiley as a cartoon character, much in the way the Church of the Subgenius seems to hold the copyright for 'Bob's pipe-wielding visage, despite how common the image of a clean-cut 50's male with a pipe actually was in those times.
I think Wal-mart is full of shit here if they think they can claim they invented the smiley or patented its use in drumming up sales, but if they keep to that narrow interpretation I just described, they have a chance.
I've been producing shit since I was born, but you don't see me suing Slashdot.
teh uspto will have officially discredited itself.... open season...
Here is your answer. (Warning: Flash alert.)
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Alan Moore should hold rights to it, but he'd just sign them over to Dave Gibbons anyway....
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
Plastic Legos began production in 1963, they've had smiley faces on them ever since, Duplo's were introduced in 1967, they have smileys.
Suck it.
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
In a deft move by Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, Wal-Mart mistakenly trademarks the Simley face.
This sig intentionally left justified.
You forgot to say "I'm not a lawyer, so you shouldn't listen to me."
You can copyright a logo.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I'm using the "I don't really care" face
:|
because no one else cares either. Whoo, hey! A huge company is tradmarking / copyrighting / doing something stupid with something cool!
Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
When MS tried to trademark the word "Windows", they failed as I believe WalMart will.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
fsck.ext2: No such file or directory while trying to open Walmart
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The universe would not allow such a coincidence. The guy's name, according the the article, is actually John Simley.
I think Joe Boxer had a similar smiley face (and many varieties) long before Wal-Mart started doing it. "But in the end, it is what it is: it's a mark that we have a tremendous investment in and is very closely identified with our company." Actually, many people identify the following symbols with Wal-Mart: :( and :@. Why don't they trademark those two instead?
Apparently, patent and trademark law has changed in the last 20 years to
"Patent and Trademark EVERYTHING, Including the wheel. It will get accepted, and unless you fight it out in court, and LOSE, people should pay you money for using it."
Frivility is a non-issue at this point.
I think walmart and the other guy need a good solid kick in the pants.
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
Walmart is trying to avoid the same situation Linux was in a few years ago. Everybody knew that Linux came from Linus, and yet the USPTO (the "M" for Morons is silent) allowed some mental defective to register "Linux" as a trademark. Much confusion and angst ensued until Linus was able to wrest his trademark back. The way trademarks work, Walmart MUST try to defend their common-law trademark against a rogue trademark registration.
In this case, Walmart is the little guy defending itself against the Big, Bad USPTO.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Wahahahahahahaha!!!!!!11
He obviously doesn't understand the meaning of ironic.
You didn't read the name right just like I did on the first pass on the article.
From the article "Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley told the Los Angeles Times"
Smiley and Simley are not the same.
The truth shall set you free!
Harvey Ball invented in first in the 1960s.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Only fitting, since the frown is already trademarked.
All you jokers replying to this with ":-(" don't realize the irony of your actions -- fronies are a registered trademark of Despair, Inc.
No actually. They tried to patent it, but because the person's name is inserted in the song each time, it becomes a parody of the original song. No royalties on this one...
shanegrant.com
Once trademarked we will all have to use :-)(TM) Isn't that funny ? :-)(TM)
Checked your link.. Refrence to an e-mail in 1982. They seem to be late to the game again.
That one is not the yellow one in dispute.
The truth shall set you free!
SCM
Fsck Walmart
Hello. Welcome to Slashdot. How are you today?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
The only thing that distinguishes "this" smiley face from any three year old's smiley face is the color yellow.
Does the "obvious" thing apply to trademarks? It's just too simple. It's been used too many times before. It's even on license plates.
I know this face from the "have a day" poster; it has dozens of variations of the face with labels like "have a silly day" or "have a cold day".
There's a reason it was in Forrest Gump, and there's a reason someone made a whole poster out of this smiley face; everybody knows that yellow smiley face (from somewhere).
Now, let me see if I get this straight. Some French guy comes along and threatens to trademark the smiley. I guess this implies that he wanted Wal-Mart to quit using it? Wal-Mart hadn't even moved to trademark it until he came along, right?
