[net] URLus Shortenerus Interruptus, Brought To You By Libya

2509.

It's convenient to think that TLDs - Top Level Domains, the last two or three (or, four, even) letters if your FQD (fully qualified domain) name, such as .com, .net, .org, .biz, .tv, &c, &c, are just collections of letters anymore with little intrinsic meaning or value. There was a time when .org was reserved for non-profits and suchlike. Now, via open-for-business internet registrars, anyone can be a .org.

But, as it occurs, TLDs may indeed have intrinsic value and authority, as the author Violet Blue has just - and rather abruptly - discovered.

URL shorteners have entered the handy-toolkit of the Twitterer and the web surfer, for reasons which should be self-evident. And the TLD ".ly" makes for nifty URLs: bit.ly, the go-to for Twitter, ow.ly, the go-to for Hootsuite, good.ly, the charitably-slanted URL shortener.

The obstacle begins to suggest itself when one remembers that the .ly domain is the TLD of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ... Although you're more likely to say Libya.

Yeah, the one with Gadaffi in charge. That Libya. They got sharia there and all that.

However, when Violet Blue and her business partner decided to debut a "sex-positive" URL shortener, the .ly domain seemed to make sense. It was fashionable, after all, and resellers from the ccTLD NIC.ly, Libya's internet registration authority, seemed to market to Western tastes. And it worked well for a year. The second year, however, things got all brown and chunky for 'em:

It’s official: the Libyan government has seized vb.ly. This was done with no warning. Despite the fact that vb.ly was a one-page link-shortening service, Nic.ly (the registry for .ly domain reseller registrar Libyan Spider) informed us that the content of our website was offensive, obscene and illegal according to Libyan Islamic Sharia Law. Not the domain, but the content of the website – no matter where the domain was hosted.

The  photograph of me with my bare arms, holding a bottle, and the words “sex-positive” were cited as obscene, offensive and illegal. We were also told that we were “promoting an illegal activity” with our link shortener.

Violet and her business partner appear to hold that this has perhaps a little more to do with a Libyan effort to prevent non-Libyans from owning domain names shorter than four characters than it does actual implementation of Sharia with respect to who they do business with. If so, appeal to Sharia is a mere tool to an end ... but, man, what a tool. You can't resist it. And, since the word came down via the reseller from the ccTLD registrar, then what they say, goes.

And with that, went all the links that were shortened through vb.ly, for now irretrevably borken.

Which makes this something to keep in mind: when procuring services through an extranational concern, they may well be marketing with your aims in mind. But in the end, they might have to comply with laws that most certainly do not.

Also:

• Internet Marketing Guru Andy Sernovitz delivers a blunt "What the heck were they thinking" in the general direction of bit.ly at http://www.damniwish.com/2010/10/would-you-bet-your-business-on-the-whims-of-muammar-al-gaddafi-and-the-lybian-government-bit-ly-did.html
• ccTLD registrar NIC.ly's "did too!" to VB's "you totally did not tell us that there was any problem with this rege" letter at http://nic.ly/anvp.php. (Essentially: We sent the notices. If you didn't get them, it's not our problem)

It's a tough internet out there, campers. Go in with eyes wide open if you can.

Technorati Tags: vb.ly, nic.ly, libyan spider, tlds, URL shorteners, violet blue

[design] The Peril Of The Unsolicited Submission

2491.

And now a little cautionary tale designed to explain why unsolicited submissions are something you shouldn't attempt without a lot of thought. The standard I am not a lawyer disclaimer applies.

If you want to, fine. But understand that assuming a contract where none exists may burn you in the end.

A few days ago, this story (http://mddailyrecord.com/2010/09/02/appeals-court-revives-suit-over-ravens%E2%80%99-first-logo/) caught my eye and it occurred to me that this could be a major teachable moment. In it, if I'm reading this correctly, in 1995, a security guard designs a new logo for his favorite team, the NFL's Baltimore Ravens, and faxes it in, unsolicited.

His requirements are reportedly quite modest. The payment requested: a team helmet, and a signed letter.

The Ravens used his logo from 1996-1998 and, apparently, did not compensate him adequately - because he took them to court over using it. A variety of rulings have largely confirmed the creators copyright, but for one clear instance in which it was found that the use details team history and is therefore fair-use. It doesn't look like he's gotten much, if anything, in actual damages, and has presumably spent a great deal of time in court and engaging legal counsel.

It was obviously worth it to this creator. Doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.

