27 September 2011

“You do not have permission to use the club’s logos. Please remove these items from your website immediately”


A few weeks ago news broke that Arsenal were taking legal action against an independently-owned hat shop in Seville in order to ‘protect their global brand’. A day earlier I received an email from the head of retail at Tottenham Hotspur PLC alleging unauthorised use of the club’s logo on my website.

Like Arsenal Tottenham were also trying to protect their global brand… from perceived antisemitism. (A full explanation of why I’m happy to use the word ‘yid’ can be found here.)

The offending image was a hand drawn version of the crest done by my younger sister



Below is my email correspondence with the club verbatim, complete with misplaced apostrophes and erroneous capitalisation.



Subject: Use of Tottenham Hotspur Club Logo's

To Whomever it may concern

I am writing to you on behalf of Tottenham Hotspur PLC (the “Club”) with regards to the Tottenham Hotspur logo’s you are using on your website.

The Club logo’s are trademarked and are owned by the Club. They are also protected under copyright, again owned by the Club.

For anyone to be able to use our Logo’s you need to have permission from the Club to use them. This permission has not been given to you and I would therefore ask you to remove these items immediately from your website.

If you have any further questions about this please contact me directly.

Regards

Victoria

Victoria Howarth
Head of Retail
Tottenham Hotspur Football Club




Dear Victoria

Despite the nature of your email there’s a part of me that’s thrilled to have (semi-) personalised correspondence with the club. In the modern game the relationship between fans and football club is very much one of customer and business. As the Head of Retail you know that better than anyone.

It is also comforting to know that the email system at White Hart Lane is working. Last season I sent four emails (about being overcharged for postage, inadequacies of the e-ticketing system and to report problems caused by a reduction in policing at White Hart Lane station) without receiving a single reply. The club still owe me a pound by the way…

I assume the copyright infringement you refer to is the You’ll Win Nothing With Yids logo. It was drawn by my younger sister Kezia and I’m sure you’ll agree it is a wonderful piece of work. 

Beside the text is a freehand drawing (blue ink on yellow sugar paper) of the Spurs crest, which I considered to be an artistic interpretation with significant modification from the original rather than a direct copy. If it is the view of the Tottenham Hotspur PLC lawyers that my image is too similar to the copyrighted club crest I would appreciate if you could give me an idea what kind of variation would be acceptable. For example would a different cockerel on a different ball, perhaps in silhouette, be considered acceptable?

I must say find it curious that the Head of Retail should contact me when clearly I’m not selling anything on my site. I’m an independent blogger with a relatively modest readership, although numbers are increasing. I don’t make any money out of Tottenham Hotspur. Quite the opposite in fact. I am a lilywhite member and spent more money than I could afford going to 15 games last season.

One final thing - is it possible you could send your response by post as well as email? I’d love to have something on headed Tottenham Hotspur paper for my scrapbook.

Kind regards,

Jack McInroy
You’ll Win Nothing With Yids




Dear Jack

Thank you for your email and I am glad I have restored your faith in the email system here at the Club.

However, I was concerned to read that your past email correspondence had gone unanswered. So I have picked up with the Customer Service team this morning to check what has happened to them. We pride ourselves on answering all emails within 48 hours and take very seriously when we hear that someone has not heard back from us. Unfortunately we have no record of your emails being received or being rejected by our firewalls when we have looked for your email address, so if you would like to send any queries you have again to me I will pass them on for you.

With regards to the use of the Logo, as Head of Retail, I am also responsible for Brand Protection here at the Club, which is when someone uses the trademarks unofficially and without the Club's permission. As well as this being on merchandise a majority of the time it also includes any use of the logo without our permission on websites, blogs and printed material and this is why I have emailed you.

When the Club logo appears on websites and blogs it can come across to visitors to that site that they have official endorsement from the Club and that includes the content of these sites also being seen to be an official Club opinion.

