Steemit, Inc. brand and logo are intellectual property that are protected by law. DO NOT USE THEM.
It's official, with the "light green" logo you see on the steemit website, if you use it without permission, you could be sued.
In the past, you could incorporate the STEEM logo like this without any worry you were violating a copyright:
However if I did the same thing with the new light green steemit logo, I could be sued or face other legal ramifications.
(I will not show that light green logo here, even if it could be considered "fair use". It is simply easier not to do that)
As per the recent announcement on steemitblog today:
The Steemit brand and logo are protected by intellectual property laws, including copyright and other proprietary rights of the United States and foreign countries.
One may not make unauthorized commercial use of, reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display the Steemit logo or brand, except as permitted by the doctrine of fair use or as authorized in writing by us.
It is important all users realize this immediately.
DO NOT ever copy/paste or reproduce the steemit "light green" logo or use any variations of their brand without prior written permission
If you follow the doctrine of fair use, and are "absolutely sure" you are not violating their intellectual property rights (I recommend consulting a lawyer)... then you can use it.
I have no ill will towards Steemit, Inc. If they want to sell their own merchandise with a Steemit logo on it, then they should feel free to do so without having anyone else compete with them.
However, you can do whatever you wish with these STEEM logos:
As the steem gets more popular, and attracts more money, of course we'll see things happen like this over time.
Until now it has been a free-for-all it seems.. Things are about to get a little more serious (and legal) as time goes on.
Does this mean any existing banners that say STEEMIT we can now be sued for if we continue to use them with the old symbol if the name STEEMIT is in them?
If so, I have some art to rework.
Steemit is a registered brand. I would remove the "it" if you can, and just reference STEEM as the blockchain on that artwork.
While they did not protect their brand prior to the new logo, I suspect they will start actively pursue it once it becomes profitable for them to do so..
People can use whatever they want. "IF" they learn a different perspective of reality and law. Especially Common Law. Common Law does not recognize intellectual property.
"The general rule of law is, that the noblest of human productions—knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas—become, after voluntary communication to others, as free as the air to common use."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property
"The law of intellectual property is commonly understood as providing an incentive to authors and inventors to produce works for the benefit of the public by regulating the public's use of such works in order to ensure that authors and inventors are compensated for their efforts"
...in your opinion, or expertise, do you know of which courts would recognize steemit's logo, brand, and other intellectual property if they weren't common law courts?
It's peoples individual responsibility to understand the deception that goes on in court to fully protect themselves. I'm not providing legal advice. I'm just presenting a perspective of reality that is not commonly known.
in that same article I just shared with you...
"Congress derives its power to regulate patents and copyrights from the "intellectual property clause" of the Constitution."
Well when one studies the constitution, real history not school taught, law / legalese, U.S., The Republic of America and more they sometimes end up where I did...
What I shared in my article discussing what Tom Hanks said about history..
The evidence of all this means that the constitution's enduring strength is that it complements the Declaration of Independence. What the Declaration did, was provide the philosophical basis for a government that exercises legitimate power by "the consent of the governed". So society has accepted it by choice, force, and or both. Thinking the assumption and claim of authority by the State is valid. Ultimately showing whatever perception the people in society accept is reality for the rest.
U.S. is a corporation not a country. It actually doesn't have jurisdiction outside of District of Columbia.
In court they charge peoples corporate name and account. Not the natural person. I will be trying to show sources and explain in my next article more in depth of how and why this exists. It's a continuation of what I been sharing. Pretty much all anyone will need to know of where to start looking, finding, understanding if interested.
Took me years to understand and put things into perspective. Start to conceptualize properly. Just trying to make it as easy I can for people interested now. I know it's a lot of work with all the misdirection's out there.
Cool, same thing I said. Didn't read until now! I'll be following you & nice to meet you!
@intelliguy0
The US is not a country. It's a company. Trump didn't vow on the united states of america but on the US corporation, district of Collumbia.
I thought you might want to know. This is an important distinction, one that even Alex Jones doesn't talk about. And I wonder why. I know this because I actually studied the law and tested this fractional reserve banking. We are free but we are all fooled by this legal system. It's rather amazing really. Look up the peace time flag for example, admirality law... etc.
