apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

How can they copywrite typography? Do they own that typeface and all the rights to it?

I can't claim any expertise here but to be on the safe side you should probably change at least the color of the word "select" if not the typeface. Since it was designed as part of the logo with that color and typeface it's possibly included in whatever legal rights they have to the logo.

Matilda, you read my mind! I don't know the name of that font, but I can't imagine you can copyright a single letter.

Are there any copyright/trademark lawyers out there that can give us more info?

But parody is protected under the First Amendment!

According to the U.S. Patent Office, The New York Times has an active trademark for their *full* name in that font. I'm not sure how that affects use of only the T, and I'm having trouble getting better info from the trademark database.

In short, I think they're bullying you, though walking away from that fight probably is the least upsetting thing to do.

what a bunch of garbage.

-kellen

I'd stay clear of anything that looks like it's lifted from them. Of course, I'd also be tempted not to cover their stuff at all, unless (like going to the bathroom at a Billups gas station) you really, really have to.

More... the NYT has a trademark on "TimesSelect," but NOT in their Gothic font or with a specific color.

On the upside, your new T is way more stylish anyway.

at the risk of incurring wrath of my fello AT-lovers...just a little persepctive from a former trademark attorney. Owners of trademarks typically dont care about uses like this, but are required under trademenk law to uniformly police their trademark. If they did not send this kind of nonsense to you, then a future defendant who really was infringing in a harmful way would be able to assert trademark dilution as a defense...essentially arguing thatthe trademark had become part of the public domain because they didn't care to police it. Hence the annual outrage when the Academy Awards shuts down some random trophy shop of the same name....they don't care about the mom-and-pops but have to pretend to in order to fight the big fights. Lame, yes. Undertandable? I think so.

i think b/c it's part of the logo they prob have legal hold on it. also, older large companies do get thier own typeface often (stemming from the custom logo type).

if you want to be safe, yea you should prob get permission or change the rest of the AT select. but that's up to you. guess you get the good with the bad in regards to increased exposure

I'm not sure, but I think there is something in the law (or at least the interpretation of it) regarding the association of elements of the logo with a similar or competing product. Not that AT and the Times are similar, thank goodness, but they're both using the "Select" to designate informational/journalistic items. If the same type and color of the word "Select" were to appear on fruit, for example, the association with the original use of the logo would not be obviously and immediately fostered.

There was a restaurant in Baltimore named Sony's. Sony is the last name of the woman who owned it. But the Sony Corporation of America filed suit and she had to change the name. Sony has a fleet of lawyers whose only job is to protect the trademark. How would this poor woman compete with that?

How silly.......

--kellen--
You wouldn't think it garbage if YOU designed the original logo.

err, my post makes no sense. i meant older companies...like in the 50's and 60's... =P

re: greeps comment:
http://www.ahundredmonkeys.com/random_marketing/content_68_corporate-branding.htm

well if it's any consolation, i actually like the new T better! very cute :)

grace

Love the Boston MBTA T logo, but you better be sure that's okay to use -- some transit authorities are very protective of their image and logos -- those t-shirts and mugs mean additional revenue!

Actually, I do recall a New Yorker profile on Matthew Carter who is, as the profile says, the most significant designer of type in the US.

He designed the font for the masthead of the NYT and I actually just pulled up the article and it says of his latest projects... "and the third was for the Times. The Times wanted for its magazine an alphabet of the face it uses to print its name. All the paper had were the letters that spell "The New York Times."

Article published on:
MAN OF LETTERS; ONWARD AND UPWARD WITH THE ARTS
By ALEC WILKINSON
5 December 2005

So - they had it designed, they own it. But the lawyer smackdown -- so unfriendly at the end of August.

aaah, i think you guys are a bunch of smug fools, so i hope you get something painful up your butts figuratively and literally because of this.

I was just about to say the same thing Frank did....from the frying pan and into the fire.....fighting with the NYTimes or the Boston MBTA? Either way it's kind of funny.

I think the MBTA has bigger fish to fry these days. Hopefully they'll appreciate the free publicity!