As you will no doubt be aware, historically the 'Y word' chant has been adopted by Spurs fans as a “call to arms” in order to own the term and thereby deflect anti-Semitic abuse. However, we are aware that while a number of both Jewish and non-Jewish Spurs fans use the Y word in what they consider to be an inoffensive manner, we recognize the use of the word is extremely complex and there are great sensitivities around its meaning.

Therefore, with those sensitivities in mind the Club cannot condone its use given that some fans find the word extremely offensive hence our concern that this is linked on the site with our logo.

In terms of what you can and can not use I can only guide you in the IP Rights we hold, but would always suggest that you look online or get legal advice if you want to use any logo or name as you would be amazed at what is actually protected under people’s IP Rights.

If you have any further questions I would be happy to help.

Regards

Victoria




Dear Victoria

The emails I sent to the ticket office came from a different email address, which is probably why you’ve been unable to track them down. I sent them from [alternate email address] on 1st October 2010, 15th November 2010 and 17th January 2011. If you’re still unable to locate them I will send my complaints afresh.

I appreciate that you are unable to talk me through the finer points of trade mark law, but would you give me your opinion on my new temporary logo? In my opinion it is pretty clear that the website has no official endorsement from the club, and I have never pretended to.

I intend to fully cooperate with the club, so if there is an issue please let me know and I will make further modifications.

In regard to the word ‘yid’, I appreciate the club’s position, although my own view is that we’ve fully appropriated the word from the fascists and the antisemites, which is admirable rather than condemnable.

One final thing, would it be okay to reproduce your emails on my blog? The subject of copyright infringement and modern football is of great interest to the public especially in light of the recent news story about Arsenal suing a Spanish hat shop.

Regards

Jack McInroy




Dear Jack

Thank you again for your email and the fact that you used a different address probably explains why we could not find your previous emails. They may have been caught in the Club’s firewalls and spam. Do you want me to pass on any of the queries you had ?

Unfortunately we would prefer you not to reproduce any of my comments on your website as we try to be accommodating and flexible, taking into account the specifics of each situation, so having the details of what we have discussed that are particular to you could be misleading to others.

However, I would be happy to give you my thoughts where I can on the new logo, but again would always recommend you check with a legal person first.

Thank you again for working with us on this matter, it is really appreciated.

Regards

Victoria




At this point I replaced the You’ll Win Nothing With Yids logo with the below image:







Dear Victoria

As I said I have no intention of misleading the public into thinking my website is officially endorsed by the club. I have a new logo on my website - www.youllwinnothingwithyids.com. I have blurred out the cockerel. If it is the opinion of the club that this is still an infringement of copyright then I will happily change it, otherwise it will remain.

My complaints last season stemmed from the inadequacies of the new e-ticketing system. I assume the errors and miscommunication were teething problems that have now been sorted out, so there is little point rehashing my issues in full, but I do have one complaint that hasn't been resolved.

I was charged £1 for postage for the Manchester City game for a ticket that was loaded on to my membership card. I was in email contact with the ticket office, but I didn't recieve a reply once I asked for the pound to be refunded.

I feel it would be a little petty to request the overcharge to be refunded 13 months on, although I would happily accept a pair of complimentary tickets for the Liverpool game on Sunday if you have any spare.

Kind regards

Jack McInroy




Dear Jack

Thank you for your email.

I will have to look at your website logo when I am back in the office tomorrow. I am working at the Stadium today due to the game and can not gain access to your site from the hot desk I am working at as it does not have the clearance to the website that my own PC does.

Also, thank you for sending me your queries about the new e-ticketing system from last year. I have passed them onto the Customer Services Manager here at the Club to look into for you. I am sure he will respond shortly.

Regards

Victoria




Dear Jack

I have managed to look at your website this morning and unfortunately you can still not use the logo in this way as it is still very clear it is our cockerel and ball logo, which is trade marked, and we have not given you permission to use it.

Please can you take this logo down from your site as soon as you can.

Many Thanks

Victoria





With the club’s position unchanging I decided to remove the famous cockerel and ball altogether and replaced it with:







 
Dear Victoria

I have removed the cockerel and the ball from my site logo.