Big companies, in the main, are leery of the unsolicited submission. It's not because they're evil, necessarily, but it's too easy for someone to see the gist of their unsolicited submission in the work product from that point forward to take the risk. That path leads to court, and nobody really wants to go there.

Independent designers should be wary of sending in what's not asked for. Companies are not necessarily evil, as above, but sometimes the urge to use a cool thing seen in the mails just might be too tempting.

A good, reasonably ethical company will have strong guidelines about unsolicited submissions. A good example that goes the extra mile is the policy for Apple, which can be found at http://www.apple.com/legal/policies/ideas.html. Essentially what is says is that Apple doesn't accept unsolicited submissions:

Apple or any of its employees do not accept or consider unsolicited ideas, including ideas for new advertising campaigns, new promotions, new or improved products or technologies, product enhancements, processes, materials, marketing plans or new product names. Please do not submit any unsolicited ideas, original creative artwork, suggestions or other works (“submissions”) in any form to Apple or any of its employees. The sole purpose of this policy is to avoid potential misunderstandings or disputes when Apple’s products or marketing strategies might seem similar to ideas submitted to Apple.

Cut and dried. But Apple, knowledgable as to how admired a company it is generally, also realized that some people won't take a preemptive no for an answer, even after you tell them why. Further along, the policy provides that if you continue, despite being told a firm no, to submit your ideas to Apple, you have essentially given it to them to do with as they wish.

Any intellectual property agreement between parties such as this has to be a meeting of the minds in order to really work for all. A company such as Apple (or the Ravens) are not obliged to give you their time and consideration regardless of how much you love them. Plying such companies with unsolicited ideas amounts to trying to force them, unilaterally, into a contractual arrangement they had no chance to review before even being broached, and regardless of anyone's view of the corporate world, this just doesn't seem fair on any level.

And if you want to think of it in terms of the individual's rights - this attitude protects both sides. The company protects itself, and the integrity and ownership of your own ideas is protected at the same time ... unless you want to go to the wall with Apple (for example) about it.

I know, it's tempting to salute your favorite company/sports team/whatever with expressions of love such as unsolicited designs. If you have one cued up on the table, ready to send out, my advice is ... don't. You can buy an Apple product, or attend a Ravens game if you want to show appreciation.

Besides, if you have that much creative animation, you can probably come up with amazing designs of your own, and do the freelance thing to some sort of good result.

Technorati Tags: Baltimore Ravens, Ravens Logo, Logo design, intellectual property

Powered by ScribeFire.

[logo] LOGO DESIGN EPIC FAIL: Anti-Piracy Agency Uses Pirated Font In Logo

2304.In Britain you have the Digital Economy Act, in America, the  Millennium Copyright Act, and, in France, the High Authority Promoting the Distribution and Protection of Creative Works on the Internet, or, as the Frenchies say, the Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Œuvres et la Protection des Droits sur Internet.

Of course, a mouthful like that deserves an initialism, and this one's is Hadopi, as is the name of the agency charged with the administration of same. Here, via The Font Feed, is Hadopi's logo:

Now, in my opinion, that's pretty well-done. the idea of rights-protection is driven home with the d and the p embracing and protecting the o (which, it will be recalled, stands for the French word for "works", which we 'Merikins somewhat incorrectly spell oeuvre.

Now, if you were wanting to come up with an ironic twist on this, how would you work that into the plot?

I bet you're ahead of me on this one (especially provided you read the title of this). As it turned out, the designer charged with creating a logo for the French agency charged with imposing fines for people ripping off works from creators … ripped off the font. Specifically, the font used, Bienvenue, is the exclusive bespoke font – for France Télécom.

"Bespoke" as in "exclusively reserved for France Télécom's use, and only their use, and not to be released to the general public or, in fact, anybody".

Awkward. Not full of win.

The Font Feed has all the content you'd want on this one at http://fontfeed.com/archives/french-anti-piracy-organisation-uses-pirated-font-in-ownlogo/.

Hate it when that happens. Just goes to show how hard due diligence is sometimes (giving the benefit of the doubt there).

 Technorati Tags: Hadopi, Type design, piracy, intellectual property, Logo Design

[type] Font Bureau to NBC: You Been SERVED!

2228.Unlicensed fonts are something that every designer tries to avoid. But fonts are so pretty … so … shiny …

ahhhh …

Oh! Where was I?! Anyway, there have been some high-profile font cases in the past. What usually happens is that a company, organization or individual buys some digital type, and the typical license allows the purchaser to install on a limited number of computers (usually just one; you have to pay for a license for each computer that will use the font). Now, with fonts being digital files that are so easily copied about, its understandable that sometimes a single user will carry a copy of his or her fonts somewhere else.

