When is enough, enough.

[The Latin Scot]

On 7/3/2021 at 6:24 PM, Mrjeff said:

You're rigt and I apologize for causing such a "ruckus." The whole point of the analogies was to say that I think with the whole thing including loss of membership, increase in fees, dedicated Scouters with a whole lot of time, talents, and treasure invested are just walking away.  Such a shame.  You would think that "they" would have bigger and more pressing issues other then weather we can put feathers on a turtle, or not.

So, what do you propose to do about it? And what would you recommend regular, committed Scouters, such as those here, do about it, within the parameters of feasible and attainable action? You have very strong opinions, and you are welcome to them, but it would be helpful if you made it clear what you intend to do with those sentiments so that we have some idea of how you would like for us to respond. Otherwise, such dynamic comments could spark both controversy and discord, which would be unfortunate and counterproductive. I for one would love to hear more about what your intentions for starting a thread like this might be.

[elitts]

On 7/2/2021 at 10:46 AM, CynicalScouter said:

True, but the minute you use a BSA trademark or copyrighted item, BSA gets to decide yes/no.

I just want to clarify for those reading, it's the production of patches by a commercial business that is the trademark/copyright violation, NOT the wearing of the patch by a scout.  If some parent makes a dozen patrol patches  for the use of their own troop and isn't selling them, that will generally not run afoul copyright protections.

[malraux]

5 minutes ago, elitts said:

 If some parent makes a dozen patrol patches  for the use of their own troop and isn't selling them, that will generally not run afoul copyright protections.

There’s a reason the bsa sells blank patrol patches. 

[elitts]

On 7/2/2021 at 11:17 AM, Mrjeff said:

 but the people in the High Tower still have time to review patches and disapprove designs because it contains a turtle with feathers.  The BSA chooses to control little things like that, but gives in to any whim or idea expressed by anyone with a voice. 

If I'm dragging some conversations from business school up accurately, one reason why companies tend to be over-zealous about protecting their trademarks/copyrights even in fairly minor cases is that their ability to use the courts to redress violations depends on their having actively protected their interests in the past.  In other words, if they were to simply ignore small-time patch producers now, they could very well have problems getting a judge to protect their interests against a similar sized producer in the future.

I don't remember if that issue is one written into the law or simply the unofficial way the courts work though.

[elitts]

1 minute ago, malraux said:

There’s a reason the bsa sells blank patrol patches. 

We had a patrol that wanted to use that patch for their intended "Sniper Patrol".  The argument being that the blank patch was appropriate since "you never see a good sniper".  But in the end the name got nixed by the SM on the grounds of "let's not name a patrol after a job dedicated to killing people".

[DuctTape]

3 hours ago, elitts said:

I just want to clarify for those reading, it's the production of patches by a commercial business that is the trademark/copyright violation, NOT the wearing of the patch by a scout.  If some parent makes a dozen patrol patches  for the use of their own troop and isn't selling them, that will generally not run afoul copyright protections.

Copyright violations do NOT require selling or a commercial interest. One does not need to have a monetary exchange to be in violation of copyright. 

[Sentinel947]

4 hours ago, elitts said:

If I'm dragging some conversations from business school up accurately, one reason why companies tend to be over-zealous about protecting their trademarks/copyrights even in fairly minor cases is that their ability to use the courts to redress violations depends on their having actively protected their interests in the past.  In other words, if they were to simply ignore small-time patch producers now, they could very well have problems getting a judge to protect their interests against a similar sized producer in the future.

I don't remember if that issue is one written into the law or simply the unofficial way the courts work though.

Not sure, but it's also basic logic. "You didn't grant or deny permission to these 10 other people, but now you deny me from doing it?" 

[Mrjeff]

Oh KKKKKKKKKKKKK, let's try this again.  First, I know all about patches and how to get them maid.  To explain the point of this post I'll try again.  The BSA is loosing members, employees, volunteers,  and entire councils are disappearing.  The required fees have skyrocketed and have made it impossible for some to participate.  They have initiated the "Camp Manager" requirement for council sponsored events; YPT is required but often times it's impossible to complete because of computer problems; they sunk a lot of money in the Summitt Reserve to include huge and beautiful training facilities which are largely empty and unused.  It would seem to me that our national level employees and volunteers could spend their time trying to make Scouting more affordable and available including high adventure and summer camp programs.  I don't give a rip about patches, patch trading, patch values, or patch placement.  If the kids come up with a design that isn't "naughty" then let the kids have their patch.  Instead of wasting resources saying what is a good or bad scrap of fabric.  This appears to be another method to #$$$ off people and cause them to walk away.  If you maintain that attitude and directio all that will be left are the rule makers and those who worry about those rules.  Again, patches are a way to award kids for stuff, and beyond that I fail to see their value.  It really doesn't matter what anyone else suggests for a solution,  "they're " going to do whatever "they" want to do.  Is that clear enough?

