Asked to remove a logo from a Facebook post

cormie

I made a post on my Facebook business page on the 6th of January regarding a certain Irish car testing company. It's had just under 1,000 shares and a reach of just under 60,000 so far.

I took a screenshot of the terms and conditions on the company website, which included their logo in the top right corner, photoshopped it so that the irrelevant info was darker and put my own spiel over it too. So in essence it's just a screenshot with some information and a darker layer put over it.

I was phoned this morning and asked to remove JUST the logo or else there would be legal proceedings, which I would do no problem, other than the fact that you can't edit photos once they are posted on facebook and I'd rather not remove the post completely given it's popularity.

Without giving any legal advice, out of curiosity, why would they ask to remove just the logo if I've taken a screenshot of an entire section of their site which had a copyright symbol towards the footer? Also, does posting something on facebook have the same consequences as if you were to say, use their logo on a garage shop front as if you were in some way affiliated with or approved by them? Finally, if anyone knows of a way to simply cut out a section of a facebook photo, please let me know as I'd really prefer not to remove it.

Any feedback appreciated

Paulw

cormie wrote: »

Also, does posting something on facebook have the same consequences as if you were to say, use their logo on a garage shop front as if you were in some way affiliated with or approved by them? Finally, if anyone knows of a way to simply cut out a section of a facebook photo, please let me know as I'd really prefer not to remove it.

Yes, posting on facebook can have the same consequences.

Why did you post information you knew was copyright protected?

You should ask Facebook if it is possible to edit the posted photo. I doubt it is.

Kenny Logins

It does look like you actually added the logo making it appear like an official announcement IMHO.

I'd remove the entire image with an explanation and link to the charter, and enjoy the wave of attention that gets.

cormie

To be honest I just didn't even think. I didn't think it would become so popular either of course so didn't put much thought into it.

I'm curious though as to if the website is copyrighted, why would they JUST ask me to remove the logo and not the whole image considering the whole image is basically a screenshot of the website?

Also, I've seen videos on youtube that are of people RECORDING their own TV playing back certain content as a means to get around copyright claims. Does this change things? If I was to take a photo of my laptop displaying the website/logo and add text over this, would it be change anything?

I'll just have to remove the whole image I'm guessing so, it's a pity, I'll just do another little bit of googling to see if there's any way to just remove the logo and if I can't find a solution, I'll snip the image. I don't even know if I delete just the photo, will the posts/comments remain

Kenny Logins

As I said, I wouldn't have noticed of how the image was made unless you explained it here. By darkening the rest of the screen grab but leaving the logo, it actually appears to be added on. It looks like you have applied their logo to your image.

flyingsnail

cormie wrote: »

Also, I've seen videos on youtube that are of people RECORDING their own TV playing back certain content as a means to get around copyright claims. Does this change things? If I was to take a photo of my laptop displaying the website/logo and add text over this, would it be change anything?

Thats just a means of bypassing youtubes automatic system for flagging copyright material rather than bypassing the law.

Kenny Logins

flyingsnail wrote: »

Thats just a means of bypassing youtubes automatic system for flagging copyright material rather than bypassing the law.

No, I'm pretty sure that's because there is no easy way to extract footage from a Sky+ box. Recording the playback with a camera/phone is quick and easy.

jaymcg91

Kenny Logins wrote: »

No, I'm pretty sure that's because there is no easy way to extract footage from a Sky+ box. Recording the playback with a camera/phone is quick and easy.

Nope he's right. Same with a lot of music, when you play it from unofficial accounts it's at a very slightly higher pitch so the system they use to detect copyright infringement doesn't notice it.

Your theory could also be right too, but that is that reason a lot of people do that.

cormie

Oh, so even recording your own tv playing the material is still infringement? Other methods I've seen on youtube are flipping the image of the video. I remember watching a few episodes of the office I think it was, but everything was flipped horizontal

Ok, so I've redrawn something in photoshop. Is there any infringement here (I've copied the text from the charter word for word) is that ok?

And what about saying they aren't adequately staffed? Is that in any way libellous?

Kenny Logins

jaymcg91 wrote: »

Nope he's right. Same with a lot of music, when you play it from unofficial accounts it's at a very slightly higher pitch so the system they use to detect copyright infringement doesn't notice it.

Your theory could also be right too, but that is that reason a lot of people do that.

OK, I see that now (how to videos on Youtube!) wasn't aware of that. Thanks.

cormie

I rang the lady from Applus back and she confirmed everything else is fine as long as the logo is removed that it would come under free speech

hullaballoo

I'd love to be a lawyer for one of these bodies. Just make up random stuff, say it's the law and it becomes policy. A policy that they'll seemingly aggressively pursue through the courts.

