KU Buckets T-Shirts
-
This might be legal?
-
@DanR Those are outstanding! I’d buy any (or all) of them.
-
I still suggest asking Mr. Keating before doing anything. Give him and KU a chance to be generous and kind, or to explain why they cannot be. And unless the image DanR used of Naismith IS in the public domain, and probably even if it is, because DanR used Naismith’s name in the slogan, you should probably ask the representatives of his estate. And Wilt’s estate, too, since his name is used in the slogan. It seems the right thing to do.
It sure is a handsome looking t, regardless.
Backfill here.
-
And here.
-
And here.
-
@JayhawkRock78 These were just a couple quick ideas. I’m in the graphic design/advertising biz and have created more T-shirt designs than I care to remember. If we can all come up with a decent idea and legal design, I’d be happy to prepare the print-ready artwork.
-
I love what you did. You remind me of a marketing gal that worked for me back in the day. I would cook something up and show it to her-the next day she’d have something that would blow my socks off. I guess my brain is just too linear.
-
@jaybate-1.0 said:
Larry Keating
No need to bother Larry Keating. As JayhakwFanToo mentioned, just about anything with “KU” on it will need written approval from the trademark licensing director at KU before any local printer will touch it.
-
Ok, I am an old layman coot and know nothing of such things.
-
Back when the Saints went to the SB the NFL tried to get New Orleans shops to stop selling merchandise with the fleur-de-lis on it or “Who Dat” on it. They backed off with the stipulation that as long as it wasn’t marketed as official Saints or NFL merchandise. Just my 2 cents worth. Two hours to “Play Ball.” (beer)
-
Perhaps that will keep us below the radar.
And please don’t take this as a shot at you. I love to visit NO, but that is a very corrupt city/state IMO. We were there for my daughter’s club bball tourney, and they made the girls show them all their bags and made them throw out their water bottles, making them buy inside the facility for $2 each. I’ve never seen an athletic organization do anything so sleazy in my life.-there were probably 100 teams of teenage girls in that tourney.
-
Anyone ever watch the “Nathan for You” Dumb Starbucks episode?? He opened an “art gallery” called Dumb Starbucks in which he sold coffee much like the real Starbucks and was legally able to do so. The logo was pretty much the same as Starbucks but had dumb in front of it. The same with all of the items the store sold. The episode was pretty funny and the show in general wasn’t bad at all. Check it out. But to my point…
Under Fair Use you can:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted workThe distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
I can’t believe we don’t have a lawyer on this site!?!?!
-
I can’t believe we don’t have a lawyer on this site!?!?!
LOL. Be careful with what you wish for…
-
I’ve worked with Cafepress before and they void out any obvious copyrighted material unless you have approval to show them.
@DanR - RIght on! I’d buy those! Just make it a darker blue! If those images are in the public domain then there will be no issues with those designs! Great job!
-
“If we can all come up with a decent idea and legal design, I’d be happy to prepare the print-ready artwork.”
I’m on board with all of your designs… but especially love the one about Naismith and Wilt! Maybe you could tweak it to make “kubuckets.com” a bit larger because we should promote this site!
It is no problem to say kubuckets.com on our shirts… that does not infringe on university rights, plus… kubuckets.com has the right to promote their name. If they didn’t have that right, they would already be potentially breaking copyright law by having a website, especially if there is any related commercial aspects.
-
I did go into joe college. They had 50+ different designs most were clearly copyright infringement.
Some of the more memorable: muck fizzou, beat KSU, Missouri 5million people 8 last names, I bleed Crimson and blue therefore I crap purple.
-
On top of the note to Acme & cafepress I sent an email to Keating who replied he sent it on to the proper contact.
As for designs by DanR and other suggestions I think we can go with all of them until we hear from the powers that be and then let users choose style and sizes.
RCJH
@approxinfinity said:
I’ve been extremely busy recently and so I’m sorry I haven’t gotten anything done on this. @JayhawkRock78 and you guys have my endorsement however you want to go with this. This will always be a community and I appreciate your efforts in making good things happen. Rock Chalk!
With all you’ve done with this site you should never apologize to anyone here for anything. RCJH
-
Watch out! Looked what happened.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Big Government went on a panty raid…
-
LOL. Big Government has been on panty raid for as long as I can remember.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Too bad they don’t show as much concern with protecting our southern border.
-
Suggested slogans for the T-Shirt
KUBuckets Old Farts Talking Hoops
KUBuckets Talking KU before we kick the bucket
KUBuckets Guardians of the Jayhawk Legend
KUBuckets Phog Allen Ghostwrites Here
KUBuckets We don’t often blog, but when we do, it’s KUBuckets
Or KUBuckets, when we write, Bill Self Listens because we’re the most interesting men on the face of the earth.
