I have searched the forum and read a bit about this, but found no direct answers to my question.

I imagine that most people who program Prontos and rc5000s for a dealer use network logo graphics without the permission of the networks. I think that in truth, nice pretty color logos of network channels on Pronto Pros across the land is free advertising for the networks. I can't see a custom programmer having any problem with this. I assume Andrea Whitlock and others have had no problems due to uploading these files here.

However, if hypothetically speaking, someone had made, uh let's say: a DirecTV Sunday Ticket icon driven surf interface for a DSS receiver and used logos from, let's say: a national magazine's website to represent the team matchup-channel buttons, what might be the repercussions of uploading that ccf to Remote Central?

I would like to give something back to all the RC users whose uploads have been of use to me in the past, but I wouldn't want to post something that I might get sued over. I have seen, for example a picture of Lara Croft in someones CCF on RC that pops up on you Pronto when you select the Playstation. I would assume that that was not an original graphic.

Does Daniel have a policy regarding uploads and this question? Does he have any liability if a user uploads copyrighted graphics?

Another example: While working on a new color ccf I saw some buttons where the artist said something the the effect of "Free for a link to my website". Since you can't have links in your ProntoPro would an acknowledgement suffice, or would these be off limits for Prontos?

Well, from a legal point of view: 1. No one is profiting off of the use of those logos, nor are they being used commercially; 2. No one is using them in such a manner as to create confusion in the mind of the public as to the owner of the logo (copyright violation); 3. No one is using them in a manner which interferes with the owners rights, so it is probably, if push were to come to shove "No harm no foul". If the owner were so inclined they could get an injunction, but there would be no damages. Some outfits are VERY concerned with unathorized use of their propriety material under any circumstances, some are not, so long as the use does not run afoul of nos. 1-3 above.

Now this site is hardly hidden, so if the logo owners were concerned, both Daniel and the person(s) uploading those logos for our use, would probably be in receipt of "cease and desist" letters from corporate lawyer types, in which case, "ceasing and desisting" would be a good idea.

That is pretty much what I thought. So you are of the opinion that if I were to upload said CCF and the owners of the graphics did object Daniel would simply have to pull the ccf off the site and there would probably be no further problem regarding the matter?

I was just concerned since it is the NFL, DirecTV and I think the helmet photos were from USA Today or SI.

I suppose if a professional programmer were to offer these graphics to his customers as part of a custom system design, that would be a more serious matter, since the programmer would be profiting from the use of the graphics, but in truth, repercussions would be even less likely since that is not out there on the web, right?

Yes. The biggest fears are, of course, financial consequences. Those would be 1. Wrongful profits gained as a result of unauthorized commercial use of a someone else's trademark, and accompanying punitive damages if the use was wanton and wilful. {No problem there. No one is selling the logo or making any profit off its use.) 2. Liability for costs incurred by the owner in enforcing his rights. That means, in essence, legal costs incurred in going to court and getting an injunction. If one were to "cease and desist" this would not happen.

So, while, technically, its wrongful, there's no need to get worked up about any liability issues. Essentially, those entities that care simply want to stop unauthorized use as quickly and economically as possible. If they accomplsh that, they're satisfied.

And, actually, to address the last part of your question, its questionable if it could even be said that the programmer was actually profiting off use of the logo. They would charge the same for their services, even if they were not using the logo. My answer would be the same even as to the programmer issue. I see no difference between posting the CCF [at no charge] and using that post in a Pronto, whether by a professional or end-user. It's not like some programmers use the logos and charge more money because they do. Now if they were licensed by the owner to do that, they could, and, of course they would have to pay a licensing fee for that right. Then, anyone who used it without license, would have to "cease and desist."

There's actually an interesting corollary issue. Products like "Kleenex" "Q-Tips", "Band-Aid" and "Xerox" lost their rights of enforcement because their trademarked names were said to have acquired a "secondary meaning" in that the names are synonymous with a kind of product, due to the fact that the owners were not aggressive in protecting their rights. Kind of made corporations a little more prone to clamp down on unauthorized use. But I don't think that logos are in the same category. Just kind of an interesting side-bar. [Lawyer-speak that has also been appropriated by the general public.]

PS One more example that's familiar to all of us: "PC". Was at one time a trademark of IBM. Now its public domain.


This message was edited by Joel Warren on 08/11/01 19:30.55.

I look at it this way , if they want people to watch their channels on direct tv / ant. /cable /big dish / dish network or whatever you watch using a pronto all we are doing is making it more convient for the customer, if a network or whomever wants to be a d%#&
then their icons dont go on my customers pronto.
Here in L.A. I have been approached by more than one entity to steer my customers viewing habits via pronto,lexicon,crestron,rti etc. etc.
I downright refused and let them know how unethical they were , they smiled.
Todays kabble

You got it, K-man. If you're helping their business at no cost to them, where's the harm--no matter how you look at it?

But some are famous for going the other way. Don't even try to use a Coke logo without a license--under any circumstances, or no matter how you justify it. They will put a stop to it.

So do you guys think I should upload this NFL Sunday Ticket thing? It's optimized for RCA DSS1 but can be easily converted to Sony by relearning the number pad, clear and enter. The delays can be changed globally as well. How many of you Pronto-heads are Sunday Ticket subscribers?

It's for the Pronto Pro if I neglected to say and comes attached to my channel-icon surf device with big randomly placed color channel logos. I would probably upload my whole current Pro CCF.

This message was edited by SteveL on 08/11/01 22:08.04.

I would love to see your ccf file, especially since I am having problems with mine when I do a reupload. Perhaps if you can't upload it to the site you can email me at [email protected].

Yes, upload it.

I seem to recall one anonymous company who wanted to use the logos in a somewhat commercial nature. Their legal department told them to get permission, so they did. No problems.