To add to what Tristan said, the reason for the harsh warning from FIRST is quite understandable when you realize that if they do not seek to actively enforce their trademark, then they lose it. I.e., if they allow one person to use it in an unauthorized way (which isn't fair use), then they are showing that they don't care to keep it and it will be open to everyone.
Also, you must remember a very important concept called "Fair use." Granted, the RIAA or MPAA won't be talking about this (they'd prefer it didn't exist) ... but try to think of what life would be like without it. I'll refrain from Orwellian tales, for now, -- but, as said, the first amendment is in no way lame, and remember that a major reason we allow companies to have trademarks is to protect consumers. For a further reference, see
Wikipedia:Trademark.
Quote:
|
Free speech does not apply to changing a logo to degrade someone or an organization.
|
Oh, and degradation is actually a very difficult thing to prove in the US, -- especially when applied to famous people or organizations (as opposed to the average joe). If FIRST would try to press the issue, it would be on pure trademark law. Again, as said, parody is a very typical defense in these cases. Lame or not, us Americans like our free speech it seems
