IIRC, in the T-shirt thread it was specified that Apple will likely prosecute anyone who uses their logo (hence the pre-emptive overlay of "removed at the request of Apple legal" and the dashed Apple-ish shape rather than the explicit icon we all associate with Steves' baby). the posting guidelines also lay out some "no go areas" with regard to allegedly leaked photos... Apple legal may come knocking if we don't inform policy and prevent problems first.
if we logically assume a similar set of rules might apply here (not a huge leap to my mind... scale of icon shouldn't matter to lawyers, it's Apple's intellectual property) then no use of the identifiable logo would be permitted.
perhaps a lawyer could speak to the potential infringement of copyrighted industrial design and "implied association by proxy" of the use of hardware in the existing portholes up top on AI's page. my guess is that while image copyright vests with the photgrapher/artist, Apple Legal might have a case that by "representing AI with Apple product images in the portholes", AI might confuse potential customers into thinking some authorized relationship existed between the mother corp and a formerly denigrated rumour site (more history... the "cabal of twerps" quote... search for info)
most intelligent folks wouldn't make that immediate leap (colour scheme and URL different enough), but i'd bet some clearance issues were discussed in rejecting other possible designs that might have crossed that threshold
of the existing designs, i'm further assuming that any of the images which contain Apple IP (all identifiable _complete_ apple logos) are verboten.
derivative works with identifiable _otherwise un-retouched logos_ would also get nixed. (no mini apple in porthole... still the apple)
the 3D rendered and extruded apple, which we see from orthagonal view would likely count as original art in copyright terms (derivative, yet not clearly the complete and instantly identifiable mark of Cupertino)
letters, bees, portholed combinations and other images should be ok,
[ insert actual legal opinion here ]
</moment of legal hesitation>
paranoia is just reality at higher resolution
maybe not an issue (move along... nothing to see here)
but it would sure seem silly for us to vote and select a favicon
then get cease and desist letters that require a new choice
...I just wanted to let you know I'll be removing the favicons/previews from my .mac account in the next few weeks. I thought you would like to know this.
Ok, so I'm just wondering if there has been any word on whether things are going to change on the 'favicon' front or whether we will be sticking with the black apple icon?
Comments
Please excuse the interruption.
Originally posted by /mandolux/
...porthole galore:
Apple (
Finder (
Future (
Xserve (
iSync (
PowerMac (
Safari (
Universal Access (
mandolux you are da man!
Those are great portholes! 8) Too bad it is too complicated to use one for each of the forum threads...
How many favicons do we have now!?
<moment of legal hesitation>
IIRC, in the T-shirt thread it was specified that Apple will likely prosecute anyone who uses their logo (hence the pre-emptive overlay of "removed at the request of Apple legal" and the dashed Apple-ish shape rather than the explicit icon we all associate with Steves' baby). the posting guidelines also lay out some "no go areas" with regard to allegedly leaked photos... Apple legal may come knocking if we don't inform policy and prevent problems first.
if we logically assume a similar set of rules might apply here (not a huge leap to my mind... scale of icon shouldn't matter to lawyers, it's Apple's intellectual property) then no use of the identifiable logo would be permitted.
perhaps a lawyer could speak to the potential infringement of copyrighted industrial design and "implied association by proxy" of the use of hardware in the existing portholes up top on AI's page. my guess is that while image copyright vests with the photgrapher/artist, Apple Legal might have a case that by "representing AI with Apple product images in the portholes", AI might confuse potential customers into thinking some authorized relationship existed between the mother corp and a formerly denigrated rumour site (more history... the "cabal of twerps" quote... search for info)
most intelligent folks wouldn't make that immediate leap (colour scheme and URL different enough), but i'd bet some clearance issues were discussed in rejecting other possible designs that might have crossed that threshold
of the existing designs, i'm further assuming that any of the images which contain Apple IP (all identifiable _complete_ apple logos) are verboten.
derivative works with identifiable _otherwise un-retouched logos_ would also get nixed. (no mini apple in porthole... still the apple)
the 3D rendered and extruded apple, which we see from orthagonal view would likely count as original art in copyright terms (derivative, yet not clearly the complete and instantly identifiable mark of Cupertino)
letters, bees, portholed combinations and other images should be ok,
[ insert actual legal opinion here ]
</moment of legal hesitation>
paranoia is just reality at higher resolution
maybe not an issue (move along... nothing to see here)
but it would sure seem silly for us to vote and select a favicon
then get cease and desist letters that require a new choice
BTW, I just realize there is no 'legal agreement' or 'Terms and Conditions' at AI - interesting. I wonder why.
Ok, so I'm just wondering if there has been any word on whether things are going to change on the 'favicon' front or whether we will be sticking with the black apple icon?