Other companies logo

[sumodaz]

Hi

I want to put another companies logo on my website as a reference, the company is a giant and i am obviously getting ignored by email and letter. I am planning now to just put the logo on my website and if i am warned, take it off. My only concern is that they will not warn me but take further action straight away, i can't really see this happening as only saying good about the company. Just wondering what others think?

Thanks
Darren

[Chris Ashdown]

Don't Do It

Write to the Sales director, tell him you are selling thier goods and would like to incorporate their log into your site

I imagine you will get a reply from the marketing dept telling you the exact size and colours you should use and details of where in your site it will be displayed

[sumodaz]

That was my first thought but after writing to them many times i have now given up, the company is McDonalds, im sure they just read my letters and put them straight in the bin.

[mahutchinson]

Why would you even think of doing that ? They have no interest in your website and will immediately have it removed.

[crossdaz]

That was my first thought but after writing to them many times i have now given up, the company is McDonalds, im sure they just read my letters and put them straight in the bin.

Do they have a press section on their site?
Some sites have images available for download by the press, but a lot are open to anyone to use. M&S for example.

It's a good idea to have the image link to their site just to show good intent.
If you are saying good things about them and not using the image for improper means then they are not going to bother you.

[Chris Ashdown]

If you are saying good things about them and not using the image for improper means then they are not going to bother you.

On the other hand they could email Google and get you site blacklisted as google take copyright very serious

[crossdaz]

On the other hand they could email Google and get you site blacklisted as google take copyright very serious

Google Image Search: "McDonald's"

Looks like Google could be getting barred from all McDonald's restaurants then?

For press releases, and IMAGES go here:
mcdepk(DOT)com

:)

[Chris Ashdown]

Google Image Search: "McDonald's"

Looks like Google could be getting barred from all McDonald's restaurants then?

For press releases, and IMAGES go here:
mcdepk(DOT)com

:)

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

If the copyright holders complain about your site using their copyrighted logo without permission, Google will remove your site from their listings and take a long time to re-instate you

If they fail to do so then they can be done themselves, so they take this serious

[obscure]

That was my first thought but after writing to them many times i have now given up, the company is McDonalds, im sure they just read my letters and put them straight in the bin.
Do you actually have some form of business relationship with McDonalds or are you just wanting to use their logo because people will recognise it?

If you have a business relationship (you supply them with good or services) you should talk to your contact about getting permission to list them on your site as a business partner.

If you just want to use their logo to make your site look better/because people will recognise it - forget it. No big company is going to agree to you using their logo to benefit your company unless you already have a business relationship. They are quite within their rights to ignore your letters and if they do so then you must assume that you do NOT have their permission to use their logo. Use of their logo without permission would be trademark infringement (not copyright as mentioned above).

[crossdaz]

Not sure what you are trying to say here.


Firstly, McDonald's logo is openly available on Google search - so, in effect, Google are publishing the logo in a way which you think is illegal?

Secondly, the website I quoted is the official resource for McDonald's press and publicity information which anyone is allowed to use so long as they agree to the fair terms of use?

These kind of questions can always be argued to the 'enth degree in legal terms. In reality the worst that can happen is that you get a request to remove the image?

If you ignored that request and went on an anti-McDonald's crusade, then, sure, the legal aspects will hit you like a ton of bricks? But in the spirit of the original post - this isn't going to be the case! :)

[mahutchinson]

Search engines are not publishing logos, they merely provide signposts directing you to sites which are. This legal issue of the search engine being responsible for the information it links to has been tested in court and succcessfully argued against over and over.

[Chris Ashdown]

There is a major difference in using someones press release which has open permission and in using the company Logo which is what you originally asked about

[noidea]

Hi

I want to put another companies logo on my website as a reference, the company is a giant and i am obviously getting ignored by email and letter. I am planning now to just put the logo on my website and if i am warned, take it off. My only concern is that they will not warn me but take further action straight away, i can't really see this happening as only saying good about the company. Just wondering what others think?