I think the main reason for this is the scammer problem. People lure members from the Steemit community to a different website that looks and feels like Steemit, to get their passwords.
With the legalities in place, Steemit can finally do something about this.
I reckon they can have their logo, for their productive purposes. Should I reference their product, I shall identify it appropriately.
Further, insofar as Steemit is used in materials that identify this platform, for example, "I am a Steemit user.", or, "Come join Steemit!", no violation of their brand has occurred, as I am not attempting to usurp their productive utilization of their brand and property.
Insofar as I have advertised Steemit, I could as easily sue them for the value of my advertising work, as they could sue me for it.
Just as I can say 'Wheaties', 'Cap'n Crunch', or 'Grape Nuts' in reference to those products, I can say 'Steemit'. The point of the legal protection is to keep me from competing with them by using their brand and logo.
I won't.
Thanks!
You have a very good understanding of the issue. I like the way you explained it. :)
This^^^
I don't like the green color. There's a reason no one uses green.
Well I guess the logo before was far more better and professional.
Well, i see all this as a serious move in the right direction.
Thanks for highlighting this important point, it's highly likely that many will assume automatic permissible incorporation of the new steemit logo into their own works, be it t-shirts or designs or whatever, without considering risk of a cease and desist injunction, or worse.
Resteeming to increase exposure of this detail.
Yes, I agree (many will assume incorrectly).
Now consider, if you had a high STEEM wallet balance, say $50,000 and you incorrectly used the steemit logo and a lawsuit was filed. They'd know how much money the defendant had prior to the court case. :)
This will be one to watch for. I would like to assume that they're not wired for aggressive litigation and would rather seek amicable settlement limited to breaches of proprietary rights where damage to reputation or income was concerned.
But I prefer not to assume much.
Interestingly, while my browser tab still shows the old logo favicon the new logo favicon clearly can be accessed:
https://steemit.com/favicon.icoMust be a cache thing, even though I've restarted my browser several times in the last 24h.
It makes sense for there to be separate logos for Steem and Steemit. They have been talking about it for quite some time. So the Steem logo remains public domain and we can use it, create emojis, etc. The Steemit logo is copyrighted. Makes sense.
...and I agree. Makes sense. My purpose was just to stop people from using the steemit logo the same way everyone seemed to use it when Dan Larimer was still a significant person there.
Now that the logo has changed, we have a clear understanding that the new logo belongs to Steemt Inc, and NOT the users of steemit.
So play and use the steem logo as much as you like.. its for us to use and promote the steem blockchain. :)
Awesome!
One small addendum to your post, @intelliguy (CC: @offgridlife).
It is allowed to make use of the steemit logo under the fair use policy. So basically, when writing about news.
Plagiarism specialist, Jonathan Bailey, has written more about the topic here. Most important to remember are the four conditions which need to be met to fall under fair usage:
Check out his further elaboration on the topic, as well as the differences between copyright and plargiarism, in this article.
As a reporter, I love fair use. It's awesome.
It is, and as a reporter, you must understand the differences. Many new users just starting out in as a blogger, running contests, making neat t-shirts, and just having fun may not.
Yes, I cover intellectual property law, so I understand it pretty well. While I understand your desire to be "better safe than sorry," isn't it better to educate people on proper fair use rather than calling for a blanket ban?
Your interpretation is that I called for a "blanket ban".
If you'd like to educate people on proper fair use, that's your option. Feel free to write an article, and link to it in this reply thread if you like.
I, on the other hand, am not qualified to teach others on proper fair use, and if someone takes my advice and gets sued, I could be liable for giving incorrect advice since I am not a lawyer.
In this case, I'd rather err on the side of caution. I'm less likely to be sued for telling people "it's easier to avoid fair use", than it is, to pretend I am qualified to give advice on fair use.
Dude, relax. I didn't quote nor "misquote" you. Enjoy your evening.
Wait wait wait, it should be the opposite logically. You cannot be sued because you are in fact not a lawyer. This would be logical. If the legal system is saying otherwise then that's very interesting! Because I always wondered how we are tied into a contract with the State?