Jonathan Waite, Customer Service Manager, has been in touch and assured me that the £1 I was overcharged will be refunded in the next 5 days. My suggestion of complimentary tickets seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Regards

Jack McInroy




Dear Jack

Thank you for removing the logo from the site and I am glad Jonathan has arranged the £1 to be refunded to you.

In terms of complimentary tickets, this is not something we would offer to you, as the gesture does not reflect the circumstances that have taken place between yourself and the Club.

Regards

Victoria


You'll Win Nothing With Yids is on facebook and twitter.  

67 comments:

  1. put the logo your sister drew so beautifully. I can't believe you are agreeing to their pathetic request to take it down.

    You the fan, with a love of the club probably far greater than most of their employees should be allowed to show that love in a blog.

    For gods sake man make a stand. get that logo back up and be damned.

    The site looks bare without it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What an absolute joke! You should keep the logo mate, what will they do?!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Victoria seems nice. Glad she sorted the incorrect apostrophe use as well.
    Jon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jack,

    Reading this conversation between you and the club is heartbreaking. I hope one day the pendulum will swing back towards flexibility rather than fear in how our institutions treat their supporters. Come on THFC, to dare is to do.

    Thanks for sharing.
    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hilarious mate!!! One of the best reads for a long time!! One suggestion though!! Change the logo again - 'You`ll win nothing with yids' (let alone complimentary tickets for the liverpool game) a tottenham hotspur blog in no way endorsed by the club

    ReplyDelete
  6. They'll be asking fans with cockerel tattoos to remove them next - or asking tattoo parlours for royalties!

    ReplyDelete
  7. a good read, they seemed reasonable in their request. Common sense should prevail over the use of logo but there are pressures from other areas on the club to not endorse the term so I can understand to a degree.

    We can all stick up for our principles but ultimately in a few years time you will look back at it as insignificant (imo of course).

    Its not like the club are trying to ban our chants - they are just informing us as the need to be seen to do.

    COYS

    ReplyDelete
  8. Didn't Victoria specifically asked you not to reproduce the content of the email conversation on your blog? I won't donate to any charity fund you set up when you get sued for violating the specific instruction given.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You should have proposed to change the logo from the cockerel and ball to just the cock and ball

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Club come out of it like well-meaning but completely overbearing bureaucrats.

    However, you don't come across particularly well either...

    It was clear what the official's point was and, by labouring the point by getting into a game of semantics and then publishing something that clearly hadn't been intended for publication, you just weaken the possibility of the person ever responding to an enquiry again.

    This serves no one.

    You have conceded the moral high ground here,

    ReplyDelete
  11. Obviously Anonymous at 11.38 am is a company lawyer, or a Liberal Democrat or at least one of those people who insist on being reasonable to the point of being totally unreasonable. I think your sister's drawing is OK - can't you check it out with other Spurs fans - we MUST have a GOOD lawyer amongst us somewhere. I think that the club are pathetic here, and this is just a further example of the way money gets in the way of common sense. And I am so glad you shared these comments with us, rather than bowing to their wish to cover their shame!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pure genius...got to love it.. shows what a joke institutions are when they have to attack their own supporters for a site that has no commercial threat what so ever.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe the Head of Retail should concern herself more with why year after year we release the new kits AFTER the season has started and after EVERY other team, my brother is a Man Utd fan (boo) but they bought both there new home and away kits out long before we even released a friggin picture of our new kits... its a fucking joke the way our club is run, why are the fans expected to dip into there pockets for 3 new kits EVERY season (4 new shirts for past 2 seasons) when there not released until August? Chelsea had there new kit in store the week AFTER last season ended, giving there fans all summer to wear the tops with pride.

    Sometimes wish i had supported a properly run team my whole life and not one thats run by idiots

    ReplyDelete
  14. Great read.
    Put the crest back up.
    If they sue then I suggest everyone boycotts games for their pettiness. The fans own that badge as much as they do (prob not legally true........) but you get the drift.
    COYS

    ReplyDelete
  15. I thought she was very reasonable and calm under provocation.