Thanks
Darren
Should be fine. If they don't like and they find out they will send you a cease and desist letter/email, not nice, but no further action just take it down. Its rare that they could take further action without first discussing it with you as even though courts have a bad name they like both parties to communicate and the court process being the last possible action.


That Google stuff is bull**** and you have it out of context. Google ban websites that offer copyright infringement etc. like warez sites where you can download windows etc. not those that use a logo for reference.

[crossdaz]

At last, a common sense reply. :)

[obscure]

Secondly, the website I quoted is the official resource for McDonald's press and publicity information which anyone is allowed to use so long as they agree to the fair terms of use?
The use of the ? seems to denote that you are not sure.
That site supplies PR assets for use by the media and is clearly marked "All content © 2005 McDonald's Corporation and affiliates. All rights reserved." The material there is for use by the media to report on the events in question. It is not for use by other companies as part of their business activities.

The use by the OP of any logos or photos from that site for their own business would be a breach of copyright or trademark infringement.

[noidea]

Whoever mentioned McD's is silly. Even though MCD has sued people for the word Mc in their company name even though that other company was around before... the infamous arches are somewhat so common these days that the only way they could stop you using them is if you were using them to trade without being a franchisee, whether your company was publishing bad stuff about them ("our healthy food wont give you a heart attack unlike McDs") or generally saying something slanderous etc. other then that I don't they could even make you take down such a logo.

[downsouth]

but the question in all this is why does the OP want to use MCD's logo on their website???

If they have done business with them, then go through the correct channels as mentioned earlier to be allowed to use the logo.

But if they simply want to use a logo to give the impression that MCD's is a client then think they are treading on dodgy ground

Why not use logo's of companies youve done business with etc

[crossdaz]

The use of the ? seems to denote that you are not sure.
That site supplies PR assets for use by the media and is clearly marked "All content © 2005 McDonald's Corporation and affiliates. All rights reserved." The material there is for use by the media to report on the events in question. It is not for use by other companies as part of their business activities.


So the media is not a business then?

[Chris Ashdown]

Should be fine. If they don't like and they find out they will send you a cease and desist letter/email, not nice, but no further action just take it down. Its rare that they could take further action without first discussing it with you as even though courts have a bad name they like both parties to communicate and the court process being the last possible action.


That Google stuff is bull**** and you have it out of context. Google ban websites that offer copyright infringement etc. like warez sites where you can download windows etc. not those that use a logo for reference.

Here is a small part of a claim by Getty Images to a company, If you search into Google for "Getty Images + Sue" you will be suprised at what you see

Quote

Getty Images want to take Legal Action against my client

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Guys,

I would like some comments and ideas of what to do now... Has anyone had any dealings with getty and breach of image copyright?

We built a small website for a client and an old designer who worked for me from India, used google images to find some images for the website. I think he took the images from another website or something without giving it a second thought, which I know is wrong but I cant check these things all the time.

Anyway, a year later my client gets a letter from Getty threatening to sue for breach of copyright for 2 images which they say is theirs. My client phoned me up in panic.

I immediately removed those images, but our client received another letter from Getty demanding £2937.50 for using those 2 small images otherwise they will sue and they say it doesn't matter that we removed them as they have already been used. Its a crazy amount to pay Getty for 2 rubbishy photos anyway (they charge approx £100 each for them but because we used illegally they can charge nearly £1500 in their small print). We had no idea they originally came from Getty anyway when found on google and this Indian chap now disappeared.

Does anyone know if they indeed will sue our client or us, or are they just flexing their muscles? Any advice or will be appreciated.

end quote

Please do not be as stupid as "noidea" suggests, his name says it all

[crossdaz]

Here is a small part of a claim by Getty Images to a company, If you search into Google for "Getty Images + Sue" you will be suprised at what you see


I think you are getting lost in your quest to win the argument. Getty images and a company logo are 2 separate matters. Did they pursue their claim in this instance - I doubt it?

Back to the original point - if I have an affiliate site selling Sony Flat Screen TV's for, say Curry's, and I publish a picture of a Sony Flat Screen TV am I in breech of copyright - YES
Could I be sued for every penny I've got - YES

Is that going to happen - NO

WHY - Because I am using the image to sell their TV's. If I was using it to sell someone else's TVs then fair enough, but why would I?