Wal-Mart didn't do anything wrong. I'm shocked.
It is good to know that this was as reaction, rather than some lunacy Wal-Mart thought up on its own. However, I still worry that if they are granted the trademark that they will put the full power of their considerable legal muscle behind "protecting" it.
I guess it would be a silly dream to think that the USPTO might bring the whole issue to an early close.
I would have thought that would make it a derivative work, therefore royalties would still apply.
If I remember correctly, the sad face: :-(
is already trade marked by Despair Inc.
http://www.despair.com/frownonthis.html
And it is already registered. So I don't see why one can't register a trade mark from the smily face.
No, slashdot needs an overhaul. Happy Birthday is copyrighted, Wal-Mart is trying to trademark the smiley face, and now you mentioned patents for no reason. Those are three different things.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
"Copyright issues Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law it can be protected under the fair use of 17 USC 107. In 2001, the Federal Court of Appeals, 11th District in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin upheld the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves, who were glad to be rid of her. See also the Supreme Court of the United States case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. regarding the song Oh, Pretty Woman." wiki
shanegrant.com
http://img59.imageshack.us/my.php?image=smiley7ql. png
After all, I am strangely colored.
Both Mr Ball and Mr Stern further say that they did not think of trademarking the image at the time.
Who do think will win this? If they don't have a trademark, and if Wal-Mart registers it who will win? Obviously, it's been around forever.. but still.
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
I claim exlusive rights on the use of the middle finger. However, for 5 dollars you can flip me off. Seriously though, the only thing that will be left to the public domain in the future will be ontime M$ patches and Jack Thompson's book.
If I remember correctly, Microsoft's trademark case over the term 'Windows' fell apart on one rather innocious bit of law - apparently while it's entirely possible for something to go from trademarkably specific to common use (like 'kleenex' or 'band-aid'), it's legally impossible for the reverse to occur. Thus, Microsoft's 'Windows' trademark is effectively legally unenforcable. I very much suspect the same applies in this case.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_031.html
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
This brings up some really bizzare (at least in my mind) legal questions.
IIUTC trademark in the US is limited to specific types of business i.e. retail.
From TFA Franklin Loufrani - just one of a number of people who profess to have invented the image - has marketed the sign since the early 1970s.
He and his London-based company SmileyWorld today own the rights to the logo in more than 80 countries around the world.
Does he own a copyright or a trademark? Are these two concepts universal? Does he license it to multiple forms of business? How would this concept of him 'owning the rights' apply here in the US?
On top of that, how does the whole 'prior art' thing work in this instance? Could this guy theoretically trademark something he's been using since the 60's even though another company has been using it for over 10 years? Is prior art an international concept, or does it have to have been used in the US for the USPTO to recognize it?
Ultimately I'm not sure why this frenchman is bothering, other than the fact that he's French and annoying. It would cost Walmart an astronomical amount of money to remove the smiley from all of the areas of business where they use it. I"m sure they'd much rather put that money to fighting it (or buying a judge, buying new laws, etc...). How could anyone hope to have the finances to win this case?
Find coupons in Greeley
Has CowboyNeal filed the trademarks for the "/" and the "." yet? One would think that would be an excellent money-making opportunity for slashdot.
Get his first name right. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
http://www.worcesterhistory.org/ex_smiley.html
Just thought you'll want to know.
Your username + the file on the desktop named "johnny_prolapsed_rectum.jpg"... I bet there's some unifying factor here, but I can't quite put my finger up it.
"A Frenchman who claims to have invented the yellow smiley face back in 1968"
After all, this is a very well known fact that only Frechman is capable of being yellow AND have a smiley face. Fact proven during WWII, case closed. Give the patent to the Frechy.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
I'm sure we could Fsck Walmart, however fsck -f won't work because Walmart isn't exactly a clean organization, nor would fsck -l. I mean Walmarts spawn like fucking cockroaches. -q wouldn't work because I'm sure if we tried to scan the executives who dismounted from the organization we'd find some money laundering or other financial scam going on.