In the Beginning God created the heavens and KUBuckets.
KUBuckets John Wooden Read Here
KUBuckets Tom Keegan wishes he was us
KUBuckets @Jesse-Newell Gets His Ideas From Us
KUBuckets If Guy Lewis read us there’d been no Jim Valvano running around the court looking for someone to hug.
KUBuckets James Naismith Invented Basketball We Perfected It
KUBuckets Thankful every day we’re not the major school just to the east and just to the west.
KUBuckets The epicenter of the hoops world
KUBuckets We Wish There Was a KUGridiron
KUBuckets Thankful we’re not UKBuckets
-
@wissoxfan83 DUDE! You’re on your game today - those are awesome!
-
Yo! I know I’m a lil late to the party, but I’m totally down for a t-shirt. In fact I want two!
-
Here is the guy we need to obtain written permission from:
Paul Vander Tuig, Trademark Licensing Director
The University of Kansas
Office of Trademark Licensing
1601 Irving Hill Road
Burge Union, Room 306
Lawrence, KS 66045-7557
Phone: (785) 864-4650
FAX: (785) 864-3877
e-mail: pvt@ku.edu
Here’s the list of verbiage that is trademarked:
- The University of Kansas
(Use “THE” when possible) - KU
- Kansas Jayhawks
- Jayhawks
- The Crimson and the Blue
- Kansas
- Beak 'Em Hawks
- Rock Chalk Jayhawk
- Allen Fieldhouse
- Kivisto Field
On the KU Athletics page they have a FAQ page and one of the questions is about royalties and what happens to the money raised from the royalties. Proceeds generated by the trademark licensing program are returned to KU students through academic or athletic scholarships and student programs administered by the KU Endowment Association. All net royalties are deposited into these funds annually.
This is some more info on my Fair Use stance.
Some courts have recognized a somewhat different, but closely-related, fair-use defense, called nominative use. Nominative use occurs when use of a term is necessary for purposes of identifying another producer’s product, not the user’s own product. For example, the newspaper USA Today ran a telephone poll, asking its readers to vote for their favorite member of the music group New Kids on the Block. The New Kids on the Block sued USA Today for trademark infringement. The court held that the use of the trademark “New Kids on the Block” was a privileged nominative use because: (1) the group was not readily identifiable without using the mark; (2) USA Today used only so much of the mark as reasonably necessary to identify it; and (3) there was no suggestion of endorsement or sponsorship by the group. The basic idea is that use of a trademark is sometimes necessary to identify and talk about another party’s products and services. When the above conditions are met, such a use will be privileged. New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992). Read Here for more…
- The University of Kansas
-
@wissoxfan83 PHOF
-
@Kip_McSmithers said:
Here is the guy we need to obtain written permission from:
Paul Vander Tuig, Trademark Licensing Director
The University of Kansas
Office of Trademark Licensing
1601 Irving Hill Road
Burge Union, Room 306
Lawrence, KS 66045-7557
Phone: (785) 864-4650
FAX: (785) 864-3877
e-mail: pvt@ku.edu
Here’s the list of verbiage that is trademarked:
- The University of Kansas
(Use “THE” when possible)
- KU
- Kansas Jayhawks
- Jayhawks
- The Crimson and the Blue
- Kansas
- Beak 'Em Hawks
- Rock Chalk Jayhawk
- Allen Fieldhouse
- Kivisto Field
On the KU Athletics page they have a FAQ page and one of the questions is about royalties and what happens to the money raised from the royalties. Proceeds generated by the trademark licensing program are returned to KU students through academic or athletic scholarships and student programs administered by the KU Endowment Association. All net royalties are deposited into these funds annually.
This is some more info on my Fair Use stance.
Some courts have recognized a somewhat different, but closely-related, fair-use defense, called nominative use. Nominative use occurs when use of a term is necessary for purposes of identifying another producer’s product, not the user’s own product. For example, the newspaper USA Today ran a telephone poll, asking its readers to vote for their favorite member of the music group New Kids on the Block. The New Kids on the Block sued USA Today for trademark infringement. The court held that the use of the trademark “New Kids on the Block” was a privileged nominative use because: (1) the group was not readily identifiable without using the mark; (2) USA Today used only so much of the mark as reasonably necessary to identify it; and (3) there was no suggestion of endorsement or sponsorship by the group. The basic idea is that use of a trademark is sometimes necessary to identify and talk about another party’s products and services. When the above conditions are met, such a use will be privileged. New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992). Read Here for more…
Thanks. I have a response from acme-see cut and paste below.
