The Operation Sports Terms Of Service

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fistandilius

That was my point. You won't get banned for using the logo. So why tell people you will be if that's the case. It ruins credibility.

No one ever said you would get banned for posting a logo as it isn't copyright infringement. The TOS that you have now posted several times but apparently haven't read is clearly about reposting articles from paid sites or reposting articles written by someone else that you try and pass on as your own.

I thought I was pretty clear in my last post, not sure where the confusion is.

Go to any other site, including ESPN, you will see team logos posted anywhere.



Can you stop being vague and say what this is really about? No one joins a site and then immediately starts making a big stink about something so trivial.

Where you previously banned for something that you would like reviewed? If so just PM me, no need to make up an argument about nothing to prove a point.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fistandilius

I don't know if image linking is allowed here, but the original jaguars logo when they first came out looked like this: http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...jQV4zE5flakJDQ It had to be changed because of an issue with it looking too much like the Jaguar car logo, owned by Ford Motor Co. and they had to come to an out of court agreement to settle it. (Although from what I understand it wasn't technically a settlement as allegedly no money changed hands. The Jaguars agreed to make the Jaguar the official team car, and agreed to redesign the logo.)

This is a completely different scope than whatever point you are trying to make here.

No one here is creating logos and using them to make money. What is so hard to understand about this?

[Fistandilius]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

No one ever said you would get banned for posting a logo as it isn't copyright infringement. The TOS that you have now posted several times but apparently haven't read is clearly about reposting articles from paid sites or reposting articles written by someone else that you try and pass on as your own. I thought I was pretty clear in my last post, not sure where the confusion is. Go to any other site, including ESPN, you will see team logos posted anywhere. Can you stop being vague and say what this is really about? No one joins a site and then immediately starts making a big stink about something so trivial. Where you previously banned for something that you would like reviewed? If so just PM me, no need to make up an argument about nothing to prove a point.

I don't have anything else to discuss. You clearly don't understand what's written in front of you.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fistandilius

I don't have anything else to discuss. You clearly don't understand what's written in front of you.

Clearly....Good talk.

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by dickey1331

Why do you care so much about something so trivial? You won't get banned for using a Browns logo. It's probably put in there so if something happens OS can say hey we ban that type of stuff and they won't be liable? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Because people like to bitch for the sake of bitching. They believe internet anonymity means they have a God given right to do so.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[mb625]

There's a difference between information that is free to access (a logo) and information that is not (an article from a subscription service). The TOS covers the latter. The former is not covered because it does not have to be, because it is already freely accessible and will not violate the copyrights of anyone. If I were to copy/paste an ESPN Insider article on here, I'd cost them money, but if I copy/pasted, say the new Pelicans logo, I wouldn't be costing anyone any money as that information can already be accessed by anyone, free of cost.

[Surtees]

I am in!!! the new one

[peterson28]

i am unable to start threads, it says i haven't got the privilege, account may need to be activated?