The Gordon Smith font mystery gets a bit more serious
For a little Friday fun last week, I posted an item taking note of the similarity between Gordon Smith's campaign graphics and the U of O's graphics.
Well, it turns out it's a bit more serious than I realized.
First, the visual recap:
Over at DuckSportsNews.com, they've got the story. Apparently, it's a well-guarded custom font owned by the University - and they aggressively protect their trademarks:
Even though the “Mike Bellotti” font (”Bellotti Bold” might be its proper name), as it’s called within the Athletics Department, was designed by Nike, it belongs [to] the UO. There might be others out there like it (Eurostile, Blair, Bank Gothic, & Serpentine), but there’s only one “Oregon” font.And it’s copyrighted. Federally registered. All that jazz.
Here’s one other thing about the font: for designers working with the UO, getting it is a bit of a Holy Grail. Only a few at the Casanova Center have it. Just try getting a hold of it. Good luck. Believe me. Because I’ve tried. And then try using it and see if you don’t get a call from the Trademark Management office.
On a bit of a lark, I decided to call Gordon Smith’s campaign headquarters to see if they had in fact used the Oregon font for the logo. And they said, “No.”. (You be the judge on that one. Although, I doubt a staffer is going to know if a certain font was used for the new logo.)
Then I called the Oregon’s Trademark Office to see if Oregon did own the font. And I was told they did, along with all that other stuff about copyright and it being federally registered.
But the Trademark Office also told me something else. I had not been the first to call. Looks like The Oregonian called yesterday. We’ll see where that goes. ...
In particular, DuckSportsNews.com identifies some serious implications:
- If U.S. Senator Gordon Smith’s campaign is using the Oregon font for his logo, he’s using a copyright-protected font for his campaign. (And, yes, on occasion we use copyrighted material, as well. However, we are not United State Senators running for re-election.)- If the campaign is using the font and is called on it (and I don’t think it will be), he’s going to have to sink some money into changing up some of his materials. It might be just on the commercial. I don’t know. But if the campaign is producing a bunch of collateral material such as signs, banners, brochures, he’s going to incur some costs.
Hmmmm...
|
June 11, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (139 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jun 11, 2008 3:27:17 PM
Don't be suprised if someone with Smith's group of followers tell us that they got the font either through some serious 'reverse engineering' or from doing some crazy photoshop techniques. This could be a serious issue for Smith as some people could erroneously assume that the U of O endorses Smith simply because of the use of the font. In fact, I know some OSU grads that had a coronary seeing the graphics above because they mistakenly thought that the U of O had sold out...which they haven't (of course).
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 11, 2008 3:30:21 PM
Kari, have you tried peddling the "parody" excuse to Smith's people? It didn't work for you, but maybe they're more sophisticated.
Posted by: Nate Currie | Jun 11, 2008 3:42:11 PM
When this story ran the first time, I was curious to see what font it was. The closest I found was Handel Gothic Bold. Some of the characters are right on. Most are at least somewhat stretched. Some are lower-case made bigger for caps (N and M). The R has a new tail. The E has the upper left squared off. It became apparent to me that this was probably a custom font (though I'd be willing to bet the designer started with Handel—there are simply too many similarities).
Now we know that this is a unique font owned wholly by the U of O. I hope they look into this and pursue all available legal options. There's also an interesting question of how the Smith campaign got the font. Custom fonts like that don't tend to just float around the Internet...
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jun 11, 2008 3:49:36 PM
Don't be surprised if someone with Smith's group of followers tell us that they got the font either through some serious 'reverse engineering' or from doing some crazy photoshop techniques.
They might try. In fact, I hope they do, because it's admitting responsibility. In addition, it's easy to refute. The anti-aliasing on the Smith ad is clearly set to a finer pitch than it is on the Oregon Ducks logo, at least in Kari's example. Yet even using MS Paint, it's easy to see how they match up perfectly.
This means the campaign's source for the font had to be something other than what's out there on the web, and yet clearly, was cribbed from the U. of O.. Which means some campaign insider or consultant had access to a much higher resolution version of these fonts.