I'm not entirely sure fsck would even work for the organization. We'd have more luck nuking them from high orbit.
Walmart should be held to a higher level of truthfulness in their advertising and thus their grocery bags. I have never really seen associates or customers of Walmart smile. In fact, I see them frown a lot, or just have blank overconsumered looks on their faces. Whether in the returns line, the check out lines (sans human clerks now), or interacting with live clerks, a smile at Walmart is as plastic as the bags they are printed upon. Maybe they should copyright a frowning face, one that clearly captures the truth of the Walmart Experience (tm) :)
eloquence. a collection of lawyers is "a whole eloquence of lawyers." collective nouns are weird.
s .htme /animal.html
No, the correct term apparently is a pack, gang or sneak of weasels, or possibly a boogle or confusion of them:
http://rinkworks.com/words/collective.shtml
http://www.hintsandthings.co.uk/kennel/collective
http://dictionary.reference.com/writing/styleguid
Today one man who is me, attempts to trademark the stick figure... All rights reserved to Tama coperation of stick figuers pty ltd.
Remember that nasty bit of 9/11 trivia. Some punk trademarked it after the incident and we had an e-mail exchange over it.
IANAL, but I have taken a class on trademark law, and from what I understand Walmart and the guy attempting to register this trademark face an uphill battle due to the commonality and generic nature of the smiley face. The particular smiley face that Walmart wants to trademark may have a modicum of uniqueness, but the smiley face in general has been in such widespread use both on the internet and in other public forums that both parties will have to produce a mountain of proof that they face financial loss by not having the symbol assigned solely to them. Once a logo or slogan has entered the public domain it is virtually unenforceable as a trademark, which by the way is completely separate from a patent. See also: Kleenex, Band-Aid.
A logo can be protected under both trademark and copyright laws. In the US it gets copyright protection as a "graphic work" (17USC102(a)(5)), provided it is an original work in the sense that "original" is used in copyright law.
Back in the early 70s I had one of those smiley face posters (yeah, I'm old). I am pretty sure the the poster had a reference to a copyright by someone with an odd name, something like "Ogun Quit" - however Google is failing me now in helping to resolve this. Oh well...
#DeleteChrome
First of all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Ball.
Great, nice going, Bone fighting over a dead mans invention. Real nice, And mature ofcource.
Neither of those litigious bastards(tm) should be allowed to make any claim to this.
The family of Harvey Ball should go after both of them to bleed them dry. If only to show trash like that that this sort of BS is not to be accepted.
How can these ppl take themselfes seriously ?
Copyright and Trademark are two completely different forms of IP law.
/. who've said "Copyright and Patent are bad, but Trademark is good" here's a perfect example of why it's so damn broken. People and companies try to claim ownership of the stupidest things.
1) Copyright is about giving control of who may copy a work, so that its creator may profit from it without competition from people who did not toil to create the work.
2) Trademark is about letting associating a piece of work with the reputation of a company, and allowing a company to identify itself uniquely in the marketplace.
Both systems are broken. In fact the entire idea of "Intellectual Property" - ownership of ideas - is broken. We do need to compensate artists and inventors but not through the restriction of the use of their creations.
For those of you on
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I noticed that too, but scrolling back to the slashdot text, that's what it still says.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Wal-Mart, the champions of the "if you can sell it and make lots of money" brand of rotted capitalism we have here in America didn't care to trademark the smiley face UNTIL someone who potentially is the creator of the icon decides to try to get it trademarked? Wouldn't that make Wal-Mart hypocritical? As soon as someone is gearing up to be in a position where he could make a lot of money off of Wal-Mart and various IM software companies (not to mention Microsoft Bob), it's all of the sudden their icon to trademark? Sorry you fucking idiots. But the smiley face has been around since before I was born and Wal-Mart is younger than I am. Someone throw a brick in the face of the CEO please?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
It doesn't really matter who invented it. Just like Sony's "Walkman" trademark; if you don't enforce the trademark properly, it becomes public domain and everybody can use it.
