Sports Logos Used in Fan Art

[LightningBolt92]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania

I run a website where we publish fan-created works of digital art. Our users submit them to us and we post them in a blog format and people rate the works, comment on them, suggest changes, etc. Often these images include trademarked logos from all the major sports teams.

First question, does this in itself break any copyright/tradmark laws?

Second, if I were to make the website a paid subscription site so all content was behind a paywall, would that change anything?

Third, if I were to share some of that subscription revenue with the artists, would that change anything?

Thanks!

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

There isn't a Pro or major college in the US that isn't protected by Trademark. With the possible exception of the Washington Redskins.

 

[adjusterjack]

I run a website where we publish fan-created works of digital art. Our users submit them to us and we post them in a blog format and people rate the works, comment on them, suggest changes, etc. Often these images include trademarked logos from all the major sports teams.

First question, does this in itself break any copyright/tradmark laws?

Might or might not come under fair use. However, when it comes to fan works, owners of the mark often encourage the endeavors or tacitly allow them because of the free publicity.

Second, if I were to make the website a paid subscription site so all content was behind a paywall, would that change anything?

Third, if I were to share some of that subscription revenue with the artists, would that change anything?

As soon as you want to make money off the endeavor, you are in the soup.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania

I run a website where we publish fan-created works of digital art. Our users submit them to us and we post them in a blog format and people rate the works, comment on them, suggest changes, etc. Often these images include trademarked logos from all the major sports teams.

First question, does this in itself break any copyright/tradmark laws?

Second, if I were to make the website a paid subscription site so all content was behind a paywall, would that change anything?

Third, if I were to share some of that subscription revenue with the artists, would that change anything?

Thanks!

First: You don't have protection because they are submitting the works to you and then YOU are posting them. This is not user created content.
Second: Whether you collect money or not has no bearing on whether or not you may be found to be in violation of copyright & trademark laws.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania

I run a website where we publish fan-created works of digital art. Our users submit them to us and we post them in a blog format and people rate the works, comment on them, suggest changes, etc. Often these images include trademarked logos from all the major sports teams.

First question, does this in itself break any copyright/tradmark laws?

Second, if I were to make the website a paid subscription site so all content was behind a paywall, would that change anything?

Third, if I were to share some of that subscription revenue with the artists, would that change anything?

Thanks!

First, the Washington Redskins is a protected mark, currently federally registered.

Second, the fair use of trademarks is court-determined. See 15 US Code section 1115(b)(4).

For a trademark case involving the use of University of Alabama trademarks in paintings, there was University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art Inc, 683 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2012) where the Court determined the use of University of Alabama's trademarks was a fair use.

Most trademark infringement claims center on the likelihood of consumer confusion when the use of another's trademark is an unauthorized one - but fair use can still allow for some confusion depending on specific facts.

Some logos are protected under not only trademark laws but also under copyright laws.

If you are the web host and do not contribute to the creation of or encourage the creation of infringing content on your site, you can be offered some immunity from suit under the Communications Decency Act's section 230.

 

[Zigner]

If you are the web host and do not contribute to the creation of or encourage the creation of the content on your site, you can be offered some immunity from suit under the Communications Decency Act's section 230.

From the OP's description, the item is submitted to them for review. THEN they post it on their own blog. They're not going to have protection.

 

[quincy]

From the OP's description, the item is submitted to them for review. THEN they post it on their own blog. They're not going to have protection.

I read it as content being submitted and displayed on LightningBolt's website. I don't see that LightningBolt is involved in the creation of the artwork. He should have protection under 230.

 

[Zigner]

I read it as content being submitted and displayed on LightningBolt's website. I don't see that LightningBolt is involved in the creation of the artwork. He should have protection under 230.

"Our users submit them to us and we post them in a blog format ..."

It's possible that he is using an automated system to do this, but that's not the impression I got.

 

[quincy]

"Our users submit them to us and we post them in a blog format ..."

It's possible that he is using an automated system to do this, but that's not the impression I got.

Submission and then publication is fine. It remains third-party content.

To follow up with the Washington Redskins comment, the trademark was allowed federal registration after the Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. Tam. Two links, the first to the Supreme Court Opinion and the second to the discussion of the Tam case on this forum:

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/lee-v-tam-supreme-court-opinion

https://forum.freeadvice.com/sports-arts-entertainment-law-86/lee-v-tam-629100.html

I have more links to support my previous comments to follow.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

To follow up with the Washington Redskins comment, the trademark was allowed federal registration after the Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. Tam. Two links, the first to the Supreme Court Opinion and the second to the discussion of the Tam case on this forum:

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/lee-v-tam-supreme-court-opinion

https://forum.freeadvice.com/sports-arts-entertainment-law-86/lee-v-tam-629100.html

I have more links to support my previous comments to follow.

That's why I phrased it as I did. I thought I'd heard about the SCOTUS decision but couldn't remember if the Court had just decided to hear the case or had ruled on it.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to 15 US Code 1115, relating to trademark fair use: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1115

Here is a link to University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art Inc: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1603066.html

Here is a link to CDA's 230: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Here is a link to the Congress Blog with reasons why changes to the immunity offered under the Communications Decency Act are being proposed in Congress: https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/349549-bid-to-amend-communications-decency-act-pits-trafficking-victims?amp

Whenever there is a question as to whether a work infringes on the rights of another, a personal review of the work in question is needed. Some trademark holders will find infringement everywhere and will act to stop it. Other trademark holders recognize that some uses of their marks do not infringe.

It is really up to the individual trademark holders as to what to do when their marks are used without their authorization. That is why it is always best to get permission from rights-holders prior to use. That eliminates all questions.