[TAHAWK]

The aplicable law is trademlaw.  Copyright law is not applicable. 

 

The objjective of trademark law is to protect consemers by prevent confusion about who made the product bearing the trademark; in this case BSAor it's licensee or someone who is neither.  As noted above, vigorous defense of the trademark agaist all illegal users is essential to maintaining the exclusivity of the mark.  Hence the threatening letter to the volunteer fire drepartment painitng fire hydrants to look like Snoopy. TM. (Actual situation.)   BSA has failed to defend "Boy Scout" as a modifier of knives and other camping gear  for decades. 

 

One of tens of thousands of examples:  "VINTAGE CAMPCO USA VINTAGE boy scout camper KNIFE"

https://www.ebay.com/itm/255036211025?hash=item3b6157bf51:g:N4YAAOSw4ulgwYVl

The knife is, manifestly, not a "boy scout" knife.  it was not sold by, or licensed by, B.S.A.

 

The BSA symbol is another matter, and BSA is well-advised to closely control use in order to protect exclusivity of use of that symbol by BSA or licensees.  

[Mrjeff]

I give patches away every chance I get and I enjoy the responses of the kids.  In the very rare occasion that for some reason (ie: getting a lodge flap from every lodge in our section before reorganization) I committed the capital offense of trading with kids.  I assure yall that everyone I swapped with got "good patches" and were satisfied.  In patch trading lingo, they got good patches for patches that weren't so good.   Like I said, to me, patches have no value other then to make the kids happy.

[elitts]

14 hours ago, DuctTape said:

Copyright violations do NOT require selling or a commercial interest. One does not need to have a monetary exchange to be in violation of copyright. 

No, a copyright violation doesn't require selling or a monetary exchange.  Someone duplicating a copyrighted work and distributing it for free would be a violation as well.  However, the nature of the use and the impact of the use on the market or the value of the copyrighted work DOES factor into the evaluation of the "Fair Use" defense to copyright infringement accusations.

But in the context of my comment, all I was really trying to convey is that if someone is considering making patrol patches or a troop patch that isn't going to be distributed, they don't really need to be concerned about running afoul Copyright or Trademark infringement laws. (while a patch company would)

[qwazse]

12 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

... I assure yall that everyone I swapped with got "good patches" and were satisfied. ...  Like I said, to me, patches have no value other then to make the kids happy.

@Mrjeff, you do see the contradiction here, don't you?

If they had "no value" you would not assign the ones you gave away a value of "good." If it stopped there, no problem.

Sadly, adults monetize happiness. There are those who, perceiving that a patch is "good", will mass-produce it without license so as to execute trades.

On the other hand, zealous trademark protection generates ill-will. You voiced it. Others have probably voted with their feet. The branding quagmire between GS/USA and BSA has ultimately kept one organization from inviting the other to its jamborees, and the world looks on shaking its head.

[Mrjeff]

You just don't get it,  carry on my patchy friends and beware of the Patch Police!

[MattR]

5 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

You just don't get it,  carry on my patchy friends and beware of the Patch Police!

Sometimes, when trying to explain something with an example, people forget what you were originally talking about.

Anyway, good luck.

[SiouxRanger]

On 7/2/2021 at 9:31 AM, BAJ said:

This was my first thought in response to this thread as well.  I made a patch recently for a troop activity.  I went to a licensed provider, they looked at my design and told me what changes I’d likely need to make to get it approved in the BSA review process.  I grumbled a little, but in the end it got approved and so it has the Scout logo on it.  They also told me if I didn’t want to make changes, I could take the Scout logo off and it could be made that way without review, my choice. 

Having been on this board for a bit now, I would be willing to make a substantial bet that if a patch was made with BSA’s logo and name, and something viewed as explicitly political — whichever the end of the spectrum the political element came from — there would be critical discussion that was not appropriate for Scouting.  Unless everyone is cool with seeing patches that associate things they really don’t agree with and Scouting being worn on uniforms at Camporees and Jamborees, we should probably support patch review processes(even if that support involves some grumbling.)

Where would I find the BSA review process rules or BSA patch design requirements?  I've designed about half a dozen patches over the years, all through my council, and professional staff never made mention of rules, other than the flour-de-lis had to appear on an official patch.

Thanks.