)
In 2011, brewer Colin Emms was ordered to stop selling his ‘On the Ball’ beer, which he named as a tribute to his favourite football team. Norwich City Football Club kicked off (!) as the bottle featured the club’s crest and the brew was named after what is widely (by widely, I mean by Norwich City Football Club and fans) considered to be the world’s oldest football chant; which they have also registered as a trademark. According to the Club, its identity is “…its most important asset”. And I thought it was Grant Holt…
NCFC football strip
Because what young football fan wouldn’t want to show off his club’s new strip on social media, trademarks and all?! And subsequently brought down the full wrath of NCFC’s legal representatives (again) in the process… Step forward Chris Brown who did exactly that in 2012. Even the police were called. According to the club’s then chief executive David McNally, “We are the guardians of the football club whilst we’re here and so we will protect our property.” After a stern talking to from his mother, an apology to the Club, and a backlash from fans over the way they handled it, NCFC climbed down and events were rather aptly summarised by one of the club’s most famous fans.
Anyway, the 2012-13 version still had a way to go to beat their 1992-94 effort.
Redwell
Yes, the first thing we/students reach for when we need a caffeine hit is beer. Which is why Red Bull threatened to sue Redwell brewery because, although the Red Bull’s registration specifically excludes beer, the average consumer who is obviously thick as ****, would be confused between the two, and regard the brewery’s drinks as ‘imitations’ thereby tarnishing Red Bull’s mark. Yet again, after a bit of back-and-forth between the two, Red Bull were content that Redwell would not enter into the energy drink market. So as you were.
Freddie Mercury
Copyright exists in an outfit?! Wise up. And I’m saying that to an astrophysicist. And anyway, it was for charity. So Freddie Mercury’s Live Aid outfit (which was pretty sweet) was allegedly infringed by artist Mik Richardson’s design on a glass-fibre gorilla in 2013. In fairness, Brian May did issue a response on the issue about the piece being disrespectful to his friend, although artistic worth is a matter of opinion and not anything to do with copyright law. We also need to remember that this was pre-s.30A CDPA (all questions about that to be directed to Sabine), so that might have changed things, but alas we’ll never know; other than to say the rights of authors, performers & co. need to be balanced against freedom of expression arguments when it comes to parodies. So in the absence of a parody argument (and to save hassle) Mik took the gorilla away for a facelift... Still, I’m not sure what category of copyright works ‘reputation’ or Freddie Mercury’s face for that matter, is protected under… Let alone what was actually supposed to have been infringed in the first place.
Felixstowe
Like as if Brexit wasn’t going to get a mention… In 2016, pro-Brexit photographer Mike Page got all annoyed when an aerial photograph he had taken of the Port of Felixstowe (ok, I know that’s in Suffolk) wound up being printed in the Government’s pro-EU leaflet that got sent around the country in the run-up to the referendum (that worked well). Apparently, some sort of “misunderstanding” happened between Mr. Page taking the shot and the Port allowing the Government to use it. Yes Mr. Page, copyright allows you to object to things like this under moral rights, but seeing as it was unlikely you would have wanted the photograph attributed to you in the context, the fact that it was not apparent whose name was on it anyway, and the fact the image (one assumes) had nothing done to it, I’m not quite sure how it can help you. So you’ve attributed yourself to your work being used for something you disagree with.
Headstone
If you haven’t heard, Disney own everything in the world ever nowadays. Recently, one of my undergrad students brought to my attention the tragic story of how a family’s plan to include the Disney logo on the headstone for their deceased two-month old daughter had to be scrapped. It should be pointed out that it is unclear who made this decision and it is one small part of much larger and more distressing circumstances.
Ok, so alleged IP infringements happen every day across the world and Norwich *might* not be at the centre of it, but maybe what has happened here is symptomatic…
Symptomatic? Of what? Of what IP is being used for, that’s what… I won’t - because plenty of other people have - try to argue what the rationale for IP actually is. And we can talk about Acts for encouraging learning and the promoting science and useful arts and all the rest of it. But that means nothing in the contexts mentioned above. IP is not being used for any of those reasons. It’s being used as a sword; to scare the proverbial out of the little people who might not be infringing any rights in the first place, or in circumstances that may not even cause any economic detriment to the right-holders. But welcome to the modern world of IP folks.
IP is not about educating or facilitating anything anymore, it has become about the tools available to safeguard even the tiniest infractions which would make no difference to their world order in the first place. Yeah, so Norwich might not be the centre of the IP universe and just a microcosm, but think about it.