Hmm, as for one, arenīt you just being a little change-resistant, Mak?
It's greed that drives the economy. Anyone not wanting to pay so much is just being greedy on a smaller scale.
Interestingly enough, I don't have an issue with either case.
1) One must protect one's trademark. A failure to do so makes a defense harder in the future.
2) The player names and stats, I think, are public info.
I don't see how the big bad meanies in question are supposed to be getting money out of this. If it's not to get money, then it isn't greed.
I must admit I like the concept of 'greedy on a smaller scale' as applied to Little League. Especially looking at the lucrative possibilities of T-ball.It's greed that drives the economy. Anyone not wanting to pay so much is just being greedy on a smaller scale.
One should also have the brains God gave a flatworm to understand blind defense at all costs vs. a loss-leader to protect your franchise base in years to come.One must protect one's trademark. A failure to do so makes a defense harder in the future.
I don't get it... Back in my day, local and larger businesses paid for the uniforms and equipment for the little league teams as a means of advertising. So we'd have names like "Town and Country" (realtor) and "Coca-Cola" as team names.
Back when I played in Little League (or more precisely, "When Mike was involved, Little League played him!"), teams had names from the major leagues. Granted, when I played there were sixteen teams, but...
Now, the league could buy paraphernalia through the official (i.e., monopolistic) outlet, Majestic. However, I think they should get the parents to dig a bit deeper into their pockets and devise their own names and logos. I offer:
Chicago Black Sox
New York Mutts
Cleveland First Nations
San Francisco Steroids
Philadelphia Cheese Steaks
Sorry; but I do agree with MLB, but only up to a point. In this world where you give an inch and somebody takes a mile, stuff like this tends to get out of hand.
Team logos? I really don't think a little league should use a registered logo.
Team Names? If they are used, but not in connection with look alike uniforms or colors, then it's really not a deal. Its when they are mimicking the look of the team when I start to think it's being inappropriate.
Then, you throw in the subject of profit and advertising. At what point is a little league sponsor getting benefit from simple sponsorship compared to how much they may get with the inferred (subliminal, or whatever) relationship to a professional team.
And the uniform maker. Are they printing them at the design or request of the little league, or are they offering the little league thier options of designs? If it is a "line" of uniforms, then I can see a problem.
And as far as fantasy football. I draw the line at profits. If the site is making money directly from the stats and personalities, then I do see an issue. If the stats and personalities are only a part of the picture, then it would be fair game.
So; I don't see a yes/no...just a lot of "let's not get carried away". And that goes for both sides.
Yes, well...In this world where you give an inch and somebody takes a mile, stuff like this tends to get out of hand.
All I can hear in my mind is Hedley Lamarr: "Trademark infringement... trademark infringement.... Ah! Here it is! Major League Baseball vs. Little League. MLB 7, Little League 0..."
Give me a break. A sport that has for years given the razzberry to those who pointed out that many 'stars' appeared to be eating mainly from the major food groups (growth hormone, testosterone...), that gets a government-granted monopoly, can get all hoity-toity about this is not worth watching.
And the lawyers, the damned stupid lawyers will win after all…
I'm not that crazy about the things that professional sports get away with, but this particular situation is the least of it. The use of a logo or registered trademark should not depend on the type of organization involved.
And; just so you don't think that I'm defending them, I'd also like to add that these leagues (many sports) that hold hostage over a community to get something for nothing (namely stadiums) is one of my biggest beefs.
(for the record, when I was in little league, our teams were named after the local businesses who sponsered them)
I think what's going on here is a somewhat misleading headline admixed with differing philosophies.
The story is a bit more complex than the teaser makes out. The philosophical difference seems to be not whether MLB is right or wrong, but whether it is smart or stupid for making itself look like exactly what it is, instead of trying to keep the scrim of fantasy in place.
Awww.... Let the kids have their fun!
Here's a solution: The Major Leagues could license their logos to bona-fide Little League teams for a penny a uniform, provided no additional profits are being made (same shirt with a generic logo would cost the same amount).
That way they're not giving it away, it's legal, and the major leagues could still sue the Red/White/Black Sox off of anyone who does try to make a profit without permission and royalty compensation.
No, the Hercules Hooks.
What do the individual team members refer to themselves as?
How did you know it was a girl's team?
They call themselves the Herculettes in honor of Bette Midler's backup singers
The team song must bePoirot, rot, rot your boat...
There was a similar situation in the last few years with model railroading. A few of the railroad companies wanted the model making companies to pay royalties when they made a model for a particular railroad. So, if a company made a BNSF boxcar, the railroad would get a cut. But the license fees that a couple of the railroad companies asked for (I remember Union Pacific was one) were so outragously high, that they would have driven the model making companies out of business. So the companies just stopped making models for those railroads. Of course the fans of those particular railroads went nuts.
The other thing was that the railroads were enforcing this even for railroads that had disappeared; for example the use of the B&O logo is still owned by the CSX corporation.
The short-sightedness of the railroads is that their greed just generates a lot of bad PR among a group of people who are their most loyal fans and in the long run hurts them more. In a very real sense, all those models with their logo on them is a lot of free advertising - the railroad should be paying me for that long line of B&O coal hoppers!
Luckily, in the end, most of the railroads worked out much more reasonable terms, approaching the penny per idea that mugaliens suggested.
Last edited by Swift; 2008-Jun-05 at 01:09 PM.
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)
All moderation in purple - The rules
heritage fleet locomotive paint schemes was so that it couldn't be accused of "warehousing" the trademarks of its predecessor railroads by demanding exorbitant licensing fees for trademarks that were no longer in use.