Mysteriouser and mysteriouser.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jun 11, 2008 3:50:15 PM
Close italic. Ug.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jun 11, 2008 3:50:44 PM
"There's also an interesting question of how the Smith campaign got the font"
Here's another question - if it is the Handel Gothic font, why is Smith and his followers using something that is 'simular' to UO's font? Do they really think the U of O wouldn't notice this and let Smith get away with it?
We are not as dumb as they think we are...
Posted by: Bob R. | Jun 11, 2008 3:51:16 PM
Is the U of O font covered by a design patent? Trademarks of fonts generally protect other people from using the same font name, and design patents, harder to get, cover the shape itself.
Under many circumstances it is OK to design a font which _looks_ just like another one, so long as you don't try to pass it off by the same name and you don't use the original outline files as a basis for making your own font -- you have to do it from scratch or start from a font which is free to use and modify it.
Depending on what the U of O actually did, they may not have legally-enforceable grounds to protect the use of a similar-looking font (even if it is nearly identical), _so_ _long_ _as_ the Smith campaign isn't working from an unauthorized copy of U of O's actual font files (which we don't know just yet, and the Smith campaign owes the public an explanation...)
Posted by: JTT | Jun 11, 2008 4:40:26 PM
You guys just don't get it. It's ok for Gordo to steal other people's intellectual property because he's a moderate who works across the aisle (hahaha).
But seriously, isn't it a little hypocritical for Kari to cry foul on Gordo for stealing other people's work when he does it himself? Oh wait, I forgot...it's a "parody" when you copy and paste. So here's my question, if someone breaks into your car and steals your CD player...puts it into their car and changes the programmed radio stations...why is that still theft and not a "parody"?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jun 11, 2008 5:08:48 PM
TJ, just for my own info--exactly how long will we be enjoying the squeezings of your sour grapes?
(Kari, have you tried peddling the "parody" excuse to Smith's people? It didn't work for you, but maybe they're more sophisticated.)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 11, 2008 5:14:03 PM
I'm not interested in re-arguing anything related to the Novick/Merkley campaign, so I'll leave well enough alone - especially since all that stuff went away as soon as the primary is over (so we'd just be arguing over memories.)
But I certainly don't see anything that looks like parody here from the Gordon Smith campaign.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 11, 2008 5:14:23 PM
He could have gotten his hands on the font, but now I'm leaning toward him just ripping off the glyphs directly from the "OREGON DUCKS" logo and rearranging them to get the glyphs for "GORDON SMITH." He's got "GORDON S" right there already. The "M" could be easily created from the "N," the "I" could come from any letter with a vertical stem, the T would just add a horizontal arm to that, and the H would put two vertical stems together with a horizontal arm. It really wouldn't be difficult to rip off at all. That would, of course, be in violation of the copyright.
The "Common Ground. Common Good." part looks like it's just Handel Gothic stretched out. If he were still ripping off glyphs from the "OREGON DUCKS" logo, he wouldn't have gotten the lowercase "r" and "d" characters that he did. He would have basically gotten small caps.
The Ducks font isn't Handel Gothic, though it's likely inspired by it. Handel doesn't match the "E," "N," "U," or the Smith "M" at all, and is off on other characters as well. Another close one is Changeling, which misses the "R," "E," and "U."
And TJ, using someone's visual styling and branding in a criticism of them is at least plausibly debatable as parody and is done frequently. Just ripping off someone's logo for your own with no connection or relation isn't even arguable as parody.
Posted by: Phil Philiben | Jun 11, 2008 5:37:30 PM
According to Senate Guru
"Apparently, Republican Gordon Smith's campaign spokesperson has "suddenly" left the campaign. Why? His new spokesperson says that the "suddenly" departed one left "on his own accord to find work in the private sector." He didn't have another job lined up, it seems, but we're assured he chose to leave. Seems odd. Wonder if anything will come of this. "
This may be a bigger mystery than the Font!