But when a media company – who should know all about creative rights and IP – does it, it redefines awkward.

Allow me to introduce you to the newest member of the Legally Awkward Hall o' Fame: The Peacock:

It seems NBC didn't secure the rights to use a handful of Font Bureau's trademarked typefaces. The same ones, we should add, that have been used as part of NBC's fall marketing campaign to tout shows like The Jay Leno Show, Saturday Night Live and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.

In a trademark and copyright infringement lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Font Bureau argues that NBC only paid for a single license—which would only permit the company to install the typefaces on a single computer—and only paid to use a limited number of fonts. But NBC went ahead and copied the fonts to a bunch of other computers within the company, Font Bureau claims, and also started using several other fonts for which licenses were never obtained. (In case you're wondering, the typefaces in question include Bureau Grotesque, Interstate and Antenna.)

Like I said, awkward.

This is going to try to cost them a bit of change … only about, oh, 2 Megabucks. Pocket change, really. Cancel Heroes, which I hear is on its death bed anyway, and you have your scratch right there.

Hey, I'm pretty good at this TV stuff! Hire me! My first project: the long-awaited Space:1999 revival …

You're gonna like it. Shut up, you!

And go check your font licenses while you're at it.

Technorati Tags: Type licenses, intellectual property, Font Bureau, NBC

Taster's Choice: Love That Aroma, And Those Image Use Rights

2092.Remember a while back, when the guy who did the "Yahoo-ooo!" for the Yahoo! internet portal TV jinglette sued Yahoo! because while he consented to allow Yahoo! to use it, he didn't consent for them to use it that widely or something like that?

IP has been something of a kicking ball ever since it's become so damned easy to find, link, and repurpose content. Bloggers and the wired class can suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of a DMCA takedown notice (this has even happened to me, as meagre a blogger as I am).

Today I stumbled on an example that comes right out of the textbook and serves to prove that it doesn't matter how big or small you are, even the big boys can be less than careful. Everyone who's been anywhere near a jar of instant coffee (yes, even here in Portland we have some) has seen Nestlé's legedary Taster's Choice brand of freeze-dried instant. For a long time, a part of the brand look and feel has been the look of a beatifically-satisfied coffee-drinker's face basking in the steamy aroma of a well-made cup of coffee.

Regardless of what one thinks about instant coffee (I'm from Portland – you can guess) the emotional chains the look is pulling are unmistakable to anyone steeped in the idea of brand-fu. The palette of rich warm colors connotes comfort and the whole approach connotes style and luxury (once again, with instant coffee, your mileage will vary). The satisfied look of the coffee drinker only serves to seal the satisfaction deal. The popularity of Nescafé and Tasters Choice only serve to prove the point.

But, as pointed out by Sarah Gilbert here, Nestlé's marketing team hit a bit of a snag:

Russell Christoff has the strong features and gorgeous dark eyebrows of a model. His hair is grey now, but he's still just as handsome as he was when his hair was still dark brown, back in 1986 and living in Canada, when he posed looking lovingly into a cup of Taster's Choice coffee "as if he enjoyed the aroma."

But, after the photo shoot, he heard nothing more from Nestle. He gave the company permission to use the photo in Canada, but not elsewhere. The photo was stuffed into the archives. Until 1998, when a Nestle employee was searching the archives for just the right "Taster" to portray the brand and chose Christoff's almost romantic photo. It's too bad Christoff doesn't actually enjoy the aroma of Taster's Choice, at least not enough to drink the stuff, because it wasn't until 2002 that he saw his own, younger face staring back at him from the shelves of instant coffee crystals -- in California, where he was working as a teacher.

Mr Christoff did the American thing. He sued.

It's been working through the courts for a while now; originally the courts awarded Mr. Christoff over USD$15 Million, but that got overturned, and now it's on appeal. The image was used from 1998-2003. Mr Christoff could die a rather wealthy (and apparently still good-looking) old man (what a catch he'd be for the MOTAS, yes? Alas, we have no word on his marital status). The Tasters Choice brand itself has moved on as well, sporting a new, more sophisticated look that depends on a human face not at all.

It just goes to show you, though, and illustrates the point, that no matter how big you are, you can still get into copyright trouble over images. It's so easy to do these days.

Technorati Tags: Nestle, Nescafe, Tasters Choice, branding, IP rights