There's a thing called CAPITIS DIMINUTIO or name in all caps. That's why you are INTELLIGUY0 on your creditcard. It's a fake strawman without any rights. But if they call you and say "are you INTELLIGUY0" and you say "yes" the courts have tricked you into representing this legal fiction! I'm not sure if this is strawman is your incorporated birth certificate, where they made essentially a security out of you, but it's a non-binding contract since you or your parents are not aware, or is your natural person. Details details!
Yes, I did link to "fair use" in the article, and I did make reference to the fair use usage.
Surely people will need to do research.
In my personal opinion, it's easier "just not to use it, if possible".
Oops, apologies. I have overlooked that, probably still short in caffeine this morning. Or I saw a werid cached version because there was also only one comment on the article so far. :/
I disagree with that tho, if it news-based reporting (often good condition for the fair use doctrine to apply) it is usually rather simple to know whether you can use something or not.
As long as it's only an element of the content created. This article, for example, could very well have done with the new logo and that without creating any legal pitfalls. :)
Perhaps.
I deliberately chose not to... and I won't. Their logo is their business, and I'm really not interested in using it "AT ALL" ... even for fair use purposes (which I am at the moment).
The mere fact I mentioned Steemit (and will continue to do so) is a violation of their brand, unless of course, I'm using it for Fair Use purposes.
...but to include the logo is even worse. I have other things I'd like to talk about.
See, under the old STEEM logo, it was just too easy (and fun) to use it in as many variations as I liked, without having to worry about Fair Use..
Under the NEW steemit logo, it's no longer easy (and fun) anymore, unless I double check all components of my article meet fair use criteria. (and I mean the whole thing).
If I NEVER EVER DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE STEEMIT LOGO to my computer, I never have to worry about whether or not I accidentally used it for non-fair use reasons by re-uploading it as an image.
As I said, it's just easier to avoid using it, period.
I understand that stance, license issues are often a fickle thing.
Btw, it is important to know that with each page visit your device (more specially its browser) downloads all files required. In this case that includes the image files, which are most often even cached in your browser.
Btw, Steem Inc. hasn't updated the license for Condenser, the open source software which is the Steemit interface, yet. :D
Yet. We'll see that soon if it carries the logo. I haven't checked it.
I deleted it from my Blog post and will not use it again... if I make 40 cents from people upvoting then I am making a commercial gain. The same with any Steemit post.
This is exactly the wrong outcome. We have provisions for such uses, the Fair Use doctrine.
If this entry results in people deleting the logo, while they used it legally, this article has become FUD.
We shouldn't live, and react, because we fear. As @joshpeterson said, education is better than inactivity [paraphrased]. Any article writing about the redesign, with the logo integrated, will be covered under Fair Use. Even if your article makes money of it. Even if you write a design analysis of the logo only and tear it to shreds. In the latter case, having a similar content archive may help, but it isn't required.
What commercial use isn't allowed? Write a Steem news site and use the new Steemit logo in your own logo. That is now explicitly outlawed.
Yes - I over reacted. My mistake.
You're right. This is probably a good sign, and an indication that Steemit is ready to go mainstream.
I had my worries, but your point is valid, and helps me understand.
This is probably just a requirement of their VC.
To date we've never had VC! (except a small angel investment prior to launch of Steem)
The purpose of the copyright restrictions is to enable Steemit to protect users from malicious websites (think phishing attacks) that attempt to employ the Steemit logo or trademark. We now need to find the wording and balance to allow the community to comfortably use the logo simultaneously. Stay tuned
-n
Thanks for clarification. All legals will sure help if there is any to be had in the future.
Hello, this is @septemberbre2ze and I’m leader of Korean Steemit Club, @kr-collegeclub.
I want to get permission of my logo, which is little transformed version of your logo.
The logo I made is these two things,
And I swear I didn’t duplicated or traced your logo. Because I made this with inspiration of your logo and Illustrator program’s pathfinder’s tool. I mean, I didn’t use image trace tool. And I swear I won't use it as malicious use.
I hope you allow us to use these logo on the post for our club members.
Thanku for your reading :)
Oooh, so we're getting VC money now.
I was always curious about this and figured if it wasn't already prohibited, it would be shortly.
You were right!