- The University of Kansas
-
Below is my answer from Acme in Lawrence.
Hi there,
Yes, this is something we could potentially print, but only because we have a licensing agreement with the university. As such, anything with KU or Jayhawk or reference to that, has to be approved by KU. How it all works is we would put the design together (either in store or via email) and then you pay a $5.00 approval fee. That fee goes to the university for using their logos and we submit it to the approval board. Once they give us the okay, then we can go ahead with the order. Since any of your ideas would need approval I think all of them would work equally as well, so it’s really just up to you which direction you’d like to go with the shirt. Just let us know which one you’d like us to put a design together for and we’ll get a rough draft started for you!
Now as far as the printing goes, we could make a design and just have it on file and people can call in or email and order one and pay for them individually. If you want to get them at a cheaper price though, I would suggest having a bulk order printed up that people could purchase from you or the website. Any order over 24 shirts, we can have screenprinted by our friends here in town and save you a lot of money. So for example, an individual shirt in our store, with a one sided single color print is $18.95 before tax. The same shirt with a one color print on one side screenprinted would just be $8.71 before tax. So if that would be a possibility I would recommend going with one big order. But again, that’s totally up to you and what would work best for you!
Please let us know if you have any questions and if you’d like us to put a design together!
end of email.
So fellow Bucketeers,
Here is how I see it. Every design comes with a $5 approval fee. I have the feeling if we were to all pick the same one, we might not even get to the price break of 24 each that would lower the price from $18.95 to $8.71.
I could start the ball rolling if we were to vote on one, but I am thinking maybe we all want to choose our own shirt, and individually deal with acme for $5 + $18.95. There are so many good choices already I think it would be cool if different messages/slogans about KU Buckets are out there for the world to see.
What say you?
-
@JayhawkRock78 just wanted to add- we ordered from there last week and got the nicer shirts-not the 100 percent cotton. Not where I can look it up, but just wanted you to know there’s a choice.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Good point-individuals would have lots of flexibility with types of shirts, colors, etc.
But as I said, if ya’ll want to vote on one to get a standard rolling, I will get it going.
-
Being a layman, I cannot explain why, but I just don’t have a positive feeling about getting into the shirt activity in terms of possible fallout for the site’s owners without first getting permission from KU, and the estates of anyone else’s name, or image, put on the t-shirt. And even with the permissions, it seems some sound legal counsel would be prudent. My hunch is that @approxinfinity needs to weigh in on this, because this is his site and the actions that are being discussed are being discussed on his site and apparently aim to use the name of his site on the t-shirts.
I just don’t want to see any harm come to @approxinfinity and @bskeet, or the community. No one probably gives a hoot about our small online community, but I sometimes wonder about attorneys involved in seeking to set precedents for trademarks in the internet era and on the payroll of high powered players in the marketing game picking on tiny online communities like ours precisely because such communities are not funded to defend themselves, and because that makes them an easy mark for setting precedents with. Just a thought from a concerned layman.
(note: @JayhawkRock78, this is the post I moved from the quotes thread. Not sure how I goofed and got it on there in the first place. I hope it works out that it is ok to do the shirts, because they would be fun. )
-
This is pretty much what I indicated the process would be like based on precedent. Since Acme already has a licensing agreement in place (this is the harder and more expensive part of the process), then I cannot see why there would be any concern about legal backlash. The shirts would be printed by a “licensed” business and the design approved by KU before hand. If there are any legal repercussions, it would be on Acme and not on this site or its owner; this is the reason why I suggested using a provide with an existing licensing agreement in place.
Looks like the leg work has been done. Great job!!!
-
Should have posted this request I sent to acme BEFORE I gave ya’ll the answer. Here it is.
There is a group of KU fans that have a website called kubuckets.com
We were thinking of having T-shirts made up. We don’t know about licensing issues.
This is a non profit bunch of fans just having fun. We would not mark anything up to make money. In fact I may just order a few and pay for them out of my own pocket.
If we just use, kubuckets.com, do we need to go to KU for approval?
If we include the logo in the upper right hand of the web page, I suspect we need the approval. How is that done?
(I cant figure out the cut and paste, but I included the website logo here as an example.) kubuckets.com
Another suggestion includes more verbiage
Kansas University Jayhawks
Playing Naismith ball since 1898
Costs?
Is it easier to just have individuals order directly from you as some would need them shipped?
-
@JayhawkRock78 Thanks for checking with Acme. I’m in Lawrence, so I can work with them if we go forward with anything. I have a couple of other design ideas, but I think we ought to wait until we hear from the powers that be before I throw anything else out here.