    The brand has genuine value, some understand that and some don't. You can't allow unauthorised or misuse in some cases and then not in others, so like all these things the issue is pretty black and white; if they don't stop unauthorised use, the next thing you know is when sites like these or other online sites start selling 'their' branded goods.

    Although, her comments about the 'Yid' word I suspect is a long trailed soon to be unleashed new set of ground rules that get the word and it's use banned and the fans ability to respond and banter curtailed yet again.

    Shame you choose to print her words, pretty low really using private correspondance without the other parties agreement.

    Build your own brand by the quality of your blog, others have done it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Forgot to mention, why dont you put the old one up, as my tatoo, it was better anyway, thats the way to get round it

    SRWHL555/ Hod the God

    ReplyDelete
  17. That sucks! I guess they're going to go after everyone then? YIKEZZZ

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why don't you just flip it to the opposite orientation (left-facing to right-facing, and right way up to upside down), and/or make it a different colour?

    ReplyDelete
  19. just don't put the logo in your site, no big deal. But couldn't agree more about the release of new kits. I am an overseas supporters and holidayed in June in London. Made my way to the Spurs shop at the lane and couldn't even buy this season jersey. What a waste.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So you specifically ask if its alright to publish your emails with the club, and when told no, you do it anyway.... hmmm..

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jack put the ball on the cockerel

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jack,

    Just replace the logo with the following text in a box:

    "Left-facing cockerel perches proudly on a navy blue and white, laced football"


    See what they think about that...Acton_Yid

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Publishing something that clearly hadn't been intended for publication, you just weaken the possibility of the person ever responding to an enquiry again."

    ... So next time the club tell us what we can and can't do, they might not even give us a lip-service response from their PR department - Just take away our membership/ban us & say nothing.

    Hmmm, YWKWY is a real cad for exposing us to that kind of risk by highlighting the dictatorial nature of a modern football club 'brand'.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Glad to see that employees of Tottenham have enough time on their hands to waste that they can write multiple emails about .......well quite frankly nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. '... So next time the club tell us what we can and can't do, they might not even give us a lip-service response from their PR department - Just take away our membership/ban us & say nothing.'

    The author's deliberately being a dick. Do you think his repeated labouring of a fairly self-explanatory point warrant a series of individual responses? Do you also think he was right to then publish the exchange without permission?

    It's a shame she wasn't able to go with the response that probably first came to mind. 'Oh, just fuck off.'

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I thought she was very reasonable and calm under provocation"

    What provocation? Someone questioning why they should submit instantly to the will of the club? Is that what provocation means these days? Actually, come to think of it, if you 'provoke' a copper by questioning why he's pushing you - he is likely to hit you, so I guess you're right. I 'provoked' a car the other day by getting run over when trying to cycle up the road.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "The author's deliberately being a dick."

    The author is exercising his right to free speech & challenging the authority of the club - Who would be only too happy for him to continue using the logo if his blog didn't contain the word yid and offered a link directly to the club shop (As many others do). Someday we might be glad that there were people prepared to stand up to authority like that - And not just in terms of football clubs telling us what to do.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As someone who makes his living as a writer and photographer I take the issue of copyright infringement seriously and fully understand the club's viewpoint. Ms Howarth's original email was a bit heavy handed (and illiterate) but she had a point. I too thought she took the subsequent goading in good spirit - and yes publishing the correspondence was a cheap shot.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 'The author is exercising his right to free speech & challenging the authority of the club... Someday we might be glad that there were people prepared to stand up to authority like that - And not just in terms of football clubs telling us what to do.'

    Yeah, you're all about your democratic rights, aren't you? Fight the Man, and all.

    Except this isn't someone fighting the good fight. It's someone pedantically quibbling over a minor point. There is no greater metaphor at work here. The Club are simply trying to distance themselves from a term they've been pressured into classifying as pejorative.

