You may or may not know I’m one of the guys behind Twiddict, a simple service which allows you to keep tweeting even when Twitter is down, by saving your 140-characters or less messages and queuing them up for publication as soon as the microblogging service (sorry, global communication utility) gets back on its feet.
We received an e-mail today from the Office of the General Counsel of the American Red Cross, claiming that we need to stop using a red cross in our logo, because it violates their copyright. I’ll spare you the details, but basically, the only third parties allowed to use the red cross emblem in their logo are the ones that have been doing so since before the year 1905. For some reason, this list of third parties does not include any Twitter mashups.
The letter also says all Twiddict founders (myself, @tijs, @tomklaasen and @atog) are subject to be fined, imprisoned or both. Fortunately, the imprisonment would be less than 6 months in any case (phew).
All kidding aside, the letter provoked the following thoughts in my head, in this exact order:
- “Huh?”
- “Ah well, they kinda have a point, so we’ll change the colour of the logo or something to get them off our backs.”
- “Wait a minute. Does (and should) the American Red Cross actively chase Web 2.0 mashups when they use a generic thing like a red cross emblem in their logos?”
They even included a corny brochure which should make us realize why we’re bad, bad boys for stealing their logo. You can check out the PDF from Scribd, if you’re interested.
The whole thing reminds me of T-Mobile ordering Engadget Mobile to stop using the color magenta, or Red Hat harassing the Data Portability Group for using a slightly resembling logo as Fedora.
I would love your take on this.
Should we comply and change the color to another shade of red (or remove the cross emblem altogether)? Or should we tell them this is kinda ridiculous and tell them to leave us alone?
Share your opinion in the comments, since we honestly don’t know what to do with it.
Update: we have replied to their e-mail with a couple of questions. For the record, we’re not trying to be bullies, we want to understand above all.
On a sidenote: last night, I was contacted by the ‘social media lady of the Red Cross’ via Twitter nonetheless, and she pointed me to a section of the Red Cross website where they dive into their social media strategy. As a consultant in this space, I was deeply impressed by how savvy their strategy on this really is.
Update 2: while we wait for a word back from the Red Cross, Tijs has already begun designing alternative logos and he kindly asks for your opinion.
Had some licensing issues myself today too. I was just making a fan-application and using their logo combined with mine to make my ‘product’ clear but they asked me to take it down.
Anyway, in the PDF, they mention clearly, a couple of times even, that these restrictions apply to anyone “within the United States” and I still think you’re living in Belgium.
The last page of the brochure is kinda funny :-).
Pretty weird that the Red Cross even saw the logo.. maybe they want to start saving people from online battlefields or something.
According to the brochure, another shade of red won’t do the trick. It has to be another colour altogether (p5)
Well, I guess I would just change the colour. The red cross does a good job, and you don’t want them to waste their own time chasing after you guys.
So don’t do it to save yourself some punishment, do it because you’re convinced that they can spend their time (far) more useful.
I think you only should change the logo in the URL and the title that is exactly the same of the Red Cross, but not the main logo because it’s part of a word.
I’m pretty sure there are some software packages that use a red cross in one of their icons to represent “contact support”. Can’t remember which ones unfortunately. Maybe someone else knows…
Consulting a lawyer would seem to be the first step if you are not going to meekly accept their claims.
I think the Red Cross has a point. Perhaps not so much legally, but to just get their clear message accross. Their goal is to let the world know that the Red Cross stands for medical help, trust, etc. Things only get blurry if the Red Cross symbol is also used in other ways. Maybe it is a little too strict to get their hands on Web services, but it is all for a good cause. A clear image of their values in the peoples mind, the world over.
Tell them to sling their hook. They surely can’t have a case(?*)
*? in case they do ;)
The red cross is a protected symbol under the Geneva convention. It’s to be used on medical equipment and personell, so that people do not, ever, shoot at them.
The International Red Cross is really touchy about other people using a red cross anywhere, since it fears that people using it in e.g. a video game (Where most people don’t exactly have any qualms about shooting the dude with the medic armband etc.) will dilute the meaning of the symbol. Thus, they use whatever legal means they have – like copyright – to stop people from using it. (Maybe, in your case, just so that other people don’t even get the idea to, or maybe just for some kind of legal reason about having to defend a trademark or copyright or risk losing it, or something like that)
tl;dr: I have no idea if they have a case, but frankly, maybe you should just use an, say, dark purple cross instead. That’d look way cooler, anyways.
Take this as a golden opportunity to meet with the Red Cross about how a simple technology like Twitter could have incredible social impact if placed in the hands of certain people in need or danger all over the world. You might get so swept up in good talking and plotting of action that you forget the logo conversation, or at the very least, the answer presents itself. Give it a go!
“This is 9/11. We’re currently over capacity.”
Tell Red Cross to look at this
http://shop.cafepress.com/red-cross?source=searchBox
The listing says 35,900 for red cross at cafepress.com – so let’s say there’s at least 90% of those designers are using red crosses without permission, are they going to arrest them all as well? Tell them to stuff it.
Change your cross to blue and be done with it. Do you really want to spend money on legal just to make a point? Trust me, they can afford it more than you.
As my wife reminds me often: Pick your battles.
Jeff
shouldn’t the red cross be focusing their attention on more important and life-saving tasks?
this action is unnecessary and a waste of donor’s money.
It is a trademark infringement and I would change the color indeed. Somebody else has already mentioned it, but I also think that purple would be a good choice :-)
http://www.solv.nl/index.php?blz=3&nid=3438
Even though twiddict is first aid for most of us twitteradicts, I agree with the explaination halcy gave. Using the red cross for other things than medical uses would make it lose meaning. Too bad cause I like your emblem…
Thanks everyone. I’ve updated the post twice already.
1) we replied to the Red Cross with a couple of questions to get some more insight
2) while we’re waiting for their response, Tijs has already mocked up 2 alternative logos and he’d like you to share your opinion on them: http://tijsvrolix.be/2008/07/02/which-twiddict-logo-would-you-prefer
Robin – Halcy is right, the red cross is protected by the Geneva convention: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4497840.stm
Nice alternatives though.
And to add to this – recent events show us not all is fair in war. Not even the use of the red cross: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2008/07/red_cross_logo.html
Honestly my first impulse was to think this was absurd! But by reading the Geneva convention post, it got me thinking… Maybe it is good to have some boundaries to it. I mean, it’s not as if anyone would shoot you for changing colors, right? ;-)