NFL Dat

[detlef]

So I guess a green shirt with a piece of cheese on it with the words "cheese head" below is a violation also

If the Packers logo is on it and you're trying to sell it, then yes.

 

Next they need to go after all the owners of buildings, fences, and any other thing that has gold Fleurs on it and god forbid if it is on a black background.

Again, if you're trying to sell these fences, then perhaps.

 

What you guys are failing to realize is that justice is supposed to be blind. As with every other law, there are instances where we need to protect certain unsavory people. Freedom of speech means that some a-hole has the right to dress like Hitler and stand on the corner saying Jews are evil. We all have the right to tell him he's a vile piece of crap but we can't make the police stop him for the same reason more noble expressions of free speech are protected. Because once you start only allowing free speech to people saying "good" things, you've sort of torpedoed the entire notion of the right.

 

Same goes here. We can't just protect people from copyright infringement if we deem them sympathetic victims. Listen, I'm not saying the NFL is the good guy here. I'm not saying we should go out of our way to look out for them or that these people making shirts are evil. However, if we say, "what the hell" right here, then the next time some little guy who's mortgaged his house to come up with a cool product, only to find some big company swoops in and poaches it, he's going to be screwed, because they'll be able to point to this. That's really it.

Edited January 29, 2010 by detlef

[tbimm]

Link to the local story.

 

If you look at the shirt at the center of the firestorm (3 mins 7 sec on the video) you can plainly see that only a fleur de lis is present. The word Saints or the initials NFL are not present. Also read the story and right or wrong the NFL is stepping on their collective dicks here.

[detlef]

Link to the local story.

 

If you look at the shirt at the center of the firestorm (3 mins 7 sec on the video) you can plainly see that only a fleur de lis is present. The word Saints or the initials NFL are not present. Also read the story and right or wrong the NFL is stepping on their collective dicks here.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the NFL came after someone who simply made a T-shirt that said "Who Dat?" No logo, just the phrase. All this "Who owns 'Who Dat?'?" stuff would really hold water.

[Big John]

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the NFL came after someone who simply made a T-shirt that said "Who Dat?" No logo, just the phrase. All this "Who owns 'Who Dat?'?" stuff would really hold water.

And the phrase dates back to the 1890s, and the Saits fans only applied it to their team in the 1980s.

[neilfish2]

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the NFL came after someone who simply made a T-shirt that said "Who Dat?" No logo, just the phrase. All this "Who owns 'Who Dat?'?" stuff would really hold water.

 

That is what I'm saying - The shirt in question does have a FDL in it, but it is not a "Saints" FDL. They have hundreds of versions (designs) of the FDL. But from my understanding the NFL wants the rights to "Who Dat" - Did the NFL go after the Steelers? I'm sure their were T-shirts out there that said "Steel Curtain" on them.

 

The funny part of this story is that the NFL could careless about this "Who Dat" phrase from way back when the Saints began using the saying back in the early 80's. It has been used in conjuction with this team ever since - T-shirts, Yard signs, flags, etc. you name it "Who Dat" was everywhere.

 

Now that they made it to the Superbowl (oh I forgot can't use that either, Big Game) they (the NFL) claim that "Who Dat" is their trademark.

[detlef]

That is what I'm saying - The shirt in question does have a FDL in it, but it is not a "Saints" FDL. They have hundreds of versions (designs) of the FDL. But from my understanding the NFL wants the rights to "Who Dat" - Did the NFL go after the Steelers? I'm sure their were T-shirts out there that said "Steel Curtain" on them.

 

The funny part of this story is that the NFL could careless about this "Who Dat" phrase from way back when the Saints began using the saying back in the early 80's. It has been used in conjuction with this team ever since - T-shirts, Yard signs, flags, etc. you name it "Who Dat" was everywhere.

 

Now that they made it to the Superbowl (oh I forgot can't use that either, Big Game) they (the NFL) claim that "Who Dat" is their trademark.

