billytea ... thanks for that info. When I first heard about that "movie" it was in a documentary about the history of Aussie cinema. Sounds as though they painted it (pardon the pun :) as being more than it was in reality.

That's possible, though I'd say from the article that it certainly deserved to be in such a documentary. It was quite possibly a first of another description.

that Coke bottle thing is about copyright-- artistic creation-- not trademark

Can a logo be an artistic creation too?

BTW, that Coke bottle thing is about copyright-- artistic creation-- not trademark. Coke will never lose the trademark on that bottle; they'd have to stop using it for many, many, many years.

True, they never lost the trademark to the actual specifically shaped bottle but they did lose the copyright on the image of said specifically shaped bottle, thus losing the right -- according to that story -- to feature it on the cans and other packaging. Not an insignificant thing to happen.

True enough billytea. I was going to edit and say something similar but instead I'll just say it here: regardless of whether it could be considered a true "movie" or not, it was still a great achievment for little old Australia.

btw ... "movie" was originally a disparaging term used by the residents of the town of "Hollywood" to describe those new-fangled nickolodeon folk. Most boarding houses and hotels refused rooms if you were a "movie". :)

Can a logo be an artistic creation too?

There's nothing preventing an image from being copyrightable and trademarkable though admittedly copyright is not something I know much about.

the origins of this thread go back to Table Talk

Sigh, thanks jimi, I fixed it. I was lurking back then, so my brain knows this. I was thinking it as I posted. And yet I still typed the wrong thing. No more posting on the run from work for me.

Just a reminder to the Aussies that the final three episodes of American Embassy will be airing on Wed, Thu and Fri.

Logos? Recognition factor? "Brand loyalty?"

Our fair city's department of tourism paid well in excess of $60,000 to an ad outfit that came up with the logo "Ah, (city name)!" in puffy letters. It was so ill-recieved it never even made it onto official city stationery, let alone billboards and travel brochures.

The ad biz, she is silly.

Think of it this way: what is a can of soda with a red and white outside? It's a Coke. The soda is not red & white. The colors don't suggest soda the same way green and yellow suggests lemon-lime. If you saw another can of soda with a red & white exterior, would you assume it was anything other than a Coke? This is all by way of saying color, by itself, can be distinctive.

Actually that point makes absolute and total sence to me in relation to Irn Bru. Maybe Barrs should trademark orange.

Can a logo be an artistic creation too?

Don't artistic creations come up under intellectual property rights?

I've got no right to go tell the people who have been Bitches for years that they ought to change it because I don't like it, or because some other, new, people might be offended by it. It's just not my place at all.

This was neither my intention, nor in fact what I did. Something was bothering me so I said something. When I post an opinion I fully expect it to be either ignored or disagreed with. The first is no big and I always learn something from the second either factually or about constructing a good argument, most often both. Please don't stomp on my head. < slaps floor with hand >

I enjoy a good debate.