Infringement

john1082 · #1 12-10-2006, 09:52 PM

A recent note from Indianapolis indicates that MySpace has already been contacted by the staff - last week! This is now between MySpace and Indy now.

PiLambda1 · #2 12-10-2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john1082

A recent note from Indianapolis indicates that MySpace has already been contacted by the staff - last week! This is now between MySpace and Indy now.

To whom? From where? Who's doing it?

I call hearsay...

Trey_P-I_47 · #3 12-10-2006, 11:07 PM

PiLambda,

Dont you think you are being a little rash about this......possibly even showing very little faith in our organization. To have our symbol demeaned the way it was is personal disrespect to all of us, and if you dont feel like that, well then thats a shame. There are quite a few people up here, who, if they say something, you can pretty much take it to the bank. Not to mention there are brothers from IHQ who frequent this forum as well. I mean if Tom Earp, Jono Hren, John Gezelius, or Lynn Chipperfield (Sorry if I missed someone who I talk to frequently), say that something is being taken care, then you can guarantee that the situation is being handled by the necessary people.

To say that IHQ has bigger fish to fry is in fact truth. Yes they have to deal with finances and which chapters need to be reprimanded, but when someone takes our symbol and defaces it the way that they did, well I believe that would fall under the part of creed, and I quote 'and strength to fight for its teachings', because our Coat of Arms, is not just some symbol that we display, but our outward visualiization of what our fraternity is about, in essence it sums up most of our teachings. You can take that one symbol and point out almost (if if not everything) that we as men of Lambda Chi Alpha stand for.

So yes, it may seem trivial to some people, but this is OUR symbol, and it should be treated with the utmost respect that it embodies.

Like I said, im not trying to step on anyones toes or anything, but If anyone of these men say that the situation is being handled, then nothing more needs to be said, because it is in fact already being taken care of.

PiLambda1 · #4 12-10-2006, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trey_P-I_47

PiLambda,

Dont you think you are being a little rash about this......possibly even showing very little faith in our organization. To have our symbol demeaned the way it was is personal disrespect to all of us, and if you dont feel like that, well then thats a shame. There are quite a few people up here, who, if they say something, you can pretty much take it to the bank. Not to mention there are brothers from IHQ who frequent this forum as well. I mean if Tom Earp, Jono Hren, John Gezelius, or Lynn Chipperfield (Sorry if I missed someone who I talk to frequently), say that something is being taken care, then you can guarantee that the situation is being handled by the necessary people.

To say that IHQ has bigger fish to fry is in fact truth. Yes they have to deal with finances and which chapters need to be reprimanded, but when someone takes our symbol and defaces it the way that they did, well I believe that would fall under the part of creed, and I quote 'and strength to fight for its teachings', because our Coat of Arms, is not just some symbol that we display, but our outward visualiization of what our fraternity is about, in essence it sums up most of our teachings. You can take that one symbol and point out almost (if if not everything) that we as men of Lambda Chi Alpha stand for.

So yes, it may seem trivial to some people, but this is OUR symbol, and it should be treated with the utmost respect that it embodies.

Like I said, im not trying to step on anyones toes or anything, but If anyone of these men say that the situation is being handled, then nothing more needs to be said, because it is in fact already being taken care of.

I just wanted to read the freakin' note...calm down...

Trey_P-I_47 · #5 12-10-2006, 11:25 PM

Im sorry....I didnt mean to bring that off as a personal attack......I guess ive been conversating back and forth with these guys so much that it kinda bothers me to see someone unintentionally disrespect them.......alot of guys up here do quite a bit for our organization, and I respect them tremendously. Again, I just want to apologize for snapping at you.

john1082 · #6 12-10-2006, 11:55 PM

Sometimes information is passed in a way that sharing it verbatim is not an option. At times information is shared that may not be suitable for public consupmtion. An attorney is required to maintain a client confidence when information is shared.

PiLambda1 · #7 12-11-2006, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john1082

Sometimes information is passed in a way that sharing it verbatim is not an option. At times information is shared that may not be suitable for public consupmtion. An attorney is required to maintain a client confidence when information is shared.

Fair enough - I just was wondering if it was a post that I missed or
an email that I wasn't included in...ya know...

If it was something that I could read - I would have been curious
to the strength of wording, etc...