So in summary - Technically you are perfectly correct and have won the argument.
Practically I have tried to answer the guy's original question.

Have a nice day :p

[noidea]

Here is a small part of a claim by Getty Images to a company, If you search into Google for "Getty Images + Sue" you will be suprised at what you see

Quote

Getty Images want to take Legal Action against my client

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Guys,

I would like some comments and ideas of what to do now... Has anyone had any dealings with getty and breach of image copyright?

We built a small website for a client and an old designer who worked for me from India, used google images to find some images for the website. I think he took the images from another website or something without giving it a second thought, which I know is wrong but I cant check these things all the time.

Anyway, a year later my client gets a letter from Getty threatening to sue for breach of copyright for 2 images which they say is theirs. My client phoned me up in panic.

I immediately removed those images, but our client received another letter from Getty demanding £2937.50 for using those 2 small images otherwise they will sue and they say it doesn't matter that we removed them as they have already been used. Its a crazy amount to pay Getty for 2 rubbishy photos anyway (they charge approx £100 each for them but because we used illegally they can charge nearly £1500 in their small print). We had no idea they originally came from Getty anyway when found on google and this Indian chap now disappeared.

Does anyone know if they indeed will sue our client or us, or are they just flexing their muscles? Any advice or will be appreciated.

end quote

Please do not be as stupid as "noidea" suggests, his name says it all
You have lost the plot totally.

Like Daz said Using unlicensed images is completely different to using a logo.

Getty are hot on the copyright violation front. Businesses aren't. Getty makes more money via violations then they do by licensing out the images.

[Chris Ashdown]

In one case you are using a image that supports the company in some manner, and as you say there is no benifit in them chasing you

I do find the argument that a site wants to use Macdonalds logo for some strange reason far more difficult to understand

but i still feel that both of you suggesting its ok to use a unauthorised logoscarey as if the worst does happen you are both sittin in clover saying I only suggested it whilst the original thread person is the one who can get any penalties

[crossdaz]

but i still feel that both of you suggesting its ok to use a unauthorised logoscarey as if the worst does happen you are both sittin in clover saying I only suggested it whilst the original thread person is the one who can get any penalties

Well maybe so?
I think if the guy who asked the question wants to play absolutely safe then you are correct. I just don't think it's necessary?

At least he has the benefit of seeing both sides of the argument ;)

[obscure]

So the media is not a business then?

"The material there is for use by the media to report on the events in question. It is not for use by other companies as part of their business activities."

Added a little extra emphasis in the hope it makes it clearer.

McDs provide those assets specifically for use by the media to promote McDonalds. They don't provide it for other people to use for the benefit of their own unrelated business.


Getty are hot on the copyright violation front. Businesses aren't.
The use of a logo is Trademark infringement, not copyright and businesses (especially large ones like McDonalds, Coke etc) are very hot on protecting the Trademarks.

[crossdaz]

"The material there is for use by the media to report on the events in question. It is not for use by other companies as part of their business activities."

Added a little extra emphasis in the hope it makes it clearer.

McDs provide those assets specifically for use by the media to promote McDonalds. They don't provide it for other people to use for the benefit of their own unrelated business.


So what you are saying is that the media can use trademarked material to promote McDonald's?

Thanks for clearing that up. I think I understand that now.

Now, what I don't understand is why the media would want to promote McDonalds?

[noidea]

Let's kill this debate. You intend to use the logo to promote them right?

Check out a few websites I have just googled for... They still exist and not exactly pro-McD's..

http://www.mypage.tsn.cc/c_richardson/maccas.htm
http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/index.html
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3796079620 (yes a bebo profile so wouldn't bebo have taken it down by now?)
http://www.rajuabju.com/literature/anti-mcdonalds.htm
http://www.vegan.org/campaigns/mcvegan/index.html

(this was solely a few minute search, I didn't spend hours browsing the web for them)

To top if off there is even an Anti-McD's day...

I am sure if you spent your time browsing for an whole day you'd find a thousand!