Apparently it took SmileyWorld a few decades before trying to enforce their claimed trademark. As such it has become public domain already, whether they ever had the trademark or not.
I hope if Wal-mart wins, they'll be nice enough to let everybody use it. But it's a US corporation, so they'll probably sue anybody who's ever touched it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Lord knows, they are probably incestuous and recursive and using reiserfs - who knows what fsck would uncover as it ran across the files intended to be mounted via loopbacks... That would truly be a CF.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
If they included its whistling personality and the song they use for the whistling, there is a GOOD chance they can copyright that specific interpretation of the smiley as a cartoon character, much in the way the Church of the Subgenius seems to hold the copyright for 'Bob's pipe-wielding visage, despite how common the image of a clean-cut 50's male with a pipe actually was in those times.
You're confusing copyrights and trademarks. They can't "copyright" the smiley face because they didn't create it. They can trademark it. But if the smiley face actually were under copyright, then they couldn't trademark it because you couldn't reproduce it (so they could never use it).
Legally, WalMart may be able to get away with registering a trademark on the smiley face, if it is really in the public domain. Ethically, that's wrong: the smiley face is a cultural icon that no company ought to be able to claim rights to.
However, one can throw a monkey wrench in their plans simply by re-creating the association between the smiley face and psychotic killers, since those seem to love the symbol. Given stories by WalMart employees, perhaps their choice of trademark isn't so inappropriate after all.
Walmart files trademarks on the terms "Low Prices", "Lowest Price" and "Rock Bottom Price" as well as "Low Price Guarantee". In ironic news they also plan to file for trademark status on the term "Made In America". Given their lack of American made products the last trademark is some what in doubt.
What would the Comedian have to say about this?
My other first post is car post.
I thought that Forest, Forest Gump invented the smiley face.
so my question is, how will "whoever wins the TM battle" protect their trademark against dilution? if the smiley is TMed, then will i have to say :)* in all the mails I type?
* TM of (so and so)
will people be able to use, paint, draw smileys again!?
Like patents, trademarks have to be defended in court. Maybe, just maybe I could get a trademark on anything starting with WAL like in WALnut, WALMART etc. etc. I would have to enforce it against the WALton family ($$$$$) who happen to be the owners of WALmart.
That the Frenchman hasn't bothered (or perhaps succeeded) in getting a trademark on it before now in the US is a weakness is his position. While Wally World probably has a case for a trademark on the smiley, given the prior and widespread use of the smiley, the scope of the trademark deserved ought to be exceedingly narrow. I doubt the USPTO will get that, though. So of course, whoever gets the trademark, the public is likely to get it up the backside. =(
Fortunately, the frowny has already been trademarked separately.
It's a pity that the current law requiring vigorous defense of a trademark to prevent loosing it logically precludes making the voiding of trademark a legal penalty for attempting to unreasonably extend the trademark against reasonable public domain and fair uses. Imagine if Bass started sending threatening letters to gay pride groups. Whoever wins this fight, the rest of the world is likely to see similar nonsense on anything smiley-like anywhere... which, saccharine though the smiley is, will not help make the planet a happier place.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
best quote ever: ""It is kind of ironic that this whole dispute is about a smiley face," said Mr Simley."
Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy -the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical: summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring, we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent, I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds. Pretty standard, really.
At the age of 12, I received my first scribe. At the age of 14, a Zoroastrian named Wilma ritualistically shaved my testicles -- there really is nothing like a shorn scrotum -- it's quite breathtaking... I suggest you try it. At the age of 18, I went off to evil medical school. At the age of 25, I took up tap dancing. I wanted to be a quadruple threat -- an actor, dancer...
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Hang on a second. I thought that you had to actively defend Trade Marks or you lose them on the grounds they've become a generic term.
