Woman Sues Yankees Over Their 75 Year Old Logo
from the ownership-society dept
Another day, another ridiculous lawsuit in a society that teaches people you can "own" anything. This time it's a woman, Tanit Buday, who claims that the NY Yankees owe her money because of the team's famous tophat logo, which she says was designed by her uncle in 1936, for which he was never paid:
As for why it took so long, the woman is not particularly clear. She says that part of it was due to "trust in [the] Yankees owners." Um. Okay. While she claims that her uncle didn't realize the team had used his design until 11 years after he designed it... she also notes that he helped the team revise the logo in 1952... so it doesn't sound like he was all that upset about not getting paid the first time around.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
Answer: Because lawyers have to create the law to effectively cut off a big source of income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
Ask your representative who ACTUALLY did the writing of the Health Care Reform Bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
Situation 1: Corp sues individual and wins. The individual pays double what they pay now. Since awards are almost always based on ability to pay in this situation, nothing much would change, since this amount would be extracted out of their "ability to pay".
Situation 2: Corp sues individual and loses. The individual's legal fees are paid in full by the corporation. People cannot be bankrupted by corporations by "dragging it out", because if they win, they get their legal fees paid. And this happens at each stage, so repeated appeals can't be used for financial punishment to the individual.
Situation 3: Individual sues corporation and wins. Their legal fees are paid by the corporation, in addition to whatever awards are due. This causes corporations to want to settle quickly if they know they are wrong, instead of the current strategy of dragging it out until the individual runs out of money.
Situation 4: Individual sues corporation and loses. Frivolous lawsuits are curtailed, because double legal bills are harder to come up with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay
"situation 4" should say "frivolous lawsuits are curtailed, along with any suit that is not a slam dunk"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dunno
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dunno
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dunno
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, Scythe, I'll ask you: if you were a DOE defendant in an open-wifi downloading case, where would you turn for help or advice? EFF? ACLU? A friend of yours who's (gasp) a lawyer? Let me spin a quick yarn for you: a woman leaves her wifi open, and someone siphons it and uses it to illegally download a movie; then the owner of the wifi gets sued as a DOE by Big Content and offered a $3,000 "settlement." I'm a lawyer, and I help her avoid this brand of extortion, and I do it for free. Am I part of the problem?
Please think a little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well, the flipside is worth thinking about too.
copyright law protects any company from infringement for 99 years - thanks to eisner at disney. which is, well, longer than her claim against the yankees. copyright law also says that if the artwork wasn't paid for then it remains the property of her uncle. so the statute protecting her still has some legs. assuming she can claim the inheritance.
now flip this puppy over and see what happens.
she goes to the cheapest cut and sew operation in china and starts selling original-real-deal-merchadise-just-like-old-man-drew-it-in-'36 which she buys for 3 bucks a pop, to yankees fans for 100 bucks a pop. now it is the yankees lawyers turn to say hey, that's our IP! pay up sweety or stop. and she sez. good luck with that. talk to my lawyer.
nice work if you can get it. and you can get it if you try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
xnxx.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]