Your concept of who is being a prick in this situation is quite backwards. The musicians thinking they can play songs they didn’t create and which are owned by someone else and not pay for them are being pricks.
Trademarks do need to be enforced fairly aggressively or else you lose the right to complain if someone else infringes upon them later, but copyrights don’t. It is trademark law that we’re discussing, so the point is correct, but your mention of copyrights was not.
I wasn’t aware that Komen owned the pink ribbon. I always thought one of the complaints about the pink ribbon is that anyone could use it and you don’t really know how much, if any, money is going towards a charity.
According to wiki on the history of the pink ribbon, it appears Komen started it.
“Komen for the cure”, fine.
Pink ribbons, fine.
Sic’ing lawyers on anything else is 10 kinds of wrong.
Does that mean they trademarked it?
I don’t know all the ins and outs of trademark, but, basically, if you start using a unique identifier in commerce in connection with a good or service, you have a trademark. It’s quite possible the pink ribbon could be Komen’s valid mark.
Only if you register it and, even then, it only applies within a certain field of endeavor. (We’d probably need a lawyer to tell us if the relevant field of endeavor here is ‘breast cancer charities’ or ‘charities in general’.) This is why Apple Computers could exist under that name when Apple Records was there first.
Registration is not required for a valid mark … just use in commerce is all you need. Registration only affects the proof of the mark if it’s ever infringed upon or challenged but is not required to have a valid enforceable mark.
Part of my decision to make a donation to a charity depends on its name, its brand, if you will. If I get hit up for a donation for “A cure for breast cancer”, with the person soliciting the donation wearing a pink ribbon, I’m liable to think “Komen”, and I happen to think that they are fairly reputable.
I’m not saying that Mom and Pop charities are automatically less reputable, but there are plenty of scammers who are only too happy to collect money for charity, and donate 10% and keep 90% for “overhead”. By vigorously defending the pink ribbon and the phrase, Komen is trying to prevent this sort of thing. I am reminded of a pretty common telemarketing campaign that was going on in this area, where I’d get people calling me up wanting to know if I would support this or that charity…and the charities all had the word “Policemen’s” in them. Turns out that most of these “charities” weren’t really associated with the police, but did make token donations…and again, most of the proceeds went to pay for overhead.
Maybe Komen should have picked out a slogan that was more distinctive. I can buy that. But I do see a lot of products that have a pink edition, and which imply that part of the proceeds go to the Komen foundation.
That’s a valid point.
Except that it’s fairly obvious the pink ribbon symbol is a simple lift from the red ribbon used long before by AIDS charities…which perhaps should be speaking up a little about the Komen Foundation’s attempt to corner the market on a symbol they shamelessly extrapolated.
There are all colors of ribbons, not just red and pink, and each one has its own cause. Some of them seem to have two or three causes, and others are rather hard to distinguish. I find it hard to distinguish between orange and gold, for instance, if the ribbon isn’t metallic. And I would find it hard to tell the difference between cobalt and royal blue. That is, I can see a difference in color if they’re side by side, but I wouldn’t be able to reliably label them accurately.
Red and pink are pretty distinctively different colors, though.
So what you’re saying is, if I take someone else’s logo, I’m cool as long as I just make it a different color?
I don’t think it is. There’s just no way that a COLOR should be trademarkable. And, if you are so careless with your charity money that all you need is a trademark, you are very likely to be swindled.
I don’t really see a value in any of these trademarks. For a charity, you can get by with just using your name. That’s what other charities do.
And, I must admit, I find Komen inherently obnoxious anyways, since they have made people think that breast cancer is the only cancer worth dealing with. There are other cancers that really need a lot more funding, but do they care? A good charity organization of their size should be diversified if they actually care about helping people. They shouldn’t be trying to get so much more money for something that already has a ton.
Throw in suing other charities, rather than actually trying to help them, and I definitely get the idea that they don’t give a crap about anyone but themselves. And I can’t even boycott them, since every company I see seems to have a partnership with them. All I can do is just not give them any extra money to dick around with.
While I understand your point, BigT, you make it sound as if research towards a cure for breast cancer will yield information, insight, and knowledge that is not usable towards any other end, which I don’t understand.
I also think the idea of breast cancer research already being sufficiently funded is quite off the mark, and even if it were true, it would be a very recent development. Medicine in general is still climbing the mountain of male-biased research subjects.
This is a ridiculous claim. Do you have a shred of evidence to back up the claim that cancer research funding is skewed toward male cancers? Here’s a cite from the New York Times. Breast cancer gets the most governmental funding of any cancer, whether we measure on a per-death or per-new case basis.
I quite clearly said medicine in general, not cancer research specifically. And what I think is off the mark is the idea that research about any uncured disease being seen as sufficient. Sufficient was my word and not BitT’s, but I was paraphrasing. Granted his argument implied a desire for proportionality when comparing research dollars for other cancers, but my point is that until something is functionally cured there is still room for more.
As for how to better distribute funding fairly, I don’t have a solution.
Cancer research is a part of medicine, and it clearly refutes your claim. Do you have any examples that support it?
You’re right. You’re also living in a fool’s paradise if you think that large, effective organizations - for-profit or non- - get that way (and stay that way) without focusing first on their needs as organizations.
Does this mean I’m no longer allowed saunter down to the pub of a Saturday afternoon in search of the cure?