Posted by: James X. | Jun 11, 2008 6:00:27 PM
Actually, it looks like both the Smith logo and the Ducks logo come from Handel glyphs. The M and N are just enlarged lowercase glyphs, while the E uses part of another glyph, possibly an upside-down F, with an additional bar or bars overlaid. I'll create a very crude image based on the Bitstream TTF version of Handel Gothic soon. (There are various font houses that have a Handel Gothic, each looking a bit different, and each can publish in multiple formats, such as TrueType, PostScript, or OpenType.)
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 11, 2008 6:10:06 PM
"TJ, just for my own info--exactly how long will we be enjoying the squeezings of your sour grapes? "
I dunno Jeff--for MY info, how long will you be deftly avoiding substantive argument (as corroborated by JTT above with regard to hypocrisy, and darrel and Stephanie previously with regard to legal qualifications of "parody") by relying on the easy, dismissive trope of "sour grapes?"
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 11, 2008 6:16:33 PM
I'm not interested in re-arguing anything related to the Novick/Merkley campaign, so I'll leave well enough alone - especially since all that stuff went away as soon as the primary is over (so we'd just be arguing over memories.)
As if. You do realize this is EXACTLY the same rationale employed by the Bush administration to deflect concerns about them having lied us into a war...right?
Sorry, you don't get to lie and steal in a campaign, and then magically have it "all go away." You must think your readership are complete dolts to buy that. For heaven's sake, JFK has been DEAD for 45 years, and Republicans still remember Daley's machine rigging votes in Chicago for him (although they don't seem as keen to recall the machinations that took place downstate for Nixon!).
Winning an election does not wipe the slate clean, much as you might hope. You stole your opponent's intellectual property, tried a terribly lame angle that you were somehow parodizing Novick's page--and then quietly changed it when it was clear that was a bogus excuse.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 11, 2008 6:23:52 PM
"And TJ, using someone's visual styling and branding in a criticism of them is at least plausibly debatable as parody and is done frequently. Just ripping off someone's logo for your own with no connection or relation isn't even arguable as parody."
Visual styling and branding, perhaps. But the full CSS code, verbatim? Perhaps if Kari had constructed something to look very similar to Novick's on his own, there'd be more latitude for discussion. But the CSS matched exactly.
Also, it has to be plausibly viewed as an attempt to lampoon true information with (usually absurdly false) information. Falwell talking about fucking his mom in the Dewar's ad is a good example; the ruling was that no one could believe what was said because it was so obviously unsubstantiated. What was at NiD.com was neither false nor implausibly so--if it were true, it would be neither funny nor implausible.
Finally, the imagery needs to be widely recognizable, such that few to none would mistake it for original work. A site that ripped off LO's look for a site in New Jersey wouldn't ring any bells out there. And even though Oregon voters might well have seen Novick's web page, the idea that it was recognizable to more than a tiny minority of them strains credulity.
To sum, if I had been caught doing something pretty obviously beneath contempt, I would avoid leaving myself open to legitimate criticism by railing against other examples of what I myself had been caught doing. We're finding out just how far a lack of shame will take you in politics, however.
Posted by: Fred Leonhardt | Jun 11, 2008 6:24:29 PM
Wow. Kari. When you're not trying to convince "John" to run for president, you're the Font Police. You are the man.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 11, 2008 6:27:53 PM
Sorry, you don't get to lie and steal in a campaign, and then magically have it "all go away." You must think your readership are complete dolts to buy that. For heaven's sake, JFK has been DEAD for 45 years, and Republicans still remember Daley's machine rigging votes in Chicago for him (although they don't seem as keen to recall the machinations that took place downstate for Nixon!).
Everybody has their own perspectiveon this, apparently. I was personally less-than-impressed with some of the shit coming out of the Novick campaign (which I'm not going to re-hash, so forget that). But had Novick had won, I was ready to see the bigger picture--electing a progressive Democrat to the U.S. Senate.
Apparently not all of us have that mindset.
