Rage Online

&quotrecordmeister&quot wrote:Yeah, I had a look on their website too. Anyone on here from Surrey (GY??) who likes cricket and may be able to help?

It is so similar (or &quotthe same&quot??) that I got a total shock when picking up the paper yesterday.

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotrecordmeister&quot wrote:Yeah, I had a look on their website too. Anyone on here from Surrey (GY??) who likes cricket and may be able to help?

It is so similar (or &quotthe same&quot??) that I got a total shock when picking up the paper yesterday.

I've looked into it (well done a bit of surfing) and can't find anything.

St Luke's appear to be based in New Malden, which isn't that far from Sackcloth territory. There aren't too many photos on their website which doesn't help, but the logo looks incredibly similar.

On the patents point (which is very different from the copywrite point), I doubt if the logo would have been patented by the club. The club will automatically own copywrite if they designed or commissioned the logo, but if it was designed by someone else, that someone would own the copywrite and would probably have allowed it's use under license by OUFC. With OUFC no longer using it, perhaps a license has been agreed with St Luke's by the copywrite holder. Or perhaps they (St Luke's) have been naughty!

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:On the patents point (which is very different from the copywrite point), I doubt if the logo would have been patented by the club. The club will automatically own copywrite if they designed or commissioned the logo, but if it was designed by someone else, that someone would own the copywrite and would probably have allowed it's use under license by OUFC. With OUFC no longer using it, perhaps a license has been agreed with St Luke's by the copywrite holder. Or perhaps they (St Luke's) have been naughty!

&quotWhen the board asked me to design a new emblem in 1978 I replaced the old bull with a simple, powerful bull's head with a fiercely determined expression that was charging straight at you. The simplicity of the design meant that, not only could it easily be copied by fans, but it also showed up clearly at a distance, even when worn as a badge on the player's kit. Other clubs often have badges that are so complicated that you have be be very close to them to see the details and I wanted to avoid that.&quot

&quotLong John Silver&quot wrote:

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:On the patents point (which is very different from the copywrite point), I doubt if the logo would have been patented by the club. The club will automatically own copywrite if they designed or commissioned the logo, but if it was designed by someone else, that someone would own the copywrite and would probably have allowed it's use under license by OUFC. With OUFC no longer using it, perhaps a license has been agreed with St Luke's by the copywrite holder. Or perhaps they (St Luke's) have been naughty!

From Desmond Morris himself:

&quotWhen the board asked me to design a new emblem in 1978 I replaced the old bull with a simple, powerful bull's head with a fiercely determined expression that was charging straight at you. The simplicity of the design meant that, not only could it easily be copied by fans, but it also showed up clearly at a distance, even when worn as a badge on the player's kit. Other clubs often have badges that are so complicated that you have be be very close to them to see the details and I wanted to avoid that.&quot

&quotDartford Ox&quot wrote:What? No spelling police on here?


Copyright please.

&quotdr ceri&quot wrote:It's not quite as simple as 'if you pay for it you get the copyright.'. Even when commissioned the copyright only passes to another entity from a designer if they assign it (ie in writing as part of a contract). The act of payment isn't enough (certainly post the 1988 act, and i think pre).

So in the absence of knowing what the original deal with the club was when DM designed it, I think it would be worth letting him know! Didn't his son used to post on here or was it another place?

&quotdr ceri&quot wrote:It's not quite as simple as 'if you pay for it you get the copyright.'. Even when commissioned the copyright only passes to another entity from a designer if they assign it (ie in writing as part of a contract). The act of payment isn't enough (certainly post the 1988 act, and i think pre).

So in the absence of knowing what the original deal with the club was when DM designed it, I think it would be worth letting him know! Didn't his son used to post on here or was it another place?

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotdr ceri&quot wrote:It's not quite as simple as 'if you pay for it you get the copyright.'. Even when commissioned the copyright only passes to another entity from a designer if they assign it (ie in writing as part of a contract). The act of payment isn't enough (certainly post the 1988 act, and i think pre).

So in the absence of knowing what the original deal with the club was when DM designed it, I think it would be worth letting him know! Didn't his son used to post on here or was it another place?

Indeed. In most cases when a piece of artwork is commissioned though, the contract specifies that copywright passes to the purchaser. But I agree that doesn't have to always be the case.

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotdr ceri&quot wrote:It's not quite as simple as 'if you pay for it you get the copyright.'. Even when commissioned the copyright only passes to another entity from a designer if they assign it (ie in writing as part of a contract). The act of payment isn't enough (certainly post the 1988 act, and i think pre).

So in the absence of knowing what the original deal with the club was when DM designed it, I think it would be worth letting him know! Didn't his son used to post on here or was it another place?

Indeed. In most cases when a piece of artwork is commissioned though, the contract specifies that copywright passes to the purchaser. But I agree that doesn't have to always be the case.

&quotA-Ro&quot wrote:

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotdr ceri&quot wrote:It's not quite as simple as 'if you pay for it you get the copyright.'. Even when commissioned the copyright only passes to another entity from a designer if they assign it (ie in writing as part of a contract). The act of payment isn't enough (certainly post the 1988 act, and i think pre).

So in the absence of knowing what the original deal with the club was when DM designed it, I think it would be worth letting him know! Didn't his son used to post on here or was it another place?

Indeed. In most cases when a piece of artwork is commissioned though, the contract specifies that copywright passes to the purchaser. But I agree that doesn't have to always be the case.

STOP IT

&quotrecordmeister&quot wrote:&quotStill&quot own the copyright? I'd be amazed if a club didn't own it's own copyright which provides a major source of income for the club, through merchandise sales. Something would be horribly wrong if not.

Arsenal changed their logo a while back as the old one ran out of copyright, allowing street sellers to legally sell Arsenal branded goods. As ours was only developed in the early 1980's (or late 1970's?) then, with designs like this falling under the Copyrights and Patents Act 1988, it should be well within it's allotted period of ownership by the club.

If OUFC does own the copyright then the CC should (and may be does, who knows?!) be paying a licence to OUFC use the logo. Esp if the level that they are playing at is deemed high enough for a professional, international cricketer to be breaching the terms of his banning order. If they aren't using a copyrighted logo with permission, well... I fear for the Cricket Club should OUFC wish to act.

Alternatively, we may be in breach of their copyright, in which case I fear for OUFC...!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 795444.stm
[/url]