Though we should all take a moment to appreciate that Boston's new electronic fare cards (like NYC's MetroCards) are named "Charlie Cards" after a 1960's Kingston Trio folk song, 'Charlie on the MTA'!

As an Art Buyer this is part of my daily life - negotiating usage rights and retouching out logos and recognizeable type everywhere you can possibly think of. I just did an ad for a large company and removed about 40 logos from the shot we used. And copyright infringment is kind of new territory on the web. I imagine more smackdowns are coming our way as lawyers figure out a way to monitor who's copying what...Greeps is right- it's about the bigger picture, not the little guys. AT just got stung because it's 'the policy'. And the new 'T' is much more fun anyway!!

Parody or no, people get touchy about logos. This rang my Starbucks v. Dwyer(click the name) bell, thought I doubt this will get as serious what with being in a different league and all. Still, good luck.

I think greeps covered the possible reason pretty well, silly or not. It's nice to know that the NYT is reading AT.

To: Not an AT Fan... Why the hell are you reading this then.

Patrick, while I usually seem to agree with you on things here, this case seems to be an exception.

It's a font. One letter, not the whole name. One letter in a font that is not exclusive to NYT to my knowledge.

Yes, I think it's a bunch of garbage simply because of that. One letter of one font. And... they're the effing New York Times! Maybe they have to protect themselves from future infringement, but still i think this looks pretty petty coming at AT.

-kellen

kellen, it may be petty but we all immediately recognize even the one letter as being from the ny times. that is what companies strive for -- to imprint their logo in the marketplace -- and it is what they fight to protect. on the flip side, if another website went up that was styled exactly like this one, i bet everyone here would be pretty upset and would want to kick that person's butt (except for not an at fan -- why exactly are you spending time here?

//Patrick, while I usually seem to agree with you on things here, this case seems to be an exception.

It's a font. One letter, not the whole name. One letter in a font that is not exclusive to NYT to my knowledge.//

Um, it's not just one letter. Because the letter of concern here happens to have been stylized--however simply--into a trademark for a very specific purpose and use by the New York Times.

As a graphic designer constantly dealing with infringement issues, I'd guess that the Times might have left the folks at AT alone had they simply chosen to use a black, EnglishtowneNormal T. Maybe. However, the T incorporated into the AT Select logo is the identical T (dropped out of an orange square, with a drop shadow) that the NYT uses to brand their Times Select section. That it also appears in conjunction with the word 'Select' in the SAME font and the SAME color as the NYT original, certainly does not help anyone's cause.

Petty as it all may seem, the Times branding team paid a designer a decent sum (I hope!) to create a distinct and recognizable mark. And when you're striving to keep your brand distinct and recognizable, you can't let anyone water it down by ripping you off.

Just my two cents.

What is up with the recent slew of companies getting pissy about their logo or trademark being infringed upon?!?!?! First AT, now some tiny little diner in Chicago that named a sandwich 'Marshall Field's Special'.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_242181301.html

Ah, but can the diner reclaim the name now that Marshall Field's is going to be renamed Macy's?

Typefaces are one of the few things that cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law -- which really makes sense if you think about it. Corporate logos are protected, but, as Wende pointed out, parody is considered "fair use." However, since the whole thing was not a spoof, just the logo, that could be a problem.

Paris, I don't think so. Federated now owns the name Marshall Fields, even though they aren't going to use that name. Just seems really really greedy.

I think this is ridiculous!!! Old English type style is everywhere! What about the Detroit "D"...from all of the tees & hats I've seen bootleged, I don't think the Tigers can do anything about it. Its just a font that is available on most computers. I could see thier point if they developed it & gave it to Microsoft to use...because a copywrite happens the first time you put that item into print(not by sending it to a copywrite office-that's just a filing system) If you can find that type used before the NY Times was institued then you've found the REAL copywrite holder. Well, my suggestion is to milk this for all the publicity possible...the NY Times has been underfire for being uncredible for the past couple of months anyways...make them less credible. Put out a press release about all this hoopla!