    I don't agree with the Club but they come out of this looking better than the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Emails are covered by copyright law unless permission is given to redistribute them or they are redistributed under fair use policy.. so technically you could be ok as you're 'news reporting'.. however the nature of the conversation and the level of public interest involved could swing it the other way.. so be careful

    ReplyDelete
  31. 'What provocation? Someone questioning why they should submit instantly to the will of the club? Is that what provocation means these days? Actually, come to think of it, if you 'provoke' a copper by questioning why he's pushing you - he is likely to hit you, so I guess you're right. I 'provoked' a car the other day by getting run over when trying to cycle up the road.'

    Wow. You're likening this exchange to being run over by a car? I bet you have form for 'challenging authority'.

    PC: 'Can you pick up that litter you dropped?'
    You: 'Why? Under which bylaw are you asking?'
    PC: 'Just pick it up.'
    You: 'Well what sort of litter can I drop?'
    PC: *sigh*
    You: 'Would it be okay is I dropped bird seed? Would that be classified as litter?'
    PC: 'Pick it up.'
    You: 'Arrgh! Look everyone! Police brutality!'

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mmmm, I was thinking more along the lines of general policing at football matches - where being a football fan seems to remove your civil rights. I was pushed by a copper from Stamford Bridge to Ealing Broadway station for stopping when a Chelsea fan spat on me (He declined to talk to the laughing Chelsea fans) but I'd agree... It doesn't have much to do with the conversation apart from the club thinking that it can use copyright law to put pressure on a blog that uses a 'word' (They love using it in quotations) that they don't like.

    It smacks of pointless authoritarianism and the blog has caught them in the act and been bold enough to risk a non-existent relationship to expose it. Well done to them I'd say.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If you think the author looks a pedant in all of this, I'd suggest avoiding Private Eye magazine or anything satirical or ironic. It'll hurt your brain pan a likle.

    ReplyDelete
  34. i'm with the club on this one

    ReplyDelete
  35. You shouldn't have reproduced the email, its unfair and it's poor form, only for a few more hits.

    I like your blog but reading this puts me off a bit, it's like you're intentionally looking for something of substance to blog about and as for asking for a letterheaded correspondance, it does make you look a bit pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Really surprised that the club could possibly see your sisters drawing of the logo as a problem and that they seem to have got their knickers in a twist over such minor details as this.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Brilliant! Very funny

    ReplyDelete
  38. 'If you think the author looks a pedant in all of this, I'd suggest avoiding Private Eye magazine or anything satirical or ironic. It'll hurt your brain pan a likle.'

    Why? Are they unfunny too?

    ReplyDelete
  39. To address some of the points raised in the comments:

    First of all the club redesigned the crest in 2006 and it is clearly under copyright. The difference with the Arsenal hat shop situation is that the word ‘arsenal’ predates the club and the infringement was in no way related to the club.

    Legally, I don’t suspect I have much of a case as the illustration is a copy of a copyrighted image, so I have reluctantly taken it down and it will stay down.

    The reason for sharing the correspondence is:
    a) It’s interesting to the public
    b) They are not privileged pieces on correspondence (I got legal advice on that)
    c) The club don’t say anything they shouldn’t be happy to say in public
    d) They club repeatedly ignore emails from fans about proper issues like money they’ve overcharged, so its not reasonable for them to get precious about correspondence when it suits them

    I’m hope people don’t think I’m being emotional about the exchange or even that I’m taking the moral high ground. The piece shows how much power modern football clubs have and I’ve kept my comment minimal because the emails speak for themselves.

    12.03pm, anonymous, makes some excellent points and 1.50pm, you did make me chuckle.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  40. I agree, the author is being a dick. Whether you agree with it or not, the law is clear. Pixelating out the logo the second time and trying again is indeed provocation and i thought the poor girl did well to not tell you that you were being a dick.

    I know what you're up to here, you're trying to get some hilarious correspondance that will go viral - your insistance of the £1 refund just proves this.

    Unfortunately, instead of a funny exchange involving drawings of spiders, we just have you being a dick and her trying to remain professional.

    ReplyDelete
  41. If you think I'm a dick that's fine, but the point is that club must have been aware that they overcharged 10,000+ fans and they made no effort to refund the money or even reply to people that pointed out their error.

