Pleased to announce permission granted from FL DEP

[NotDeadYet]

When I emailed the TDC, they told me the logo was property of the State, and I would need their permission, as in any copyrighted image. Yes, it's developed by the government, for the government to use.

This does raise some questions. IMHO, there is no "government" apart from we the people. (Well, there may be, but there is not supposed to be.) Since we the people paid for these things, I assume that requiring permission for their use is only to control certain types of use? I am thinking of fraudulent or misleading uses, like maybe putting up a web site using some govt. agency logo and soliciting funds perhaps? Or copying the scenic highway signage for a private development? But in general taxpayer-funded material ought to be freely available for the taxpayers' use. So where in the law is this distinction between allowable and non-allowable uses codified? Anyone know?

 

[scooterbug44]

The only distinction I can think of is that Flgirl is using it for a private/profit driven use, so she has to be licensed, whereas others were using it for its intended purpose/to educate/not for profit.

 

[Smiling JOe]

The way I see it, Mr Han, it's the tax payers logo, which means it is your logo, and it's my logo, so it's OUR logo.

(I guess you had to see the movie -- Fast Times at Ridgemont High)

The next thing you know, it will be illegal to use a stop sign symbol on a tee-shirt.

Seriously, when I read this thread title, I thought that FloridaGirl changed her ways and had sought DEP permission to fill in wetlands -- shocker, I know.

I cannot read the copy on the front logo. What does it say? South Walton, the way...

 

[woodworker]

You have promoted several products and services on this site for free (and even yourself in an attempt to acquire votes for political office), and now you try to sell yet another product here for free and are rude about it - poor manners in my opinion.

You are likely mistaken if you think you have an exclusive right to use an educational graphic freely distributed by a governmental entity. I actually had forgotten we used it on a shirt because we have never profited and never intended to. We give a lot of money, effort, and time toward public safety and education, and community service. Will you agree to donate your profits to increase public safety, or otherwise benefit the public in some way? If so I will allow you to post the link to your product featuring artwork paid for by taxpayers. If not, you are free to start your own website to promote your endeavors.

I don't see where florida girl is saying she has "exclusive right". I mean, I know she's on the ****list, but...

 

[dgsevier]

But in general taxpayer-funded material ought to be freely available for the taxpayers' use. So where in the law is this distinction between allowable and non-allowable uses codified? Anyone know?

In thinking back to my copyright law course I believe we are dealing with "intellectual property" issues here as opposed to "real property". For instance, if the State of FL purchases school textbooks and they become the property of the schools, the people of the state do not have a right to photocopy the information (intellectual property) in that book or distribute it without proper remuneration or permission from the creator of that material.

Likewise, I am part of the state, but I cannot cut down a traffic signal (real property) and put it over the bar in my den because it would look cool. Nor can I go sleep in the county jail (real property) for a night just because Mrs. dg threw me out for spending too much time on Sowal.

Certainly the people are the state as you point out, but the state's (and our) interests are in mind when use of certain properties is limited.

I hope that helps.

 

[Kurt]

I don't see where florida girl is saying she has "exclusive right". I mean, I know she's on the ****list, but...

She's on the 4-star list?

 

[woodworker]

...... :nono1:.

 

[greenroomsurfer]

Kurt you are way out of line on this one. The whole SoWal logo is ripped off! I suggest if you throw stones to throw big ones or many! Your logo is a product derived from the late seventies trend of identifying what beach you were from in California. They produced stickers to show what beach you were from. A trend set of by a surf report done on KLOS a popular radio station. Like Dog Town or Badlands or Rip City. MB= Manhattan Beach, get the point? I don't really care that you don't care for the person but don't knock the Idea at least she asked for permission. It pisses me off that how clicks run this board so I have stopped posting because it's like arguing with a bunch of petty 3rd graders on here. The first rule on SoWal, don't take anything personal. That is all.View attachment 12454

View attachment 12455

 

[florida girl]

You have promoted several products and services on this site for free (and even yourself in an attempt to acquire votes for political office), and now you try to sell yet another product here for free and are rude about it - poor manners in my opinion.

You are likely mistaken if you think you have an exclusive right to use an educational graphic freely distributed by a governmental entity. I actually had forgotten we used it on a shirt because we have never profited and never intended to. We give a lot of money, effort, and time toward public safety and education, and community service. Will you agree to donate your profits to increase public safety, or otherwise benefit the public in some way? If so I will allow you to post the link to your product featuring artwork paid for by taxpayers. If not, you are free to start your own website to promote your endeavors.

I certainly have listed numerous items for sale on this site, as well as many others. Who said anything about exclusive right to use the image? I said I had gotten permission to use the image, as anyone else could get permission if they asked, I’m sure, to use it along with my own images. I do not question your service to the community, you do however, sell advertisements on this venue. As I recall, some of you were quite out of sorts about someone selling sunglasses on the side of the road, or clearing a ? acre lot, so why so upset about copyright?

 

[greenroomsurfer]

Ah censored again! You guys just can't stand an opposing point of view.