The Operation Sports Terms Of Service

[Fistandilius]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

Not really sure what you are talking about. Here is the portion from the TOS I think you are referencing: It's pretty clear what it references and it certainly isn't the banning of trademarked or copyrighted images.

Sorry, that should have meant ban users over trademarked or copyrighted images.

From what you cited:

"Operation Sports board users agree not to post any material that is protected by copyright, trademark or other proprietary right without the express permission of the owner(s)"

I doubt anyone on this site has permission to use the nfl team logos that are everywhere, or the mlb logos, or the shots of endzone celebrations, etc.

I personally think they _should_ be ok, but the TOS gives a different answer. There's no point in having it written that way if it isn't enforced. It just encourages people to take it one step further.

[BurghFan]

I think you're overthinking this a bit, though the definition of copyright/trademark infringement does seem somewhat difficult for laypeople to interpret. Heck, I'm confused by it. I think the issue is people attempting to make profit from or claim said material as there own or using the material in some way that may detract from any profits the owner might make from said material.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fistandilius

Sorry, that should have meant ban users over trademarked or copyrighted images. From what you cited: "Operation Sports board users agree not to post any material that is protected by copyright, trademark or other proprietary right without the express permission of the owner(s)" I doubt anyone on this site has permission to use the nfl team logos that are everywhere, or the mlb logos, or the shots of endzone celebrations, etc. I personally think they _should_ be ok, but the TOS gives a different answer. There's no point in having it written that way if it isn't enforced. It just encourages people to take it one step further.

Burgh is right, you are over thinking this big time.

He gave a perfect answer so I don't really need to add but I do notice that when you quoted me you conveniently omitted the part of the TOS that gives examples of what that portion is referencing and it has nothing to do with logos.

No one is profiting or attempting to show some else's work as his own when a Boston Celtics logo shows up next to all of his posts.

Copying a link from a website and claiming it to be your thoughts is.


Still not sure what the issue is here or how these came up?

[Fistandilius]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

He gave a perfect answer so I don't really need to add but I do notice that when you quoted me you conveniently omitted the part of the TOS that gives examples of what that portion is referencing and it has nothing to do with logos.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I saw this on the first page:

Quote: Originally Posted by Millennium

FROM NOW ON, ANY AND ALL OFFENSES WILL BE MET WITH AN IMMEDIATE AND PERMANENT BAN. THERE ARE NO INFRACTIONS, AND WARNINGS WILL BE USED AT A MODERATOR'S DISCRETION, IF AT ALL.

Quote: Originally Posted by Millennium

Copyrighted Material/Off Site Subscriptions Operation Sports board users agree not to post any material that is protected by copyright, trademark or other proprietary right without the express permission of the owner(s) of said copyright, trademark or other proprietary right. This includes off site paid subscriptions such as IGN Insider, ESPN Insider, etc.

I quoted the relevant part, which you had reposted. I didn't omit anything to prove a point. The rest of the quote says this "INCLUDES" pay sites, etc. It doesn't say anything besides pay sites is ok. It is clearly an "AND" situation, not an exception. I don't see any further clarification, so I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of examples.

I'll explain this one last time and then I'm done beating a dead horse.

NFL logos, MLB logos, NBA logos, etc. sports logos are ALL trademarks of the NFL, MLB, and NBA etc.

Whether or not you use them for profit is irrelevant. The NFL doesn't care that you put a browns icon on your message post, but, if they DID, they would have the legal right to contact Operation Sports and demand it be removed. Regardless of the fact that you aren't getting paid to use it.

There is a very specific message on the first page of this thread that says all violations of these conditions will be met with an immediate, permanent ban.

Posting Logos, etc. is a clear violation of the first rule, which I quoted in its entirety above. These are licensed, trademarked, likenesses that are not owned by anyone on this site.

Now, like I said, I don't think the major league associations gives a hoot if you use them or not on a free message board, NOR do I think that it was Millinium's intention or the board's intention to say you could not use them.

I just think it should be clarified. Because they ARE a clear violation.

[dickey1331]

Why do you care so much about something so trivial? You won't get banned for using a Browns logo. It's probably put in there so if something happens OS can say hey we ban that type of stuff and they won't be liable? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

[dickey1331]

Like this article says it's very confusing with logos but it seems that if you aren't selling them or using it in a bad way then it's okay?

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/...ght-and-logos/

[Fistandilius]

Quote: Originally Posted by dickey1331

Why do you care so much about something so trivial? You won't get banned for using a Browns logo. It's probably put in there so if something happens OS can say hey we ban that type of stuff and they won't be liable? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

That was my point. You won't get banned for using the logo. So why tell people you will be if that's the case. It ruins credibility.

Quote: Originally Posted by dickey1331

Like this article says it's very confusing with logos but it seems that if you aren't selling them or using it in a bad way then it's okay? http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/...ght-and-logos/

There's nothing confusing about it. The confusion in that article is when two companies share the same name. If you point blank copy the logo, or even get close it IS trademark infringement. Which is why the Jaguars had to change their original team logo because it was too close to the Jaguar car brand.

[Fistandilius]

I don't know if image linking is allowed here, but the original jaguars logo when they first came out looked like this:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...jQV4zE5flakJDQ

It had to be changed because of an issue with it looking too much like the Jaguar car logo, owned by Ford Motor Co. and they had to come to an out of court agreement to settle it. (Although from what I understand it wasn't technically a settlement as allegedly no money changed hands. The Jaguars agreed to make the Jaguar the official team car, and agreed to redesign the logo.)