Here's the thing though. While, perhaps neither the Fleur or "Who Dat?" in and of themselves can be claimed by the NFL, if you put the two together, you are undeniably creating NO Saints gear and that's where I think they have a case.

 

What I haven't been able to get from the articles is whether the NFL is truly trying to say "Who Dat?" is theirs or whether that's being inferred by the authors and the NFL is simply trying to crack down on people making unauthorized Saints gear, which a black and gold shirt with a Fleur de Lys and "Who Dat?" on it rather plainly fit the description.

[Gonkis]

Doesn't the Fleur de lis go back 1500 years or so to the French?

 

I think Tom Hanks owns it now.

[neilfish2]

I guess we will have to change it to "WHOUX DAT"

[Pope Flick]

Wasn't intentional. I just think a team like the Saints, that uses a generic logo like the fleur de lis - it is much harder to try and penalize. Because the fact of the matter is, it is a very generic and widely used logo. And if someone wants to wear a gold one on a black shirt...

 

Just seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

 

Chicago is a city no one has a trademark on. Bears are animals. If I put "Chicago" and Bears" in orange on a blue shirt that isn't a stretch in any way shape or form.

 

It seems to me the phrase is the least of the 3 things the NFL is attempting to stop.

 

I'd like to see them try to shut down a gold Who Dat on a black tee with no associated logos or even a generic football. I bet they'd lose.

[tbimm]

What I haven't been able to get from the articles is whether the NFL is truly trying to say "Who Dat?" is theirs or whether that's being inferred by the authors and the NFL is simply trying to crack down on people making unauthorized Saints gear, which a black and gold shirt with a Fleur de Lys and "Who Dat?" on it rather plainly fit the description.

There is a copy of a portion of the letter the NFL sent out that states they own the phrase as well as the logos and such. I can't find a link to the photo but if I do I will post it.

This is an excerpt of another article that I found rather funny and creative...

 

One crafty Twitter user created a shirt mocking the NFL on the Web site customink.com. In yellow lettering, the front of the black shirt reads: "Who exactly is it that states they are going to defeat the football team from New Orleans?" The back taunts: "Cease and desist this."

 

[detlef]

Chicago is a city no one has a trademark on. Bears are animals. If I put "Chicago" and Bears" in orange on a blue shirt that isn't a stretch in any way shape or form.

 

It seems to me the phrase is the least of the 3 things the NFL is attempting to stop.

 

I'd like to see them try to shut down a gold Who Dat on a black tee with no associated logos or even a generic football. I bet they'd lose.

xactly

 

And that's the odd part. Why did either of these people bother putting a Fleur on their T? People would still buy them and they may have not had any trouble at all.

Edited January 29, 2010 by detlef

[rajncajn]

xactly

 

And that's the odd part. Why did either of these people bother putting a Fleur on their T? People would still buy them and they may have not had any trouble at all.

The Fleur de Lis has been a symbol of the city long before the NFL, or football, even existed. If you saw how much it is used throughout the city then you would understand.

[BeeR]

What you guys are failing to realize is that justice is supposed to be blind. As with every other law, there are instances where we need to protect certain unsavory people.

I don't think anyone here fails to realize that at all. This has nothing to do with good/bad or nice/evil. It's trying to get away with some "implied ownership" BS and someone getting away with it because they're big and powerful.

 

If someone painted a FDL which looked liked the Saints' FDL and "who dat" and "Go Saints" or some such, yeah, no problem with NFL expecting a % of that. But just a shirt that says "who dat?" That's a joke. Any judge worth a flip would tell them where to shove it.

[neilfish2]

If someone painted a FDL which looked liked the Saints' FDL and "who dat" and "Go Saints" or some such, yeah, no problem with NFL expecting a % of that. But just a shirt that says "who dat?" That's a joke. Any judge worth a flip would tell them where to shove it.

 

The same could be said about a Gold FDL on a black shirt - not all FDL's look like the Saints FDL.

[neilfish2]

LINK

 

U.S. Senator David Vitter R-La. says "sue me" over "who dat" shirts.