What has free speech got to do with anything? It's publicly available information.

cormie

So you don't think there's anything libellous or infringing in the rehash of the image and the logo is the only thing they have a legal right to request removal of?

hullaballoo

Libel was abolished in 2009. Whether there's an infringement I couldn't possibly comment on because that would be legal advice.

However, what I would say is that the colour-scheme of the last image you posted is strikingly familiar for some reason.

FreudianSlippers

cormie wrote: »

So you don't think there's anything libellous or infringing in the rehash of the image and the logo is the only thing they have a legal right to request removal of?

It is potentially defamatory to say they are understaffed. That's really all anyone can say in line with the charter.

cormie

Haha, that's about the height of my photoshop skills and being a bit cheeky :pac:

I got the ok from the lady via email anyway so I guess it's all good.

FreudianSlippers

Just going back to the original topic, I'd be surprised of they didn't have their logo trademarked tbh.

LordNorbury

cormie wrote: »

I made a post on my Facebook business page on the 6th of January regarding a certain Irish car testing company. It's had just under 1,000 shares and a reach of just under 60,000 so far.

I took a screenshot of the terms and conditions on the company website, which included their logo in the top right corner, photoshopped it so that the irrelevant info was darker and put my own spiel over it too. So in essence it's just a screenshot with some information and a darker layer put over it.

I was phoned this morning and asked to remove JUST the logo or else there would be legal proceedings, which I would do no problem, other than the fact that you can't edit photos once they are posted on facebook and I'd rather not remove the post completely given it's popularity.

Without giving any legal advice, out of curiosity, why would they ask to remove just the logo if I've taken a screenshot of an entire section of their site which had a copyright symbol towards the footer? Also, does posting something on facebook have the same consequences as if you were to say, use their logo on a garage shop front as if you were in some way affiliated with or approved by them? Finally, if anyone knows of a way to simply cut out a section of a facebook photo, please let me know as I'd really prefer not to remove it.

Any feedback appreciated

You might not have a problem here OP. Say you are offering a service that prepares a vehicle for the mandatory state testing procedure. I don't see how you using a logo on your website, in conjunction with your own company logo, breaches copyright, once there is a clear statement on your advertisement that you are a separate service or business. It is not as if you are trying to pass yourself off as another company, so using a logo as part of an advertisement for your own company, where your unique product or service is related to a state agency, is not in and of itself, a breach of copyright in those unique circumstances I would imagine. This would be my starting point on this, I could well be proven wrong, and on a 'technicality' you might not be allowed use their logo but you are allowed refer to their organisation and make a claim that you are offering a service that is associated with their product.

A simple example would be a driving school. Say you open up a firm called "Cormie's Driving School". Obviously central to the service that you offer, is to charge for the provision of driving lessons which will prepare a client for the state driving test. Without the state imposed requirement by law for drivers to do a driving test, you don't have a business model really. It clearly isn't illegal to mention your pass rate when it comes to your students doing their state test, I don't see how using a state logo on your instruction car would be considered illegal, or placing the words "90% pass rate with Dept. of Environment Driving Test", as you are not trying to pass yourself off as the Dept. of Environment, you are simply advertising a service that is uniquely related to what they do...

LordNorbury

cormie wrote: »

Oh, so even recording your own tv playing the material is still infringement? Other methods I've seen on youtube are flipping the image of the video. I remember watching a few episodes of the office I think it was, but everything was flipped horizontal

Ok, so I've redrawn something in photoshop. Is there any infringement here (I've copied the text from the charter word for word) is that ok?

And what about saying they aren't adequately staffed? Is that in any way libellous?

I just saw your ad and understand the context a bit better now! Two words OP, "FREE SPEECH!"... The fact that you were asked to take it down I think is a bit Irish, I'd certainly stand up and maybe name and shame, there is little toleration these days for some gobshíte in an ivory tower somewhere on planet NCT, bulllying someone into taking down a notice such as this...

hullaballoo

LordNorbury wrote: »

I just saw your ad and understand the context a bit better now! Two words OP, "FREE SPEECH!"... The fact that you were asked to take it down I think is a bit Irish, I'd certainly stand up and maybe name and shame, there is little toleration these days for some gobshíte in an ivory tower somewhere on planet NCT, bulllying someone into taking down a notice such as this...

Moderator:

Would you mind now please reading the rest of the thread before posting again.

Thanks.

cormie

The original post with use of the NCT logo has now been removed, I've a copy on my computer but maybe I can't even post it here

With regards to it being ok to use a logo of a company I offer a service to my clients for, well I've had first hand experience, much the same as above, with this. I used to use an IKEA logo on my website for the IKEA shopping and delivery service I offer, I was phoned or emailed, I forget, by IKEA and told to remove the logo and that any mention of IKEA on my website should be accompanied by "*Please note: VanTasks.ie is not authorised to represent, approved or endorsed by IKEA and is not associated with IKEA."

