Slashdot Mirror
NYSE Sends Cease and Desist Letter To News Organization
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently, the New York Stock Exchange has registered a trademark for their trading floor, and they claim that no one can use a photograph of the trading floor without permission."
Fight it all the way. Taking a picture of something that is open for a news story is perfectly allowed.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Maybe they don't want anymore facepalm shots, reflecting the true economy, eh?
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
A: Because the use of trademarks associated with a company is perfectly legal in the context of a news story about that company.
B: I don't need a B. But a company is NOT entitled to use the courts to prevent "harm" caused by the public becoming aware of their own failures.
I'm not sure if my transmitter is correctly tuned to reach the twilight zone; but I'll try:
The press writes articles about stuff. Sometimes, those articles cast actors and organizations in a less than positive light. If this is what they deserve, the press is performing one of the more socially vital functions around. If it is undeserved, they can be be taken to court for libel. "Trademark" is intended to protect a company's distinctive marks from being used deceptively in the marketplace, not to give an entity the legal right to insist that its nose be kept clean, no matter how dirty it might be.
Use of trademarks as a graphical shorthand or accent to make the reader immediately aware of who you are writing about is perfectly valid, and indeed quite logical. If what you are writing about happens to be bad behavior on the part of the trademark holder, perhaps they ought to try behaving better.
This isn't about somebody going after "Nokla" brand phones, this is about the NYSE using spurious trademark claims in an attempt to gag the press.
Considering the location has been photographed infinite times and lots of video before this decision, how can it ever be enforced?
Take Nobody's Word For It.
this actually is true. I worked at an agency in NY that sent out a little flash based " christmas card" to its clients every year . One year, it was going to have the tree at Rockefeller and the skating rink in the background. As this was for a commercial purpose, we actually would have to clear copyrights and trademarks to use the image. The issue wasnt who owned or took the picture, the issue was actually the content. The image was replaced instead of paying for the rights to use that image.
NYSE is an exchange company. They are not investors, they do not tell banks to accept bad loans, and don't really do much of anything that caused the recession. Blaming NYSE is like blaming Ford for a bank robbery, because the robbers drove a Ford getaway car.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Use a photo of the garbage-filled gutter in front of the NYSE, or maybe Bernie Madoff, or a simple graphic of a downward-trending chart with the words FRAUD superimposed.
If this works, I plan to trademark my house. Google can then pay me to license the picture they have of it on street view.
Gee, maybe I'm wrong. Let's go look it up real quick...
Trademark dilution is a trademark law concept giving the owner of a famous trademark standing to forbid others from using that mark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness. In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another's trademark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with, those of the trademark owner.
So there's this news article about the FBI and investment companies, and TPM threw NYSE's trademark on there because... um... why, exactly? Well, maybe because it's a generic "stock trading" image that people will recognize, but it's not generic. It's a trademark. Putting the NYSE image on an unrelated article reinforces the idea that the NYSE is generic, and that certainly would "lessen its uniqueness".
Looks like dilution to me. Reading the actual C&D letter, the NYSE is not at all requesting censorship of the article. They just want the picture removed so they aren't directly associated with an insider trading investigation.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
It's not as simple as 'it's a company just like the company that produces your toilet paper' and you know it. If they even had a grain of decency they would be perfectly able to sound the alarm. The thing is that, the profits involved with being yes-men clearly outweighs the risks. It's more like Ford threw in an 'Robbing The Bank' button that releases caltrops then gives you 10x horsepower, flame thrower and twin jet engines, as well as dispensing clean clothes with passports in them. These kind of companies are well beyond mom and pop private enterprises, they are gambling institutions using countries, property and people as chips. They should have a social responsibility that reflects the position they are in.
Can I light a sig ?
Gee, maybe I'm wrong. Let's go look it up real quick [wikipedia.org]...
Gee, maybe you could have read all of my posts where I even add a clarification that provides examples of true trademark dilution.
So there's this news article about the FBI and investment companies, and TPM threw NYSE's trademark on there because... um... why, exactly?
Because it's one of numerous stock photos of the NYSE that are used in stories about stock markets, investing, etc.
Well, maybe because it's a generic "stock trading" image that people will recognize, but it's not generic. It's a trademark. Putting the NYSE image on an unrelated article reinforces the idea that the NYSE is generic, and that certainly would "lessen its uniqueness".
So then where are all the other C&Ds to cover the numerous amount of other articles that use similar stock photos of the NYSE? Oh right, they don't exist. And since the NYSE has let all those other stories go, they've already diluted their trademark by lack of enforcement making their case even weaker.
Looks like dilution to me. Reading the actual C&D letter, the NYSE is not at all requesting censorship of the article. They just want the picture removed so they aren't directly associated with an insider trading investigation.
So what? That's not dilution. Dilution is an attempt to disassociate the product and the trademark whereas the article in question even makes sure to point out that the 'trademark', the trading floor, is of the NYSE, the product. Writing an article about the London Stock Exchange and using that picture with a caption that attempted to suggest that the NYSE 'trademark' in the picture is of the LSE would have some merit of dilution.