In which case, they've left it far, far, FAR too late.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
If I patent something, nobody can use it without a licence from me. But a trademark merely distinguishes my goods from other people's. McDonald's have trademarked their logo for hamburgers, but that doesn't stop Hungry Jack's or even my Lions Club from selling hamburgers. It simply means that they can't be called McDonald's.
And trade marks apply only to a category of goods. If I want to sell nuts and bolts under the Big M logo (either Mcdonald's or the "BigM" flavoured milk logo here in Oz), it wouldn't cause any confusion with their product.
A trade mark doesn't have to be something newly invented. It used to have to be a "mangled" word not in common use in the language, but that seems to be no longer required. The name "Barrier Cream" was struck off because it merely described what the cream did, but that was years ago.
If I am right, both Loufrani and Wal-Mart are entitled to use the smiley, and so can you and I.
I listened to the BBC news article and they did not mention anything about
walmart wanting to trademark anything. It was two other people who were
claiming trademark and walmart was defending its use. It seems a little
late for anyone to do anything - in my opinion.
Earlier i was just joking around with corporations copyrighting everyday stuff, but it seems it is becoming a reality.
If this rate continues we will not be able to talk to each other in public without having an intellectual property expert nearby.
I think people should counter-sue these companies in class action lawsuits.
Read radical news here
They are not copyrighting the smiley - they are trademarking it. These are very different things.
Yes. Like the difference between a gun pointed at your head and one pointing at your heart.
May the Maths Be with you!
I think Wal-mart is full of shit here...
That may be true, but they're also full of money, the thing that really counts in the court system.
May the Maths Be with you!
That may be true, but they're also full of money, the thing that really counts in the court system.
Really? Is that why Dennis Kozlowski, Mark Swartz, Andrew Fastow, Michael Kopper, Bernie Ebbers, and Martha Stewart all got away with their crimes?
Oh, no wait, that's right. They were all found guilty, even though they are all extremely wealthy.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
The slashdot editors screwed up the name when pulling that quote from the article, not me.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Thats how its spelled in the /. summary. The problem isn't that he misread it, its that he assumed the editors knew how to spell (or at least copy and past correctly).
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Cool! I'm gonna trademark the Kilroy guy with the nose and fingers hanging over the wall now! :-) w00t!
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
... RTFA. Or the summary at least. They can trademark it.
Apparently, patent and trademark law has changed in the last 20 years to
"Patent and Trademark EVERYTHING, Including the wheel. It will get accepted, and unless you fight it out in court, and LOSE, people should pay you money for using it."
Frivility is a non-issue at this point.
It seems so..
I think walmart and the other guy need a good solid kick in the pants
Rather, I'd look at those who make law.. you know, those people you (assuming you are old enough) you get to vote on every now and then..
http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/07/fringe.smiley.face.o ff/
U.S. creator frowns at Frenchman's trademark
In this story:
* Threat to sue
* Born in '63 or '68?
* Recognition, not money
* Related stories and sites
July 7, 1998
Web posted at: 1:50 p.m. EDT (1750 GMT)
WORCESTER, Massachusetts (AP) -- Harvey Ball did not have a nice day recently when he learned a Frenchman had registered a trademark for the smiley face.
As just about everyone in Ball's central Massachusetts hometown knows, it was Ball who designed the ubiquitous symbol of good cheer in 1963 as part of an in- house happiness program for an insurance company.
Franklin Loufrani, a 55-year-old entrepreneur from France, first registered the symbol in 1971 and now holds the trademark in much of the world.
The trademark, noted with a small, circled letter "R" ( ® ), is on the Web page of London-based Smiley Licensing Corp. Loufrani is the president.
Threat to sue
Ball, 76, didn't find any of this out until a couple of months ago.
Then he got really steamed more recently when he learned that Loufrani has threatened to sue U.S. companies that manufacture or sell products with the smiley symbol in the 80 countries where Loufrani holds the trademark.
"So much for smiley and happiness," Ball huffs.
