Chiefs Logo (License)
 

I have an idea for a t-shirt design that I think would be very popular with the Chiefs family and other teams. From what I've read, being a peon compared to the commercial companies out there who license NFL logos, I'd likely never get consideration.

Searched CP and didn't see this come up as a thread...wondering if anyone here has been through anything like this.

Second part to this question...can you legally just use the name "KC CHIEFS" in a different font and be OK with copyright law?

Thanks in advance for the advice.

Whoops; wrong forum...can a mod move me over to the lounge? Sorry.

Can we get this non-political BS moved out of DC? I'm tired of this toxic crap infecting our forum.

What if we just turned the thread into a discussion of politically incorrect professional sports teams names, mascots, and logos?

:D

That would be funny; see how far we could stretch the envelope.

Ok, I'll start.

The Chiefs should change their name to "the Native American Tribal Leaders."

The NATLs. Some people might confuse the abbreviation for Major League Baseball's Washington Nationals, but it seems like a small price to pay for political correctness.

:D

You're talking about a Trademark protection, when it comes to an NFL team's name, though it seems you're referring to their brand name than a mere business or trade name. Copyright protects artistic and literary works. Both offer intellectual property protection.

To answer your question, I found this. Hope it helps.

https://www.upcounsel.com/what-does-a-trademark-protect

You might want to try one of those free legal sites and ask the question. Using KC Chiefs when writing something about them isn't quite the same thing as you're talking about, but which is okay.

Um...no.

You selling Chiefs gear to us at the next Phoenix meetup? ;)

If you're making money off the Chiefs' name...you can expect to hear from them.

That may be the criteria they use to crack down on such things, but it is not a legal criteria. Someone can go after a hobbyist or a fan if they wanted to enforce their rights to that degree. Of course, they may not but that's a voluntary choice—not a legal requirement. Same with copyright.

Also, if they do, usually companies have a letter from an attorney asking you cease what you're doing before suing.

Well, fan4ever, you may just be in luck, even if you want to use the team logo.

I was just googling and this came up.
Looks pretty cool.

The NFL And Teespring Team Up To Sell Fan-Created Custom T-Shirts For First Time

With football season fast approaching, America's most popular sports league has announced kickoff on a partnership to allow fans to show their support through custom team t-shirts.

The NFL and startup Teespring announced a partnership on Wednesday to allow licensed apparel to be sold on the startup’s website, connecting America’s most popular sports league to a marketplace that sells millions of user-created products. The deal could pave the way to much more personalized apparel with NFL licensed images, and a path to enormous scale for the high-growth startup.

Just three years old, Teespring has already become a major marketplace for t-shirts and other user-designed apparel. More than 4 million Americans bought something from Teespring last year, and the company’s minted dozens of millionaires from popular YouTube video bloggers to otherwise unknown individuals whose shirt ideas take off....[more]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkon.../#2964a7d435a5

No they can't. The only way you would ever run into legal trouble is trying to sell products using their logo/trademark. For that you have to pay a licensing fee.

NOPE! Completely false. I happen to be in a field where I have to know about such things; have taught it to artists and designers and have been hired by art schools and colleges with such programs to give talks about so artists/desigbers stay out of trouble. Making money off of it is NOT a criteria—at ALL. There's even a minimum amount of a fine if one wanted to enforce.

The idea behind a trademark is to prevent confusion between brands.

There was a day care center that had some Disney characters painted on the windows for the kids and Disney made them take it down. So Hanna-Barbera sent over their cartoonists to paint their own characters on the windows. That's a voluntary move that Disney decided they did not want to do but to enforce their rights.

Quit talking out of your arse-hole or back up your urban legend.

A daycare center is a place of business, and they can't use Disney's trademark to help sell their business. If the daycare was not a business, that never would have happened.

I knew you were going to say that, which is why I used it. You're making another one of your famous strawman arguments. My point, if'n you read it correctly, was that Disney had the option to enforce and did; whereas Hanna-Barbera went beyond the ordinary and offered their services to allow use of their's. In effect offering permission even though the day care center never asked to use their images.

It doesn't matter if you're not a business, an individual, a church or a non-profit. Just google it and you'll find the constant line of — no one can use it without your permission because it's a form of property. You can't come on my property and use my lawnmower, without asking either just because you're not going to make money cutting your own lawn.

This is usually the very first myth I have to clear up when I give talks on it. No, I am not a lawyer, but as a creative professional and sometimes adjunct instructor it is my job to give students a basic understanding of copyright.

What you may have it confused with, as Austin once used, is the Fair Use exemptions but not making money is one of those exemptions, which are actually very narrow. Such as educational use where snippets of copyright material can be used and satire. There's one or two more but it's narrow. And of course something has to be considered copyrightable and not in the public domain. Neither of these things apply. There is a minimum amount one can sue for even if the guilty party didn't make money from using it. You own something, someone needs to ask permission to use. PERIOD.