[mbm]

The US bunch may be putting a good show - but they have made it look really flakey by usurping the name and reputation that does not belong to them. It's a common thing to do in the US - doesn't make it right.

well did the global dressage forum trademark the name? if not not much to complain about.

perhaps they could of called it "really big dressage forum" ?

or maybe "worldwide dressage forum"?

or maybe just

"too cool for school dressage forum"

?

[Mardi]

well did the global dressage forum trademark the name? if not not much to complain about.

Mr. Bartels has every right to be annoyed that someone else is using the same name of a prominent event his family has hosted for 12 years.

[alicen]

Yeah but.... professional courtesy says you call the US version something else.

Courtesy? Is that how it's spelled? Surely there's no place for such a stuffy, antiquated, old world notion in the American business model.

[paulaedwina]

Or the Japanese business model, the Chinese business model.... I think we call it innovation.

Paula

[DownYonder]

I think it's going to be amazing, all of the trainers are the best of the best, Dr Samper is probably the best therio in the world, Dr Hilary Clayton ect. How can any dressage rider or breeder NOT want to go? I bought my tickets

We have it in our game plan for January - hope to see you there!

[SillyHorse]

or maybe just

"too cool for school dressage forum"

I would definitely go to that one.

[netg]

or maybe just

"too cool for school dressage forum"

?

I would definitely go to that one.

I would assume they wouldn't let me in the door!

[mbm]

I honestly wish i could go - it sounds like it will be a fantastic event - no matter what it is called.

And it sounds like it is geared towards us *normal* riders - and not a invite only event....

[paulaedwina]

I'd go if I had money. Hopefully they'll be around next year?

Paula

[J-Lu]

Isn't that what all the great European trainers do?

Now now, technically that is a besom, not a broom!

Put a cowboy hat on that man and change the bundle of twigs to plastic bag taped on a stick and we have a good ole american example of "sacking out"!

[katarine]

Or the Japanese business model, the Chinese business model.... I think we call it innovation.

Paula

The Chinese model would be counterfeit. You can't sell Pepci, or Coka Kola, it's copyright infringement.

It is TACKY to use that name, period. Those bright bulbs could possibly generate a unique name that didn't 'borrow' someone else's street cred.

You're a teacher, P, how you do feel about plagiarism, or theft of intellectual property, taking credit for someone else's twelve years of hard work? Or is this OK because fancy names are booked to talk ?

I would also love to be able to attend. But I can concurrently think Good God A Mighty, you seriously couldn't freaking come up with your OWN name? Lazy and deceptive marketing.

[BaroquePony]

Generally, if a person is using a name that they came up with and they are, and have been, using it on the internet, than it is theirs. That is the rule of the web.

Now, there are a lot of people trying to change some of those laws, but some of those changes are already coming under scrutiny ... like the new FB thing where they take claim to anything one posts on FB ... all photographs, etc., ....

[BaroquePony]

And since the name was already in use, then the US version is a copyright infringement. I beleive this holds true even if it wasn't registered with the copyright office BECAUSE the name was being used in a fairly public manner.

[katarine]

BP, when you sign up to use FB, you signed over ownership of your activities. It's not news. It's just people not reading the fine print.
As Barbara Livingston, the famous horse photographer said on her FB wall:
"Facebook already gives itself copyrights over every photo a person posts, meaning that they can sell your photos and profit from them, without asking you, paying you or crediting you.... I don't use the Instagram feature (as Susie Raisher says, we tried not to have photos look like that for so many years....why does it suddenly seem great now?!)."

It's not new. It's just news b/c someone bothered to read the agreement.

[paulaedwina]

The Chinese model would be counterfeit. You can't sell Pepci, or Coka Kola, it's copyright infringement.

It is TACKY to use that name, period. Those bright bulbs could possibly generate a unique name that didn't 'borrow' someone else's street cred.

You're a teacher, P, how you do feel about plagiarism, or theft of intellectual property, taking credit for someone else's twelve years of hard work? Or is this OK because fancy names are booked to talk ?

I would also love to be able to attend. But I can concurrently think Good God A Mighty, you seriously couldn't freaking come up with your OWN name? Lazy and deceptive marketing.

Weeell, I dunno. It is about perspective I guess. From my perspective they aren't violating copyright because the name isn't copyrighted. And imitation can be a form of flattery no? And they're providing a service -GDF for the Americas.

I'm thinking about the school analogy. I don't see it as plagiarism any more than my scouring the net to find a cool picture to add to my power point lecture.

The more I think about it I'd have to say I'd be more offended if they called it something different and then modeled it entirely on GDF. I'd think that was sneaky. For example, if I decided to have a competition for dogs from all over the world participating in world type games wherein they could win medals and laurels I'd much rather call it the Dog Olympics than pretend that my model was new. And in addition, by calling it the Dog Olympics interested people would know exactly what to expect.

So that's how I see GDFNA.

Paula

[katarine]

Aren't we really talking about a Trademark, rather than a Copyright?

What Is a Copyright?

Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.

The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are registered by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress.
Need a copyright form? Try these:
Copyright Assignment Form
Copyright Cease & Desist Letter
Copyright Policy for a School
What Is a Trademark or Servicemark?

A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks.

Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office. The registration procedure for trademarks and general information concerning trademarks is described in a separate pamphlet entitled "Basic Facts about Trademarks".

source: http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm

[katarine]

Weeell, I dunno. It is about perspective I guess. From my perspective they aren't violating copyright because the name isn't copyrighted. And imitation can be a form of flattery no? And they're providing a service -GDF for the Americas.

I'm thinking about the school analogy. I don't see it as plagiarism any more than my scouring the net to find a cool picture to add to my power point lecture.

The more I think about it I'd have to say I'd be more offended if they called it something different and then modeled it entirely on GDF. I'd think that was sneaky. For example, if I decided to have a competition for dogs from all over the world participating in world type games wherein they could win medals and laurels I'd much rather call it the Dog Olympics than pretend that my model was new. And in addition, by calling it the Dog Olympics interested people would know exactly what to expect.

So that's how I see GDFNA.

Paula

If you use that photo without crediting the photographer (at the very least), or buying it from Shutterstock...you stole that photo.

[paulaedwina]

So if, for example, I'm discussing diphtheria and the telltale bull neck, then do a Google image search for diphtheria bull neck and then paste the image into a power point presentation for a lecture I've stolen the image?

Paula

[BaroquePony]

katarine, I think they are more in the TM range, but looking at it from the advertising/poster/graphic art point of view, I think it may also come under copyright law (graphic design aspect only).

[BaroquePony]

Paula ... yes, unless you credit the photographer or source. Unless they object, then you should comply with a cease & desist.