    ReplyDelete
  42. you got the pund wehay!congrats

    ReplyDelete
  43. Here's a simple solution - just don't care about them anymore. The reason those logos have so much value is that attorneys have found a way to create their own set of standards called "licensing" which, in effect, is entirely based on fans interest in the club to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Nice one jack! I too would have shared this correspondance fir its sheer entertainment value. Well done for stringing it out as long as you did and well done for removing the logo as I'm convinced anyone of such a petty nature would take their pettiness as far as possible given time, regardless of how polite they may appear. I would suggest to “the club”, whom I applaud on their desire to protect their image rights, to get some sense of perspective or risk tarnishing their image and alienating the fanbase. Will there be stripsearches at the turnstiles so the club can levy (pun intended) charges to the fans with unlicensed tattoos of the club emblem? Will tattoo parlours accross the nation be subjected to raids at the whim of the clubs lawyers? Don't they have other pressing matters more deserving of their attention eg NDP/Olympic stadium/new contract for modric? Just because ENIC and the shareholders own the club, it doesn't mean it belongs to them. Lighten up Vic.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I thought this was hilarious, especially the delay when she couldn't see the blurred logo.

    Yours, an Everton fan.

    ReplyDelete
  46. To be honest, you sound like a bellend. Hope this comment is helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  47. She seemed reasonable. You seemed like an awkward bellend.

    And then you published the entire one-to-one convo to the world when she asked you not to. Just to try to glean support.

    You tried to make a fool of her and wind her up but she didn't bat an eyelid.

    You decided to publicise a battle you fought against your own club where you come off looking like the antagonist, even though she e-mailed you first...

    And nothing actually happened. It wasn't funny. It wasn't unreasonable or worthy of vitriol.

    It was just shit.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I didn't find this funny. Thought the requests for letterhead and tickets was tacky at best. Asking for clarification on acceptable logos was ridiculous. Obviously, printing the emails is just wrong. I think you've made yourself look bad.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'm wearing new socks. Can I have some tickets now?

    ReplyDelete
  50. how about you detach the ball from the cock...surely they dont have copyright on cocks and balls....

    ReplyDelete
  51. Going back to the tattoo parlour thing, if you took a picture of somebody's arm who had a Spurs logo tattoo, surely they could have no problem with that. Oh and for anyone in any kind of authority, Victoria's misuse of apostrophes was completely embarrassing!

    ReplyDelete
  52. As a long standing Spurs fan I'm disgusted with the club and their high handed attitude. I work for a charity and tried to get Spurs to help a disabled kid get tickets to watch Wet Spam last season. Despite 5 emails, my messages were ignored. Wet Spam were contacted, sorted tickets, shirt, autographed ball, players photos etc. Spurs remained silent. The kids reaction - I'm Spurs until I die, but shame they have turned into a shit club. That from a 13 year old kid. Guess if they help disabled kids they can't afford the players wages. Put the bloody logo back up and I will put it on my email signature. Come on, all Spurs fans, add the logo to your email, that should piss off Vicky.

    ReplyDelete
  53. If i was your partner i would be worried about you and Victoria its sounds like a lover tiff. Why dont you call you site you will win newt with Kids i bet Victoria wont bother you again. About our Logo the Cockerel and Ball belong to every person who loves and supports our great team, what about Tattoos of the logo are they illegal. What Spurs find offensive is the word Yid being associated with the Logo and while i think its petty i can see why. Firstly i applaud you for giving our fans a site to rant about our clubs great performances and bad ones. Secondly using the word yid implies our club is jewish when it is owned by Jewish people and there is a communities of Jewish supporters our club has just has many other nationalism who support our great club. With nutcases and terrorist using religion has a excuse for blowing innocent people up i would consider changing you Logo too Kids or something else yours faithfully Rabbi DAVSPURS and they can fuck off if my name is a copyright infringment staying put

    ReplyDelete
  54. I have no dog in this fight, and I'm not sure which side of the fence I sit on after reading all the comments... So I'll say that the author is a pretty funny dick.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Religiously based official sport club names such as Crusaders and Saracens are widely used and marketed yet I can't recall their usages ever coming under the gun.