The joyful smiley-face icon has made its way over the years onto boxer shorts, London drug houses, Wal-Mart products and countless e-mail messages.
Born in '63 or '68?
Loufrani said he made up smiley while working at a French newspaper to illustrate positive stories after the student riots in 1968. Since registering the trademark, he has made millions.
The people of Worcester -- which bills itself "The Birthplace of the Smiley Face" -- side with Ball, however.
He said he first drew the perky yellow face in 1963 as part of a "friendship" campaign to ease tensions between employees after State Mutual Life Insurance Co. took over a small Ohio insurer.
Ball, a free-lance artist, was paid $45 to come up with a graphic. State Mutual printed 100 smiley buttons. A 1964 State Mutual publication shows company Vice President John Adams wearing one.
Soon requests for tens of thousands of buttons began pouring in. Finally, Ball said, the company stopped printing them in the late 1960s.
Recognition, not money
Ball never sought a trademark or copyright. He said he doesn't miss the millions he could have made on his creation. And he isn't planning legal action against Loufrani, who has a U.S. trademark, but only for a combination happy face and the word "smiley."
Ball just wants recognition as smiley's creator.
"Never in the history of mankind or art has any single piece of art gotten such widespread favor, pleasure, enjoyment, and nothing has ever been so simply done and so easily understood in art," he said.
Loufrani, reached in London, had no comment.
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
Well, I for one read it as 'Slimey'.
Oh wait, that's their lawyer. Nevermind.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
It seems this should be a glaringly obvious issue as far as U.S. trademark law is concerned. If it was ever possible to trademark, that time has long passed. The image has appeared on everything imaginable from pillows to bandages, probably millions of successful elementary school test papers, shoes, bowling balls, pins, etc, etc. I can hardly imagine a MORE dilute image. It's a testiment to the diluted nature that the overwealming majority of people don't even have a theory as to who created the smiley face image.
It appears that WalMart is well aware of this and that their action is purely a defensive move to avoid the expense of a court battle. The fact that the best defense against an outrageous legal claim is an equal but opposite outrageous claim is an indictment of the U.S. court system, not WalMart. There are plenty of reasons to question WalMart, but this isn't one of them.
It's waaaay older than that.....
_ 0.html
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Mars_Express/SEMMTFNFGLE
Didn't you get the memo?
The new mantra for 2006 and beyond is as follows:
If you cannot innovate, litigate!
Or the lighter version:
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
We do need to compensate artists and inventors but not through the restriction of the use of their creations.
/. who've said "Copyright and Patent are bad, but Trademark is good" here's a perfect example of why it's so damn broken. People and companies try to claim ownership of the stupidest things.
But we also need an additional way to account for cases where it's reasonable that someone may want to restrict distribution - e.g., a company using your family photo collection is a nationwide ad ncampaign, or someone publishing your diary. Currently, copyright seems to be the only tool for protecting privacy of someone's work.
For those of you on
They key word being "try". We should perhaps wait until the outcome, before we conclude Trademark is bad?
Updated, modern, populist version of the ancient concept of "patronage" for example. I am sure other ways also not involving creating New Economic Royalty or some other corporate totalitarianism exist.
on the smiley face: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_031.html[s traightdope.com]
No mention of France...
Um, if it's been in the public domain for 30+ years ..... [font : mind blowingly huge, blinking]how do you trademark it?[/font] .....
It's
wait for it......
Public Domain.... Per WIKI: comprises the body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music, and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests within a particular legal jurisdiction. This body of information and creativity is considered to be part of a common cultural and intellectual heritage, which, in general, anyone may use or exploit, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes.
If there is a lawyer in the house correct me if I'm wrong, a smiley is a logo - certainly eligable for a trademark when first created, possibly eligible for a design patent (doubtful). It's been registered as neither, and there has been no attempt to enforce any sort of IP rights for 30+ years (in the US). If there is no person or legal entity whichhas established proprietary ownership up until now, it's by definition public domain. Once public domain, I don't see how it can be removed from the public domain.
should have used the preview button forgot to close the bold tag ...sigh
It's kind of funny to see how this meme has come to be interpreted so seriously. ^^
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
As a child of the eighties and still a hardcore enthusiast of acid house music, I vigorously raise my arms in protest at the audacity of this move.