BE

CPickering · #8 12-13-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trey_P-I_47

PiLambda,

Dont you think you are being a little rash about this......possibly even showing very little faith in our organization. To have our symbol demeaned the way it was is personal disrespect to all of us, and if you dont feel like that, well then thats a shame. There are quite a few people up here, who, if they say something, you can pretty much take it to the bank. Not to mention there are brothers from IHQ who frequent this forum as well. I mean if Tom Earp, Jono Hren, John Gezelius, or Lynn Chipperfield (Sorry if I missed someone who I talk to frequently), say that something is being taken care, then you can guarantee that the situation is being handled by the necessary people.

To say that IHQ has bigger fish to fry is in fact truth. Yes they have to deal with finances and which chapters need to be reprimanded, but when someone takes our symbol and defaces it the way that they did, well I believe that would fall under the part of creed, and I quote 'and strength to fight for its teachings', because our Coat of Arms, is not just some symbol that we display, but our outward visualiization of what our fraternity is about, in essence it sums up most of our teachings. You can take that one symbol and point out almost (if if not everything) that we as men of Lambda Chi Alpha stand for.

So yes, it may seem trivial to some people, but this is OUR symbol, and it should be treated with the utmost respect that it embodies.

Like I said, im not trying to step on anyones toes or anything, but If anyone of these men say that the situation is being handled, then nothing more needs to be said, because it is in fact already being taken care of.

Response:

I really believe all of us have a strong distaste left in our mouths after this incident. It also seems everyone agrees on the fact this act is definately 'ripping us off.' The singlemost point of disagreement does not lie in whether or not someone does not think it is annoying or wrong, but simply the priority of the matter. We all know it goes against us. We all know this group of people is profiting from our copyrighted images.

However, is it really a big enough matter to have IHQ spend time, money, and energy deliberating over? Is a small-time band who will probably not get very far, who is using our coat of arms for a 'small' profit a big enough deal for such a hassel to be made? I have to side with PiLambda1 on this. My answer is no, it is not.

I would much rather see our manpower and resources be pooled for more pressing and potentially long term issues.

john1082 · #9 12-13-2006, 07:47 PM

But if we fail to defend we could lose the exclusivity that trademark protection provide.

The big question is the level of priority assigned to this fight. The wheels of justice grind slowly. The best way to watch the progress is to check back ontheir web site from time to time and see if it is still on Myspace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPickering

Response:

I really believe all of us have a strong distaste left in our mouths after this incident. It also seems everyone agrees on the fact this act is definately 'ripping us off.' The singlemost point of disagreement does not lie in whether or not someone does not think it is annoying or wrong, but simply the priority of the matter. We all know it goes against us. We all know this group of people is profiting from our copyrighted images.

However, is it really a big enough matter to have IHQ spend time, money, and energy deliberating over? Is a small-time band who will probably not get very far, who is using our coat of arms for a 'small' profit a big enough deal for such a hassel to be made? I have to side with PiLambda1 on this. My answer is no, it is not.

I would much rather see our manpower and resources be pooled for more pressing and potentially long term issues.

Tom Earp · #10 12-14-2006, 03:47 PM

Point well taken John G!

If as you say if We as a International Fraternity do not persue this situation and lose the copyright then we are remiss. But I hardly think this will just go by the wayside for that very reason.

Be aware that the current management at IHQ are no slouches and Brother Biff can and does have a legal mind and a long memory!

I am sure as we type things are in the working process!

Crescent182 · #11 12-15-2006, 10:27 AM

True,
Here's another spin on it. Can you imagine the stink that would occur if a major label signed them and the band insisted on using "their" logo? For the time being they are just another run-of-the-mill independent band that will probably break rather than be discovered and signed.
If they were under the umbrella of a label and using the COA, IHQ would definitely go after them.

DeltaBetaBaby · #12 12-20-2006, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john1082

But if we fail to defend we could lose the exclusivity that trademark protection provide.

Interestingly enough, by bringing it to the attention of IHQ, those who saw it on there force IHQ to take action. On the other hand, if it had been left alone, and nobody could prove that IHQ knew about it, it would not have affected the right to pursue future trademark cases.

john1082 · #13 12-20-2006, 01:24 AM

I wouldn't want to place my success into the notice basket. It can always be said that "We didn't know, and if we had, we would have taken action" but Federal courts seem to look unfavorably on that argument, at least in the Central District here in California.

Much better to go after it now, when it is fresh, than bet on the court buying a notice argument later.