You guys came up with such a fantastic replacement for the "T," so why not find an equally smart replacement for "Select?"

It isn't copyright infringement. It's trademark infringement. VERY different things.

Trish--

Um, where do you think type faces come from? Designers design them. And the Detroit D is not in fact the same D.

And as understanding designer correctly pointed out, it's not just about a letter. It's placement, color, usgae... oh yeah, "graphic design."

And, um it's "copyright."

i'd be wary of using that new "T", it being yet another logo. in fact, even more clearly a complete logo and not just a letter which happens to have come from a trademarked title.

it might be a bit less visible to go on a bit of a scavenger hunt and find a T you like (in signage, if that's what you're going for) that isn't part of somebody's logo, at all. there are tons of great hand-painted signs hidden away here in the city, both obscure enough and old enough that nobody could really care. also lots of amazing grafitti -- i deal with this kind of stuff at work a lot, and my own personal mantra is that if you use grafitti, nobody can really get too upset about it. i photograph a lot of this sort of thing in my spare time, and i could send a few less trademark-sensitive options.

it also may not be enough to change the "t", as the specific use of the word "select" (also in that specific color, placement, typeface) is still a part of the NYT select logo, and just as sensitive as the T (in fact probably moreso). it would be pretty easy to change the typeface ever so slightly and maybe do it in a different color (or even a slightly different shade of orange). this is something else i wouldn't mind whipping up if maxwell et al thought it might come in handy.

Folks above saying that you can't trademark a letter, single piece of type, etc - the Time's Select logo isn't composed of just the letter T in Old English font. It's that letter (1) in that font (2) against a square (3) orange (4) background with the T bottom-right justified (5). It's the complete logo. That's a big difference from just using the letter T in Old English font. Now, I'm not saying they're not being fussy or necessarily have a good case against this site, but there's more nuance to their argument than just using the same typeface. Cheers.

I don't really understand why AT would be so against copying furniture designs, yet be so light-hearted about logos. There's really not a lot of difference. People make their livings designing logos.

and ps: It's not just that the "select" is copied... I'm pretty sure it's the actual jpeg or gif picked up from Times Online...

I love this site, and I am a graphic designer, and I love poking fun at 'the establishment.'
Still, the Times got it right here. The vast majority of typefaces aren't free. And trademark and copyright are not the same thing.

(By the way, if a person creates something - a poem, painting, song, typeface, etc., it is auromatically copyrighted just by virtue of their having created it - although it is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce that right without registration.).

Let's face it - companies must protect copyright and trademark in the marketplace.

It would be nice if AT and the NYT could come to some sort of agreement where AT could keep the 'T' and the 'Select' with a disclaimer (a la Burlington Coat Factory/Burlington Industries). But then again, a lot of things would be nice!

Maybe flip-flop the typefaces? With "AT" in some blocky font and "select" in blackletter? As long as we're poking fun that seems like a good way to go!

re: my post above - click on my name ...

I like the new "T" anyway.

new "T" also "borrowed."

Denise, why are you giving our services away for free?!

Just wanted to say thank you to "understanding designer" and "patrick (the other one)" for their intelligent comments.

As much as I love AT, the Times got it right on this one - and I'm glad, on behalf of logo designers everywhere, that they're sticking up for theirs!

In (a late) response to the other Patrick:

The "our services" is philosophical, and I know that what designers do is valuable.

But I posted MY specific idea b/c my idea was intersting to me. I produced it to see if it would work (like a photographer - can't remember who - said: "I photograph to see what things look like photographed")

I know my talent is valuable and I don't give it away all "willy-nilly" (as we're fond of saying at work - it's funnier if you tilt your head and shoulders as you say it!).

I did think before posting my idea for the new logo... and I realized that I've gotten a LOT from this site, for free (well, I guess I paid in click-thrus to advertisers, but still...).

In light of that, and b/c I've enjoyed this site SO MUCH, for me to put up a quick idea as illustration was a fair trade in my eyes.