Many of us had a dog in this hunt. Some of us were more vested than others. But make no mistake: myopically insisting on a constant picking at this scab is counterproductive for everyone but Gordon Smith.
Its pretty asshole-ishly childish, IMO. You obviously have the right to BE asshole-ishly childish...but it doesn't make it right.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 11, 2008 6:41:45 PM
CSS is styling. It's not content, just styling. Novick's own styling was used in commentary about him. Like I said, we can debate it, and I'm really not interested in debating it, but it is definitely something that is debat-able as parody.
Here's the image. It's very slapdash and crude, and I even forgot to readjust the opacity of the Ducks logo, but you can see that the shapes all seem to come from Handel. I didn't bother making the "K" look exact, but it wouldn't be difficult to break it in two and push the two pieces together. I also think more was done with the lowercase "r," just because it looks kind of ugly in Handel, but to fix it, you'd just have to elongate the arm and clip the shoulder.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 11, 2008 6:45:52 PM
Also, since it looks like the Smith logo comes from Handel, there's nothing wrong with it, as long as they used a licensed copy of Handel. Even if the Ducks used Handel, and Smith used Handel because the Ducks used Handel, it's fine: they both (presumably) had licenses to use Handel however they wanted.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 11, 2008 6:48:41 PM
I was pondering along the same lines as Phil. Hammond's sudden departure is probably just a coincidence. But... it's a very interesting coincidence if that's what it is.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Jun 11, 2008 6:53:05 PM
James X, your observations are interesting, and it's helpful to understand better what might have happened...but it doesn't really prove anything.
Copyright law and trademark law are pretty complex -- and I'm certainly nothing like a lawyer. But when you're prohibited from copying something, that extends far beyond digitally copying it; for instance, if you were to use a font that's entirely in the public domain, and software thay you'd written yourself, to reconstruct something that resembles a trademarked logo, you'd still be in the wrong.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 11, 2008 6:59:19 PM
So who wants to set up the fund to buy TJ some quality session time with the mental health professional of his choice?
At this point I'd be more than happy to pitch in a few bucks if it'd mean that we don't have to be subjected to his Sour Grapes of Wrath for the foreseeable future.
Posted by: Brian | Jun 11, 2008 6:59:43 PM
"Its pretty asshole-ishly childish, IMO."
Sure seems that way, flavored with a smug douchiness many seem to find increasingly repellent. The primary is over, Dude. Your guy lost. Man up.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 11, 2008 7:09:32 PM
"Everybody has their own perspectiveon this, apparently."
Whether warranted or not, apparently. There's no perspective on documented lies and thefts. Facts are simply facts. We know Merkley lied about Novick's position on the war, even after being told he was incorrect. We know the campaign stole intellectual property from the Novick campaign. We know his media consultant lied about a conversation with the Exec Director of PDA. These are not opinions; they are all verifiable and of course have been verified.
And...
"Many of us had a dog in this hunt. Some of us were more vested than others. But make no mistake: myopically insisting on a constant picking at this scab is counterproductive for everyone but Gordon Smith."
How sad that you continue to see winning elections as more important than ethics or truth. Is it really worth it? You seem to think so. THAT is what's counterproductive. You're asking for a pass on misdeeds so we can get rid of a crappy Senator. That's just same old politics, which makes claims of "change" ring hollow.
And if you don't want picking on the scab, tell Jeff's media consultant not to shove the already-bloody scab in everyone's faces.
You reap what you sow, Carla.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 11, 2008 7:11:32 PM
"CSS is styling. It's not content,"
CSS creates styling, and utilizing that styling is where the infringement occurs.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 11, 2008 7:15:01 PM
"So who wants to set up the fund to buy TJ some quality session time with the mental health professional of his choice?
At this point I'd be more than happy to pitch in a few bucks if it'd mean that we don't have to be subjected to his Sour Grapes of Wrath for the foreseeable future."
I'm not the one who keeps avoiding issues while attacking the messenger. Ad hominem is so tired.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 11, 2008 7:18:54 PM
TJ, "we" don't know those things.
