Question for Ed Fitzgerald

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:21 pm

Who authorized the FBI insignia on your campaign piece?

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:21 pm

In addition, is that a real cop in your literature?

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:36 pm

sharon,

I might be wrong but the FBI logo is public and can be used freely.

Jim might know a bit more about the subject of the logo..

he's the encyclopedia of logos and graphics.

Whatever you do, don't try to mail the FOX network a rendition of Homer Simpson with hopes of them using it :wink:

Bryan Schwegler · Post by **Bryan Schwegler** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:58 pm

sharon kinsella wrote:In addition, is that a real cop in your literature?

I'm curious as to why it would matter either way?

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:04 pm

same here..

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:24 pm

Just asking. No deeper meaning just a burning desire to know.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:45 am

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote:sharon,

I might be wrong but the FBI logo is public and can be used freely.

Jim might know a bit more about the subject of the logo..

he's the encyclopedia of logos and graphics.

Whatever you do, don't try to mail the FOX network a rendition of Homer Simpson with hopes of them using it

Ivor

The first rule of logos, is the trademark is only as good as the owner is at protecting it.

Generally many graphics and photos owned by governmental agencies, are in fact owned by the residents of the USA. The typical example is NASA photos which are free to use in any way by all.

However, I think it would be a legal line crossed if someone was using a governmental logo as an endorsement for a person or a project without prior approval from that agency. An endorsement would indicate SOMEONE in the FBI actually approved the endorsement. This would be an internal FBI procedure.

However Ed was with the FBI, I think it is 5 years in total, last time I spoke with him about this. I am sure he is allowed to mention this, and should be able to use it in his mailings.

As for 20th Fox, and Fox TV it was not simply sending them a Homer. It was sending them high quality type faces made up of Simpson art and characters in 1988. This was done with the approval and help of Matt Groening, the creator of the Simpsons. He loved the product so much he told me to send them to Fox for them to market. As he had sold the Simpsons to Fox, they now owned the art and all associated copyrights and trademarks. They were not as friendly as Matt, and threatened to sue, again and again and again and again and again...

This was during a period i was beta testing font deign software for Altys. At that time fonts were pretty static, no ART in type faces. This brought in a whole new style of typefaces to the masses. I also did the same with Lakewood cartoonists R. Crumb (Zap Comics) and Tom Wilson (Ziggy). The Crumb "Fontoons" ended up in court with Robert's wife wanting all proceeds, and now sits on a disk somewhere in my office, as I demanded the artist Robert got all monies. Ziggy ended up in Tom's pocket after a night of drinking and backgammon. American Greeting now owns Ziggy. I lost that night, but Tom paid for the night of drinking at Don's Lighthouse/Pier W with Ziggy cartoons on bar napkins.

As long as we brought it up I always get a kick out of who is the best/worse at protecting their copyrights and trademarks.

1) Disney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Pirates Dan O'Neil was in a documentary on underground artists, and he stated his agreement with Disney was to never use a pencil or pen again to draw art.

2) Olympics - Congress passed a law in 1985 making it illegal to use the word Olympic in any way shape or form. Federal offense, that is strictly enforced. in late 80s I tried to trademark fictious words 'Motolympics" and "Autolympics," and was denied both, as they contained Olympic in the wording. Lawsuit soon followed. If a business uses Olympic, it was grandfathered in and existed before 1985.

3) Harley Davidson

4) NBA

5) Grateful Dead - I was sued by Sony inc. for a promotion I did for the Browns featuring dancing dawgs, and the term "Grateful Dawgs." it was discovered I beat them to the trademark term by 3 days. It was used in the movie Grateful Dawgs, the documentary of Deadheads. As they had used it before me the movie was grandfathered in. The Dawgs which still exist today, were deemed not infringment as they were comsidered dogs not bears, and the rule of 10% had been observed. I reach and agreement with David Grisman and Sony, for them to use it for 4 years, leased. payment was 4 free tickets to any concert, that had any member of the Grateful Dead in it for life. I have never asked for tickets.
http://clevelandkennelclub.com

Trademarked Logo Urban Legends

Dawg Pound/Dog Pound - was never trademarked by The Cleveland Browns. The rumor was The Browns stole the logo and idea from Handford Dixon and Frank Minniefield. The fact is they started using it and never stopped. when the Browns came back it took off again. i was working with Hanford on "The Cleveland Kennel Club." http://clevelandkennelclub.com When this was discovered. I trademarked "Dawg Pound" and gave it to Hanford, what is right is right. Hanford then sold it to the Browns which is one of the reasons Hanford and friends are spokespeople for the Browns now. Old Browns used by new Browns are basically Bernie Kosar, and Hanford, with his close friends Webster Slaughter and Reggie Langhorne.

OK back to arguing politics...

.

Colleen Wing · Post by **Colleen Wing** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:43 pm

http://www.fop.net/programs/research/hatchact.pdf

I think this might be part of were this is going. I know the Mayor's piece with the Sheriff McFaul was pretty tight on this line.

But what the heck rules spules.

Diane Helbig · Post by **Diane Helbig** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:22 pm

Colleen Wing wrote:http://www.fop.net/programs/research/hatchact.pdf

I think this might be part of were this is going. I know the Mayor's piece with the Sheriff McFaul was pretty tight on this line.

But what the heck rules spules.

I don't see the relevance Colleen. Ed isn't currently a federal employee. Is he wearing the FBI insignia in the picture (sorry but I threw it away) or is the insignia simply on the literature. Looks like this Hatch act pertains to federal employees running for office and endorsing, campaigning for others while in uniform or on the clock.

Colleen Wing · Post by **Colleen Wing** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:39 pm

It is not about Federal candidates at all.

It is a law that applies to police officers endorsing any candidate to any office or appearing on literature as a police office in uniform and implying endorsement.

The candidate is not in violation, it is the police officer who is violating the law.

This is why any police office on literature or in ads, if the officer is smart- isn't actually a police officer but an actor in uniform.

The Sheriff may or may not apply to this law for the Mayors piece and Ed's just had the seal from the FBI -the safer way to go would have been to just use the letters FBI since that is the first time I have ever seen their actual seal.

Kevin Galvin · Post by **Kevin Galvin** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:12 pm

Ms. Wing,

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that if a local police officer appears on a piece of literature while in uniform they are breaking the law? I could be wrong, and God knows it happens often, but I thought that the officer had to actually do something active. If an action photo of a law enforcement officer during his tour of duty appears on a piece of literature how would you show intent?

Obviously if there is a picture of a Lakewood police officer in uniform and they are quoted as saying "Hi, I'm officer John Smith and I think Alice Jones would be a great mayor, there is an intent to endorse. If officer John Smith is pulling over a car and a photo is taken that happens to coincide with candidate Alice Jones asking the officer a question, is that officer breaking the law?

I was unable to open the link to the law so that is why I'm hoping for an explanation.

Thanks

Colleen Wing · Post by **Colleen Wing** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:16 am

Mr. Galvin,

You are correct. That is the difference.

Sharon asked the question about weither it was a real police officer about Ed's piece and I mentioned about the Sheriff McFaul piece which was very close if not over the line...the rest is up to the FOP and the BOE. The law was an FYI, that is why it was relevant.

There are so many election laws broken or badly bent every year in Lakewood it is pointless to even bring it up anymore...hence the rules spules.

Mrs. Wing

Kevin Galvin · Post by **Kevin Galvin** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:51 am

Mrs. Wing,

Thank you for the reply. As a retired Lakewood Police I was concerned about friends getting caught up in something that they had no control over.

Kevin