[tbimm]

LINK

 

U.S. Senator David Vitter R-La. says "sue me" over "who dat" shirts.

I saw this type of thing coming. I said in my original post that this is a can of worms the NFL may wish they left closed.

[cdrudge]

 

It's a good thing "aint" isn't really a word or boy would Webster be in trouble.

it is

 

[Big John]

it is

With the apostrophe. Not in there without it.

[BeeR]

LINK

 

U.S. Senator David Vitter R-La. says "sue me" over "who dat" shirts.

Finally congressman doing a good thing and w/no pork added as well.

[tbimm]

That didn't take long.

 

Apparently the FDL and Who Dat are OK now as long as NFL and Saints are not attached. Funny thing is that the shirt that started all of this only had Who Dat and the FDL on it.

[neilfish2]

That didn't take long.

 

Apparently the FDL and Who Dat are OK now as long as NFL and Saints are not attached. Funny thing is that the shirt that started all of this only had Who Dat and the FDL on it.

 

 

Yes it was a FDL, but if you look close it was not the FDL that is on the Saints helmet. Like I have said all along, there are hundreds of versions of the FDL. I think the NFL did the right thing.

[SLAYER]

That didn't take long.

 

Apparently the FDL and Who Dat are OK now as long as NFL and Saints are not attached. Funny thing is that the shirt that started all of this only had Who Dat and the FDL on it.

 

We accept your apology for being totally wrong det, even though we will never see it.

[detlef]

We accept your apology for being totally wrong det, even though we will never see it.

Apology for what? The NFL tried to stop people from violating copyright laws at the risk of coming off like total bullies. I specifically mentioned that this might not be wise even if they were "right". Then it blew up in their face when a Senator got involved and called them out on it. So they backed off. This doesn't mean they wouldn't have won the case had they gone after it. Rather, that the bad pub was outweighing any benefits.

 

Of course, it was never an open and shut case of clear cut copyright infringement. However, myself and others here were just not willing to write it off as a total stretch the way you and others were. The simple fact was, those making these shirts were certainly treading into dangerous territory in this regard.

[tbimm]

Apology for what? The NFL tried to stop people from violating copyright laws at the risk of coming off like total bullies. I specifically mentioned that this might not be wise even if they were "right". Then it blew up in their face when a Senator got involved and called them out on it. So they backed off. This doesn't mean they wouldn't have won the case had they gone after it. Rather, that the bad pub was outweighing any benefits.

 

Of course, it was never an open and shut case of clear cut copyright infringement. However, myself and others here were just not willing to write it off as a total stretch the way you and others were. The simple fact was, those making these shirts were certainly treading into dangerous territory in this regard.

My argument all along has been that the phrase and the fleur de lis themselves were not something the NFL could just take as there own. An exact copy of the FDL that the Saints have on their helmets would definitely be a no no.

 

I understand where you are coming from on this detlef. Letter of the law and such. What it really came down to, as I predicted right at the beginning of the flap, was that the NFL grossly underestimated how strongly the people of this city, and all Saints fans in the region, would defend what they feel is the theft of their culture. That may not be the best way to describe it but in essence that is how the cease and desist letters came across to us.

 

The NFL is a big, powerful machine. Litigation would be in their favor to be sure. That said, the lawyers here in town were tripping over themselves getting in line to defend a phrase. I don't think we have heard the last of this but for now it is....

 

Who Dat Nation - 1

NFL - 0

[tbimm]

Again, if you're trying to sell these fences, then perhaps.

I meant to comment on this the other day and didn't get to it.

detlef, have you ever been to New Orleans? There are wrought iron fences all over this city with FDL's as the top. They are literally in every neighborhood. Some are painted gold some just the same black as the fences themselves. A friend of mine has been designing and installing these fences and gates for as long as I have lived here.

The NFL gets the exact design of the FDL that is on the Saints helmets and nothing more! That is a case that would be a ridiculous waste of money even for an entity as large as the NFL is.