Also, the primary was not a battle of good vs. evil.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jun 11, 2008 7:33:28 PM
I dunno Jeff--for MY info, how long will you be deftly avoiding substantive argument (as corroborated by JTT above with regard to hypocrisy, and darrel and Stephanie previously with regard to legal qualifications of "parody") by relying on the easy, dismissive trope of "sour grapes?"
I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. The petty grievances you've been bitching about for 9 months have LONG AGO ceased to interest me, and I tuned you out. But man, the race is done. What kind of restitution do you want and how long can we look forward to the snide, off-topic asides before you grow tired of it or feel restituted?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jun 11, 2008 7:39:01 PM
Okay, I'll admit that that read way harsher than I intended. Could have been the two IPAs dulled my sense of humor ... and my judgment. Sorry, TJ.
Posted by: bobo | Jun 11, 2008 7:40:16 PM
James X, your observations are interesting, and it's helpful to understand better what might have happened...but it doesn't really prove anything.
Copyright law and trademark law are pretty complex -- and I'm certainly nothing like a lawyer. But when you're prohibited from copying something, that extends far beyond digitally copying it; for instance, if you were to use a font that's entirely in the public domain, and software thay you'd written yourself, to reconstruct something that resembles a trademarked logo, you'd still be in the wrong.
Forsyth is wrong about the interpretation of copyright law. In the case of fonts one can only copyright the exact image of each letter. In fact, if U of O/Nike is claiming to have copyrighted simply what clearly is a trivial distortion of a standard font, they either have an invalid copyright.
For amateurs in the IP field like most of you obviously are here, in the U.S. copyrights are not reviewed before being granted like the claims in a patent. They are "secured" as soon as someone "creates" a copyrightable work. One just files a notice with the U.S. Copyright office if and when one wants to "register" their copyright. No one reviews the registration image(s) to see if they conflict with another registered copyright. It is solely up to a copyright holder to challenge in court whether another party is violating a copyright, registration being incidental.
In this case if the Smith office can point to other fonts they have a right to use and their representations as simple mechanical enhancements --- like scaling --- U of O's copyright will be ruled to be non-existent. Probably something that would benefit us all since a fundamental tenet of our party is preserving the commons, intellectual and otherwise.
Hopefully the O will contact an out-of-state IP law firm to get accurate info. Oregon's legal community is actually weak in this area (although stronger in patent law), much like the intellect and integrity of a lot of you losers.
Posted by: Oregonian37 | Jun 11, 2008 7:54:02 PM
For amateurs in the IP field like most of you obviously are here
Why does an informative (and appreciated) explanation have to be prefaced with an unneccessary insult? What exactly is the point of that?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 11, 2008 8:05:50 PM
...and then magically have it "all go away." You must think your readership are complete dolts to buy that
Sorry, TJ, I guess I wasn't clear. By "all that stuff went away" I was talking about the website I built. I'm highly aware that your criticisms haven't gone away.
I'm choosing not to participate in re-arguing old arguments. You're certainly welcome to make the other choice.
Posted by: bobo | Jun 11, 2008 8:06:39 PM
Why does an informative (and appreciated) explanation have to be prefaced with an unneccessary insult? What exactly is the point of that?
Because petty people here with big egos and little brains need a well-deserved dressing down.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 11, 2008 8:10:22 PM
I enjoyed the "you losers" part myself, coming from someone who just geeked out about intellectual property law in a blog comment.
Posted by: bobo | Jun 11, 2008 8:14:23 PM
And oh yeah, if someone or the U.O. claims Smith is violating their copyright on their logo --- which is the entire composition --- as Forsyth made the point of his claim they have no case at all. It's pretty clear no one could mistake one for the other.
It does us nor the progressive cause any good to have idiots like those whose comments we read here pushing a point that solely turns on their ignorance. (That's the rest of the answer for you Oregonian37. Some of us need to start saying we have no time or patience for this kind of foolishness.).
