Pleased to announce permission granted from FL DEP

[Mango]

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.

I took intellectually property courses at a law school when the internet was really taking off....now I am aging myself...

But, I digress..... Intellectual Property is something created, like a web shopping cart program or logos that promote a business or country, etc; and are used to derive income. If the educational or warning sign was used to derive income by the Designer, that is a different issue. I do not think that the State has a copyright on colored flags or intended to derive income. If that were the case, every beach in the US who used a similar colored flag to warn beachgoers would in violation of the copyright, if there is indeed one. Everyone in the world who used the universal red flag color would be in violation, also.
Now, if they had hired an artist to draw a shark or jellyfish flag and the intent was to create a sense of community nationally via the flag system, that would be different, but colors...no, don't think so.

Your example of stealing a State owned stop sign is theft, not copyright infringement. The same goes for textbooks. The author has sold the books for profit to the School and copying them would be considered plagiarism.

The reason the attorneys told FG that no one has asked is probably due to the above reasons... which really are just common sense. If that were not the case, anyone who wanted to use the color red to denote danger would have to call the State of Fl.

 

[teamc]

Pleased to announce that I have obtained permission to use the copyrighted FL DEP Beach Flag Warning Logo on my T-shirts, etc. I was told by the state attorneys that no one had asked permission before.

it's good to know local businesses can ask for permission to reproduce this image. they need to start doing so in an effort to educate our many visitors about the flag system instead of assuming that everyone should just know what it means or spend their vacation seeking out information about it.

keeping our vistors and guests safe is the first step in responsible business and hospitality.

 

[Smiling JOe]

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

 

[dgsevier]

I took intellectually property courses at a law school when the internet was really taking off....now I am aging myself...

But, I digress..... Intellectual Property is something created, like a web shopping cart program or logos that promote a business or country, etc; and are used to derive income. If the educational or warning sign was used to derive income by the Designer, that is a different issue. I do not think that the State has a copyright on colored flags or intended to derive income. If that were the case, every beach in the US who used a similar colored flag to warn beachgoers would in violation of the copyright, if there is indeed one. Everyone in the world who used the universal red flag color would be in violation, also.
Now, if they had hired an artist to draw a shark or jellyfish flag and the intent was to create a sense of community nationally via the flag system, that would be different, but colors...no, don't think so.

Your example of stealing a State owned stop sign is theft, not copyright infringement. The same goes for textbooks. The author has sold the books for profit to the School and copying them would be considered plagiarism.

The reason the attorneys told FG that no one has asked is probably due to the above reasons... which really are just common sense. If that were not the case, anyone who wanted to use the color red to denote danger would have to call the State of Fl.

Thanks for you input. I was trying (evidently poorly) to make the point that intellectual property can be viewed through the same lens as any other property and that just because I pay taxes I can't go to Ed Walline Park and plant my own veggie garden or take control of any other piece of public property (intellectual or otherwise) that I've helped finance via the tax process.

Whether an image creator has copyrightprotection is moot. Any original thing created has de facto copyright protection held by the creator. It's often wise to apply for formal copyright, but if you can show that it's your idea and that you did it before anyone else, it's yours. You don't necessarily have to derive income, but you have to show that the idea, concept, or tangible item has value. A court would most likely make that distinction for you during the jurisdence process.

Back in the day here in Nashvegas songwriter/waiters would pen tunes and mail a copy of the song to themselves and not open the letter. This way they could use the postmark as proof of the time when the song was written. We called it "poor man's copyright."

I think you're on the right track. It's just those fine points of law that trip all of us up sometimes. I still trip over them.

 

[Mango]

Thanks for you input. I was trying (evidently poorly) to make the point that intellectual property can be viewed through the same lens as any other property and that just because I pay taxes I can't go to Ed Walline Park and plant my own veggie garden or take control of any other piece of public property (intellectual or otherwise) that I've helped finance via the tax process.

Whether an image creator has copyrightprotection is moot. Any original thing created has de facto copyright protection held by the creator. It's often wise to apply for formal copyright, but if you can show that it's your idea and that you did it before anyone else, it's yours. You don't necessarily have to derive income, but you have to show that the idea, concept, or tangible item has value. A court would most likely make that distinction for you during the jurisdence process.

Back in the day here in Nashvegas songwriter/waiters would pen tunes and mail a copy of the song to themselves and not open the letter. This way they could use the postmark as proof of the time when the song was written. We called it "poor man's copyright."

I think you're on the right track. It's just those fine points of law that trip all of us up sometimes. I still trip over them.

I'm not a lawyer, but I appreciate you quoting the finer points of the law. What I meant by if the designer had created a different flag, like a jellyfish that had a character to it, then that picture would be copyrighted and the State or municipality that designed it could argue it was distinguishing them from others and that would have tangible value, similar to a logo. However, these are simple one colored flags and I have seen them at beaches elsewhere outside of Florida. I just do not see the value in putting a copyright on a single colored flag. That's like trying to copyright grass.

 

[dgsevier]

I'm not a lawyer, but I appreciate you quoting the finer points of the law. What I meant by if the designer had created a different flag, like a jellyfish that had a character to it, then that picture would be copyrighted and the State or municipality that designed it could argue it was distinguishing them from others and that would have tangible value, similar to a logo. However, these are simple one colored flags and I have seen them at beaches elsewhere outside of Florida. I just do not see the value in putting a copyright on a single colored flag. That's like trying to copyright grass.

Your assessment is, I believe, 100% accurate. Common, everyday items can't has copyright protection. You grass analogy is excellent.

People have tried, unsuccessfully, to copyright something like the letter "A." The letter can't have copyright, but the font that letter appears in can be protected.

If my clock is accurate I have spent 1/2 of a billable hour on this legal topic. To whom shall I seed the invoice? :roll:

 

[Mango]

Your assessment is, I believe, 100% accurate. Common, everyday items can't has copyright protection. You grass analogy is excellent.

People have tried, unsuccessfully, to copyright something like the letter "A." The letter can't have copyright, but the font that letter appears in can be protected.

If my clock is accurate I have spent 1/2 of a billable hour on this legal topic. To whom shall I seed the invoice? :roll:

Florida girl. She started this silly thread. ;-)

 

[florida girl]

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

The photo was taken in 1969 of Blue Mountain Beach, The Way We Loved.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Your assessment is, I believe, 100% accurate. Common, everyday items can't has copyright protection. You grass analogy is excellent.

People have tried, unsuccessfully, to copyright something like the letter "A." The letter can't have copyright, but the font that letter appears in can be protected.

If my clock is accurate I have spent 1/2 of a billable hour on this legal topic. To whom shall I seed the invoice? :roll:

So does this mean that they cannot trademark or copyright "The Beach?"

 

[dgsevier]

So does this mean that they cannot trademark or copyright "The Beach?"

You raise a very interesting question actually. If I were arguing for the side that wanted to attain/maintain copyright then I most likely focus on "THE" Beach, pointing out why it is distinct from any other place that is sandy, has an atmosphere that corrodes metal, and smells of Coppertone. If I was on the other side I would argue that the phrase is too generic to warrant protection.

I'm not sure if copyright was granted to that branding phrase or not. Someone out there will know. That governmental sanctioning usually goes a long way with the courts. I do know that there are a ton of potentially billable hours available if someone were to challenge it.