Rage Online

Anyone see the back page of the ES today? A big photo of Mohammad Amir with the captain of St Luke's CC in Surrey. Shining out on their shirt is their club logo, the OXFORD UNITED ox...

I'm trying to find a link to the picture for you all to see. Must be a writ in there somewhere, me thinks.

Well this Swiss Canton beat them and us to it a long time ago:

http&#58//en&#46wikipedia&#46org/wiki/Canton_of_Uri

&quotBoogie&quot wrote:Well this Swiss Canton beat them and us to it a long time ago:

http&#58//en&#46wikipedia&#46org/wiki/Canton_of_Uri

The bull's head per se is used all over the place but that one looks a lot like &quotour&quot bull's head. It would be nice to get a clearer picture, there is nothing on their web site.

Edit - Apostrophe police.

Yeah, I had a look on their website too. Anyone on here from Surrey (GY??) who likes cricket and may be able to help?

It is so similar (or &quotthe same&quot??) that I got a total shock when picking up the paper yesterday.

A flickr set of photos has this picture in as well
blue ox, baseball cap, cricket jumper

I wonder if there is an exiled U's fan, or they already had a Bull logo and decided to borrow the Desmond Morris design.

&quotslappy&quot wrote:A flickr set of photos has this picture in as well
blue ox, baseball cap, cricket jumper

I wonder if there is an exiled U's fan, or they already had a Bull logo and decided to borrow the Desmond Morris design.

That really is ours, I wonder if we still own the copyright?

&quotStill&quot own the copyright? I'd be amazed if a club didn't own it's own copyright which provides a major source of income for the club, through merchandise sales. Something would be horribly wrong if not.

Arsenal changed their logo a while back as the old one ran out of copyright, allowing street sellers to legally sell Arsenal branded goods. As ours was only developed in the early 1980's (or late 1970's?) then, with designs like this falling under the Copyrights and Patents Act 1988, it should be well within it's allotted period of ownership by the club.

If OUFC does own the copyright then the CC should (and may be does, who knows?!) be paying a licence to OUFC use the logo. Esp if the level that they are playing at is deemed high enough for a professional, international cricketer to be breaching the terms of his banning order. If they aren't using a copyrighted logo with permission, well... I fear for the Cricket Club should OUFC wish to act.

Alternatively, we may be in breach of their copyright, in which case I fear for OUFC...!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 795444.stm
[/url]

Interestingly, there is one piece of creative material in the UK which does NOT fall under the Copyrights &amp Patents Act of 1988. A prize* for the first person who can tell me what it is.









*not really

Well the standard exclusion is &quotnames, titles and short phrases&quot - so song and book titles not used as trading names would fit.

&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:Well the standard exclusion is &quotnames, titles and short phrases&quot - so song and book titles not used as trading names would fit.

Nope. I shall put you all out of your misery!

The answer is Peter Pan, JM Barrie left the royalties it generates in his will to Grt Ormond Street Hospital:

&quotSection 301 and Schedule 6 contain an unusual, perpetual grant of the rights to collect royalties, proposed by Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, enabling Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children to continue to receive royalties for performances and adaptations, publications and broadcast of &quotPeter Pan&quot whose author, J. M. Barrie, had gifted his copyright to the hospital in 1929, later confirmed in his will.&quot

Ahhhhh. What a nice fella.

When you say &quotnope&quot, I presume that you mean &quotthat wasn't the answer I was expecting&quot as opposed to &quotI am denying the exclusion&quot that is here?

&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:When you say &quotnope&quot, I presume that you mean &quotthat wasn't the answer I was expecting&quot as opposed to &quotI am denying the exclusion&quot that is here?

That isn't an exclusion. They are not &quotsubstantial enough&quot to be covered by the law.

To be excluded, you must meet all relevant criteria to be covered, yet not be included. The items you mention do not meet the criteria to be included in the first place.

&quotslappy&quot wrote:A flickr set of photos has this picture in as well
blue ox, baseball cap, cricket jumper

I wonder if there is an exiled U's fan, or they already had a Bull logo and decided to borrow the Desmond Morris design.

There is another breach here. In the photos linked to above, there are three right tits. This is in clear breach of the three chaps who sat in front of me in the South Stand Upper for a couple of games last season. They were right tits, too...

*boom, boom*

&quotslappy&quot wrote:A flickr set of photos has this picture in as well
blue ox, baseball cap, cricket jumper

I wonder if there is an exiled U's fan, or they already had a Bull logo and decided to borrow the Desmond Morris design.

The fact that they use it both in blue and in yellow on their cricket shirts is odd. And they have a dark blue cap with the bull logo in yellow! There must be an OUFC connection somewhere - that can't be coincidence, surely.