Posted by: James X. | Jun 11, 2008 8:15:11 PM
Not that our visiting friend exhibits any egoism or pettiness.
Posted by: bobo | Jun 11, 2008 8:21:03 PM
James X, your's was the only comment I thought had some merit because you provided an object lesson in how an average person using just a little common sense could in fact see why there may not be any copyright violation here. Too bad attempts to provide some serious information to a bunch of children slinging accusations based on things they obviously know little about is regarded as "geeking out". Maybe the biggest problem with our side is that we are so "elitist" that we criticize those among us who let the world know that too many our positions really are just empty posturing.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 11, 2008 8:28:18 PM
We know his media consultant...
For the record (and I've said this way too many times), I am not a media consultant - Jeff Merkley's or anybody else's. The "media consultant" produces TV spots. I am an "internet strategist" or "website developer".
Posted by: Bob R. | Jun 11, 2008 8:29:54 PM
It's a little late in the discussion, but I'd like to offer up a constructive suggestion here.
While I'm inclined to feel that the whole issue of mimicking the U of O's logo isn't a major issue, and probably isn't a big deal legally, especially compared to the real sins of Smith on policy, this CAN be used in a substantive manner to criticize the smith campaign. Consider framing a criticism like this:
"Gordon Smith wants you to believe he represents Oregon values, but in reality he voted for (insert horrible thing here). Gordon Smith is out-of-touch with Oregon voters -- like a duck out of water".
Posted by: Bob R. | Jun 11, 2008 8:31:42 PM
James X, your's was the only comment I thought had some merit
What, not mine too? Aww, shucks.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jun 11, 2008 8:34:37 PM
I am an alumni of the University ...
and another of millions of university graduates who don't know the difference between alumnus (singular) and alumni (plural).
As for Gordo snitching copyright material, after reneging on his oath to uphold the Constitution and being complicit in the subsequent crime against humanity in Iraq, what's the big deal?
Posted by: Glen HD28 | Jun 11, 2008 8:34:38 PM
Big picture time folks.
Let's just all calm down, everybody send Merkley's campaign ten bucks or more, and we'll kick Slick Gordy's "moderate" pea-picking ass back to Pendleton.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 11, 2008 8:41:30 PM
Bobo, I'm a geek, too, clearly. I'm just not calling people ignorant/small-brained egoistic petty elitist loser children about it.
Also, when you speak of "we" elitists whose positions are empty posturing, are you speaking as a fellow progressive or as Non Oblitus from NW Republican?
Posted by: Jay Jones | Jun 11, 2008 8:48:31 PM
Kari -
Jay here, from Duck Sports News.
Interesting discussion.
Even though I'm not a fan of Smith or Merkeley (and that doesn't mean I'm a centrist), I do have one question for Smith's campaign in regards to their use of the Oregon font (and believe me, it is the font): why? Why go to the trouble? Why not use another font that's close? Why use that font?
It's all very strange. And I'm not sure what they were thinking (because I actually think they were thinking and made a deliberate decision). Then again, that could be said about a number of things.
Jay
Duck Sports News
(and Beaver Sports News, Beaver fans)
Posted by: Jay Jones | Jun 11, 2008 8:51:54 PM
Kari -
Jay here, from Duck Sports News.
Interesting discussion.
Even though I'm not a fan of Smith or Merkeley (and that doesn't mean I'm a centrist), I do have one question for Smith's campaign in regards to their use of the Oregon font (and believe me, it is the font): why? Why go to the trouble? Why not use another font that's close? Why use that font?
It's all very strange. And I'm not sure what they were thinking (because I actually think they were thinking and made a deliberate decision). Then again, that could be said about a number of things.
Jay
Duck Sports News
(and Beaver Sports News, Beaver fans)
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Ted Pikes | Jun 11, 2008 3:13:45 PM
I am an alumni of the University of Oregon and am appalled at the use of the Bellotti Bold font by Senator Gordon Smith. It makes me want to work that much harder for Merkley.