So although it was ok to mention IKEA, I wasn't allowed use their logo anywhere.

Again, with the same curiosity on the youtube question above, what if I simply had a photo of my van parked outside IKEA with the IKEA logo clearly visible? Can they request that I take the photo down just because their logo is visible? Can this be applied to any public photo with a brand logo visible?

LordNorbury

cormie wrote: »

The original post with use of the NCT logo has now been removed, I've a copy on my computer but maybe I can't even post it here

With regards to it being ok to use a logo of a company I offer a service to my clients for, well I've had first hand experience, much the same as above, with this. I used to use an IKEA logo on my website for the IKEA shopping and delivery service I offer, I was phoned or emailed, I forget, by IKEA and told to remove the logo and that any mention of IKEA on my website should be accompanied by "*Please note: VanTasks.ie is not authorised to represent, approved or endorsed by IKEA and is not associated with IKEA."

So although it was ok to mention IKEA, I wasn't allowed use their logo anywhere.

Again, with the same curiosity on the youtube question above, what if I simply had a photo of my van parked outside IKEA with the IKEA logo clearly visible? Can they request that I take the photo down just because their logo is visible? Can this be applied to any public photo with a brand logo visible?

I reckon if it is trademarked then they can. Sometimes you see people engineering up a very similar logo to a trademarked popular logo and a dispute then emerges and it ends up in court. I'm not sure of the legalities of it.

It is hard to see though how you creating a notice (even using the NCT logo), advertising to people aspects of the service, is a breach of the law.

Take another comparable context. I recall there was a national scandal concerning the NCT that was covered by RTE Primetime, to do with cars passing the NCT test that were not fit to pass, backhanders going on, etc.

I can't be 100% sure but I'm fairly sure I can recall the NCT logo being used in the footage of that episode of Primetime, I'm sure they displayed the logo in footage of the NCT centre they were investigating and as far as I can recall, they used the NCT logo in the studio on a screen behind the presenter. Was this illegal? I doubt it...

Carawaystick

Can logo's be both trademarked and Copyrighted?

One's forever as long as you don't allow it to become genericised, and the other has a very long time limit, but no need to chase every infringer

FreudianSlippers

Have a read about EU law regarding fair use of trademarks. That might clear some things up

Paulw

LordNorbury wrote: »

I can't be 100% sure but I'm fairly sure I can recall the NCT logo being used in the footage of that episode of Primetime, I'm sure they displayed the logo in footage of the NCT centre they were investigating and as far as I can recall, they used the NCT logo in the studio on a screen behind the presenter. Was this illegal?

No, that was covered by editorial use of the logo.

FreudianSlippers

Carawaystick wrote: »

Can logo's be both trademarked and Copyrighted?

One's forever as long as you don't allow it to become genericised, and the other has a very long time limit, but no need to chase every infringer

It can be both if it meets the minimum criteria for copyright protection - arguably both the NCT logo and Ikea logo do not (IMHO).

I would always advise getting a Community Trademark to ensure protection.

LordNorbury

Paulw wrote: »

No, that was covered by editorial use of the logo.

Does that 'allowable use' of the logo for editorial purposes not apply to the OP?

FreudianSlippers

LordNorbury wrote: »

Does that 'allowable use' of the logo for editorial purposes not apply to the OP?

It depends. I don't think any of us have seen it, nor should OP post it.

Paulw

LordNorbury wrote: »

Does that 'allowable use' of the logo for editorial purposes not apply to the OP?

The OP was not editorial, but was commenting with his personal view.

LordNorbury

Paulw wrote: »

The OP was not editorial, but was commenting with his personal view.

Say he had a company and was commenting on an industrial matter relevant to the industry he trades in. It is hard to see where the massive legal difference is, between him transmitting those views on his website or on Facebook, and say TV3 doing a fly on the wall documentary, or an internet article on the very same subject and them publishing those views on their website... Where is "editorial content" specifically defined as having to come from a narrowly defined list of media contributors?

bpmurray

Most companies are really, really possessive of their logo - they won't allow it to be associated with any other company or product without very explicit requirements being fulfilled. While they can't do anything about it when it's in a news story, they are certainly within their rights to demand that it be taken down if it's being shown within a different company's page. And that appears to be what happened here: it's normal and they're correct. The OP removed the logo and now everyone is happy, which is how it should be.

FreudianSlippers

LordNorbury wrote: »

Say he had a company and was commenting on an industrial matter relevant to the industry he trades in. It is hard to see where the massive legal difference is, between him transmitting those views on his website or on Facebook, and say TV3 doing a fly on the wall documentary, or an internet article on the very same subject and them publishing those views on their website... Where is "editorial content" specifically defined as having to come from a narrowly defined list of media contributors?