    I wonder how THFC would have reacted to the "Y word" if it actually formed an official and significantly marketable aspect of the club eg) if the club hypothetically had left Tottenham and changed its name to Yid Hotspur...

    People need to glean some serious perspective. On the complete flip side of the positive and unofficial THFC fan usage of the word "Yid", established multi million euro companies such as Adidas (Adolf Dasler) and Hugo Boss are unashamedly named after their Nazi party founders. As per general account the latter tailored suits for Hitler et al !!!

    In a big picture context I find it completely absurd that Jack should change the name of his supporter blog. As to the logo usage, fair play to THFC. Very harsh but I suppose ultimately fair.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I think cockerels should possess intellectual property rights.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Brilliant Jack.
    You made all this up -right?

    Put the ball on the cockerel's head.

    Or take em on.The publicity will do your blog a power of good.
    Might copy your logo onto my blog, but I expect you'll start sending me snotty e-mails.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Delightful reading!
    The logo was beautiful, sorry you had to remove it.
    Regards from Brazil.

    Tiago.

    ReplyDelete
  59. If you're unhappy about the way spurs is run why dont you support chavski?

    This link should be removed from newsnow, you're a wasteman

    ReplyDelete
  60. This is blatantly plagarised from David Thorne's spider emails albeit with a football slant instead.

    I hope he sues you.

    ReplyDelete
  61. could you not have turned said cock around to face a different direction or even to put ball on top of cock 8-D

    ReplyDelete
  62. Don't forget to remove the wallpaper of Benoît Assou-Ekotto as well - that has a hand-drawn logo on it that must be covered ...


    ... which shows the pointlessness of the original "request" from the club.

    ReplyDelete
  63. +Good read, handled it well, but as I'm sure you already know you could've easily kept the logos. There is such a thing as fair use and the logos in my opinion (or anyone else's but hers) were clearly different to the club endorsed logos which are not hand-drawn and/or a bunch of very large pixels. The reason she told you to consult a "legal person" is so that she wouldn't have to.

    Moreover, even if the images you used were proved to be of copyrighted material, your website is hosted on an American server, and your domain could easily be forwarded elsewhere. Under British laws they couldn't shut you down just yet, but if you check out SOPA and some crazy American laws regarding private business censorship you may wanna blog anonymously pretty soon.

    COYS!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Yet another club employee (they're at every club) who probably calls supporters 'customers' and refers to the club's 'brand'.

    Read it, laughed and then sighed. Pathetic.

    Keep on keeping on mate. COYS

    ReplyDelete
  65. Like ya style! It's your club, not there's, without the supporters, NO club exists, Ever!
    Keep up the good work!
    A Gunner since '66

    ReplyDelete
  66. Thanks for posting this up. I'm looking to use clubs logos or shirts in an app I am using so the issue of proprietary is of interest. As such the email convo was enlightening. However, the lady failed to say what was acceptable and what wasn't. Which for someone trying not to infringe copywrite isn't very helpful. Should I just rinse and repeat until 'the club' stop insisting I change it and then just assume there is significant deviation to be satisfactory to the owner. As the alternative of seeking legal advice isn't really viable for private bloggers.

    Shame she didn't delve more into it as I am still none the wiser.

    Would a stickman version of the logo be acceptable? How about photoshopping seperate images of a ball and cock to make a close approximation of the logo? Seriously, at what point does proprietary end? Interesting relevant cases could be found in the music industry. Where melody can be copied by the key changed. Or single notes changed on a riff. As long as you can prove the creation is your own then there should not be a problem. (supposition your honour). Even if an artist lists others as influences they should still be able to claim their work as their own. And so should your daughter with her piece. Although there are similarities if you can list enough differences then surely she can claim the work as her own and as such entitled to protection herself.

    Anyway. Thanks for posting up. It's helped a bit for my purposes.

    ReplyDelete

As featured on NewsNow: Tottenham Hotspur newsSpurs News 24/7