@jaybate-1.0 Definitely need approxinfinity’s approval. We could get a “Naismith” permission too if you can find a contact person. (I can’t find much of an established foundation online, but someone got $4.3 million a while back for the rules!) They don’t own the rights to the photograph, so it’s more of an issue of using his likeness.
-
@DanR A KU Buckets guy who can design our stuff that lives in Lawrence. The stars are aligning.
-
“With all you’ve done with this site you should never apologize to anyone here for anything. RCJH”
Amen on that!
-
What does a small possible copyright infringement have to do with homeland security?
Sounds like some bozos with fake IDs wanted some free Xmas gifts for their girlfriends.
The "KC’ image does look like the Royals logo.
-
I don’t see a potential infringement on anything @DanR has made as long as the image of Naismith is public domain.
“KUBUCKETS.COM” should not be an infringement. If it is, then we’ll have to move this website to a new name.
The university does not own the rights to kubuckets.
That would be like saying the university owns all words starting with ku… like kudos!
Imagine this battle:
KU KLUX KLAN
-
@drgnslayr said:
Imagine this battle:
KU KLUX KLAN
Yikes. I have a great idea for an extra long Tshirt and matching hat if anyone wants to get in some serious legal trouble.
-
This is from wikisource so take it with what that’s worth…
-Some or all works by this author are in the public domain in the United States because they were published before January 1, 1923.
The author died in 1939, so works by this author are also in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author’s life plus 70 years or less. Works by this author may also be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
I know there is the magical line of pre-1923 copyright. I wasn’t sure if 1912 'Hawk would fall under that or not??
-
@Kip_McSmithers There’s really no magical line. Plus, copyrights and trademarks are different beasts. (1912 Jay is a registered trademark, so regardless of whether the original copyright ownership for the artwork expired, KU owns the mark as long as they continue to renew and protect it.)
-
@JayhawkRock78 I think that if we decided on one design then there would be a demand for at least 24 shirts. So why not get the price break.
Maybe we could do one design now and then work to agree on another every 3 to 6 months, or a new design every year. Maybe do some commemorative shirts for special occasions like big 12 play, championships, final fours, national championships, etc… I don’t know, maybe to much.
Some other ideas: kubuckets.com on the front and on the back;
-
Some posts from users that were deemed PHOF.
-
a list of abbreviation definitions used on kubuckets.com. (so new users wouldn’t be lost when they check out the site)
-
maybe simply put “Back fill here” on the back.
-
Or my favorite (which is a combination of inspiration from JB and Abe Lincoln, “with knowledge and malice towards none”. That is what kind of sets us apart from other basketball sites, the knowledge and malice towards none that is found on this site. Just a thought!
-
-
@jayhawkbychoice definite no in 1-4, jmo
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Man! Really? Ok, 1 and 2 are a little sketchy, throwing props to some of our uniqueness here on the site. Yeah 3 was just a joke. But I thought 4 was pretty darn good.
-
@jayhawkbychoice I won’t get it! Go ahead!
-
Some good ideas JBC
It seems we have a comfort level with DanR to take his ideas and include a few others and propose some designs. Then we can a vote on it. Maybe it’s one print to start with which I would guarantee 24 prints from acme so we hit the price point and let folks order individually.
We could also pick the top 2 or 3 and go from there.
DanR, can you present our ideas? Then the rest of us can vote on them and add options to consider. From what I’ve already seen we have a bunch of really good ideas to choose from.
-
No, no. I respect your opinion. I would be proud to wear the same uniform as you or any others on this site. Plus I’ve never been known for to many good ideas.
Maybe?
“KU Buckets, this is my facebook” (and no stupid questions to answer)
-
@jayhawkbychoice I don’t like the cutsie stuff. Simple.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 and everyone else,
As far as t-shirts, I don’t care. Whatever you guys like or whatever gets the most votes, I’ll go with.
But there was nothing “cutsie” in this country on March 4, 1865, when the words “With malice toward none,…” were first coined. This is a great site. A place where we can come to publicly, freely express opinions and ideas without all the malice and negativity that is found on most other sites. That is what ultimately brought all of us here. And that, along with the vast knowledge here, is what will ultimately bring others to this site. (if that’s a real goal) But I warn, the day we don’t heed to the historic virtuousness found in the Second Inaugural Address by Lincoln is the day this site will start to resemble what the old site is now.
@crimsonorblue22, I don’t think your comment was meant in this way, so I’m sorry. But, I couldn’t let the word “cutsie” be the final word when I was making reference to such a historically significant phrase that changed the country and resonated so well it may have, perhaps, been the reason Lincoln was killed.
-
@jayhawkbychoice whoa!!! Not anything what I meant! Don’t stone me please! Jk