- IP
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
:) is not intellectual property. It's a god damned smiley face. My 4 year old draws them all the time. They are drawn in schools across the country. The guy that invented it is long, long dead. He was probably a cave man.
If you pass a lawyer today, please do the world a favor and shoot him in the face.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
Read the damn article and quit jumping on the "Walmart is evil" bandwagon. Grow half a fucking brain. Walmart is DEFENDING itself, not going on the offensive here. Sheesh.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
The NRA is looking to trademark the 'bullet-smiley' ( smiley with a bullet hole in forehead ). The problem is that they are having trouble representing '...not from my cold, dead hand!' as the smiley in question has no hands. The idea hasn't made it out of marketing yet. Developing...
Of course, the song's not their IP either. The song the little smiley face is whistling is "Put On A Happy Face" written by Charlie Strouse, from the musical Bye Bye Birdie.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
It's some dumbass guy who's trying to trademark it so that Walmart would have to pay millions. Neither one of them should have it, as it's such a generic icon by now.
FC Closer
Honestly, I think they both do. Wal-Mart's got one coming because of this and a ton of other things (Like prominently posting decals on the doors saying "Service Animals Welcome" with the international Handicapped symbol on it- but then their people tell my wife and our housemate (who are both legitimately handicapped and have two smaller, but certified service dogs) that they can't have dogs in the store. "Is it a seeing eye dog? Are you blind?" Both questions are quite bogus to ask (and open you up to a Civil suit...) per the ADA- but we get this all the time in spite of the fact that the dogs have service animal vests on them.)
Being visually impaired myself, but far from blind, I run into similar things all the time with people and companies, mostly due to them not understanding. That said, where I live I basicly have 2 options. First of all, file a complaint, unlike in the USA, this would also be a criminal case (no discrimination article in our constitution is interpreted rather broadly in this kind of thing often), and look for media attention.
That said, due to it being more then just a civil case, it usually doesn't get beyond having to shortly point out why their action is against the law.
While I hate 'whining' about things or claiming privileges as consequence of a handicap, I also believe I shouldn't have to defend certain consequences of it all the time (in your case the service dogs, in my case more often things like anouncement displays and such simply not working for me).
At any rate, I agree that Wal-Mart seems wrong here, but I think that is more a symptom of the society you live in then anything else.
And the politicians have one coming for all the frickin' stupid laws they've been passing of late. Much of the stuff's made us look the laughing stock to the rest of the world- or worse, made many countries that wouldn't have hated us to hate us now.
Hmm. you know, I happen to be Dutch, but I have lived and worked in the USA. From my point of view politicians are indeed causing part of that 'hate', but not due to the local laws they implement, rather, due to their 'if you don't like what we do, well, screw you' attitude to the rest of the world (rather then hating all of the USA over it, I just think you ended up with a few very bad people in government and I despise those). With regards to local laws, those make me sad and angry for the simple reason that having lived there, I can quite appreciate the nice sides of American society, and I hate to see that being destroyed.
It is ok to link patents and trademarks together. While different, both are governed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I don't see the problem with saying the patent system needs an overhaul because both are governed by the same system.
Finally, a good use for trademark law - trademark annoying things and sue anyone else that uses them!
That is all.
All I have to say is:
:(
Like that really matters nowadays.