Firstly, using a competitors TM wouldn't be in good faith to disparage them. Additionally, considering nominative use doctrine, why do they need to use the TM and not just refer to their competitor by name? Finally, are there issues of potential defamation?

Big difference between the news reporting on something and a competitor 'reporting' on the same thing.

LordNorbury

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Firstly, using a competitors TM wouldn't be in good faith to disparage them. Additionally, considering nominative use doctrine, why do they need to use the TM and not just refer to their competitor by name? Finally, are there issues of potential defamation?

Big difference between the news reporting on something and a competitor 'reporting' on the same thing.

That may apply generally, but the NCT don't have a "competitor" in this jurisdiction. They operate the one and only government franchise on the testing of passenger car vehicles within the state, so the OP can't fit into the box of "competitor", although the point you make is true in the general sense, it doesn't apply in this case. The relationship between the OP and the NCT is not and can never be, one of two competitors, one using the others trade logo.

FreudianSlippers

LordNorbury wrote: »

That may apply generally, but the NCT don't have a "competitor" in this jurisdiction. They operate the one and only government franchise on the testing of passenger car vehicles within the state, so the OP can't fit into the box of "competitor", although the point you make is true in the general sense, it doesn't apply in this case. The relationship between the OP and the NCT is not and can never be, one of two competitors, one using the others trade logo.

There are two distinct issues:

1) The bona fides of the "report" - what's the purpose? OP is clearly not in the trade of journalism
2) Why does he have to use their TM, why not just use their name?

Edit: sorry there's a third thing...

3) could there be any confusion as to the source - OP is in the same industry and has used the logo. Nobody would be confused as to use on the news of the logo; it's unreasonable to believe that NCT is doing the news.

cormie

Thanks for all the input on this folks. How would it apply in the case of IKEA, would I be deemed as a competitor? I guess so if I'm comparing myself to their own delivery service :pac:

but what about the case I mentioned, if I had a photo of one of my vans with the IKEA building in the background and their logo visible, could this be forcefully removed?

FreudianSlippers

cormie wrote: »

Thanks for all the input on this folks. How would it apply in the case of IKEA, would I be deemed as a competitor? I guess so if I'm comparing myself to their own delivery service :pac:

but what about the case I mentioned, if I had a photo of one of my vans with the IKEA building in the background and their logo visible, could this be forcefully removed?

In general you can use a trademark without permission where you are truthfully and genuinely referring to that product or service - any use that misleads people as to affiliation or endorsement with your or any other company is not allowed

cormie

Hmm, so I guess that would be a no to putting a picture of a van outside IKEA as it could be understood by some that I'm in some way affiliated with IKEA since I'm offering to do a shopping and delivery service to IKEA. Whereas to simply mention this on my website, without use of photo or logo would be ok..

RainyDay

I spoke to a barrister friend some years back after being challenged by officials of a voluntary organisation about use of their name on a Facebook group. The barrister advised me that the standard legal test was about whether the usage would 'confuse a weary man'. The principal was that if there was a risk that a weary man might be confused about the origination or ownership of the posting, then it could create a legal issue. If there was no risk of confusion, no risk that anyone would think that the posting would have actually come from the organisation in question, there would be no issue.

the world wonders

bpmurray wrote: »

While they can't do anything about it when it's in a news story, they are certainly within their rights to demand that it be taken down if it's being shown within a different company's page. And that appears to be what happened here: it's normal and they're correct.

No they're not, read the law.

24.—(1) Where a person threatens another with proceedings for infringement of a registered trade mark other than in relation to—


(a) the application of the mark to goods,


(b) the importation of goods to which the mark has been applied, or


(c) the supply of services under the mark,


any person aggrieved may apply to the Court for relief under this section.


(2) The relief which may be applied for as mentioned in subsection (1) is any of the following:


(a) a declaration that the threats are unjustifiable;


(b) an injunction against the continuance of the threats;


(c) damages in respect of any loss sustained by the threats.

See also Section 14 of the same Act which states clearly that use of trademarks is only infringement if it is done "in the course of trade".

So it's perfectly OK to show someone else's trademark on a webpage, as long as you're not using it to promote or sell your own goods or services.

cormie

Thanks again for the replies.

That's interesting above.

I guess it could be deemed that using the NCT logo on my post is slightly promotional for me so removal could be justified?

Also with the IKEA logo it's definitely used to promote/sell my own goods/service, so I guess that's a definite no?

The Facebook re-post has reached the same "reach" now of over 60,000 and just under 900 shares so not too fussed about having to remove the logo and I replaced it with a bigger logo of my own along with icons showing what services I provide so more "promotional" than the previous post