(Obligatory apologia: nothing against the poster, just making the ironic/cynical observation)
We're in the same camp there. I pretty much don't "whine" about things or claiming privileges for either my wife or our friend- but in the same case, there's always consequences about the problems they have. As such, we have permanent handicapped plates on my wife's car and on our friend's car, we have the service dogs, power chairs for extended "walking" situations (While they can walk about, they're very mobility limited- my wife's got four collapsed lumbar discs and the friend has severe osteo-arthritis in her knees and hips as a complication caused by the extreme weight for her frame that is caused by primary Lymphedema (For starters, since all the Lymph collects in the extremities and doesn't get properly re-absorbed, there's no way for her to "lose" that weight, per se- it's not fat, it's something else indeed...). There's a reason why they laws are framed the way they are- and I don't really appreciate someone (Like a Manager of a Wal-Mart...) telling me "You can't..." when they damn well know better because they did get some ADA compliance training as part of their managerial training if they're a major business. It probably IS cultural in nature, but when the people know what the law is, they shouldn't be doing it- because if you're in a business, you can get sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars in punitive damages over it (and lose the case to the plaintiff without question in many cases...) if you don't comply with the rules (And you can claim "Assault" if they get at all pushy about it- and that WILL stick and IS a criminal charge...). And it applies to government as well as businesses.
We can definitely agree on that one... I'm trying all I can to keep that from happening, but the people in office generally seem to be intent on doing that very thing- destroying all that made the United States of America special in the world.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Don't call me dumbass, you dumb dumbass ass!
If a graphical logo is a creative work, you can indeed copyright it. No, you can't copyright something as short as a name. Ashleigh Brilliant created a whole collection of 19-word postcard sayings, and he managed to copyright them. At the time the Copyright Office was very hesitant to grant a copyright for something so short.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Trademarks are not copywrited(copywritten?), and are not in the public domain.
Patent are not copyright, and not in the public domain.
Bear in mind, in the USE anything that falls under copyright has copyright protection the moment it is created. Registering it is optional(but wise).
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... because frownie was already trademarked by Despair!
e ntry=75502288
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&
I'm going to trademark breasts! Then, I'm going to sue every beer advertiser out there for infringing on my trademark in their advertising! Next, we go after Playtex and Victoria's Secret! Soon, the whole world will be MINE! Muhahahaha!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Sue Forrest, Sue!
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
...I need to trademark "666" before the beast gets to it.
Now know as the mark of GattMan
was that they were afraid of getting thier windows trademark invalidated as part of the case.
ofc MS then used the other tactic rich multinationals use on less rich multinationals. They hit them with lawsuits in other countries.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
docs.linux.org.ua
That's actually a slippery slope. For example if you're in someone's holiday snap of a landmark should you be allowed to restrict that person's ability to publish it? What if it's not you or your family but your a photograph of your property?
I would rather the publisher be forced to give you a portion of any sales (not profits! sales) of the photo.
The only exceptions are:
1) A circumstance where a photograph may be defamatory or lessen someone's reputation.
2) Where the photograph is taken without the person's knowledge.
I'm thinking of a doctor's likeness used to advertise brand X medicine, or a famous person's home sex tape.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I made exactly the same error in my dissertation (which I can no longer find.) A trademark is attached to specific goods, and doesn't have to be a new invention. Copyright belongs to the original owner, and lasts for the lifetime of the "inventor" and a fixed time thereafter. All copyrights more than 50 years old are now void (except I imagine, any right that living people such as Mr Loufrani have.)
That's actually a slippery slope. For example if you're in someone's holiday snap of a landmark should you be allowed to restrict that person's ability to publish it? What if it's not you or your family but your a photograph of your property?
I'm not sure what you're saying here - if someone else took the photo, then you won't own the copyright.
I would rather the publisher be forced to give you a portion of any sales (not profits! sales) of the photo.
There won't be any if they use it for something like an advertising campaign.
Harvey R. Ball invented the yellow smiley in 1963 for a life insurance company. He was paid $45.
Really? I thought every 3 year old in history with a crayon or a burnt piece of stick and a cave wall has invented the smiley face.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
...the Japanese, who came up with it as a cheerful logo to greet all of the foreign nationals coming to the first Olympics held in Japan in the late 1960's. I suppose the Japan Olympics committee could trademark it internationally...