Skip to main content

Copyrighted colour?

I was waiting in the queue at my local delivery office today (picking up a package of printer ink cartiridges - they run out fast) and reading all the posters on the wall. I find myself unable not to read something if its in front of me and I have nothing else to do.
At the bottom of one poster I found this in small print:

"Royal Mail, the Cruciform and the colour red are registered trademarks of Royal Mail plc."

The colour red? The colour red is owned by Royal Mail? How does that work? Do I have to ask permission before I use a crayon? I'm scared and confused.

Comments

ogre said…
Just use the color red, and you'll be fine. After all, it's the colour red that's copyrighted.
7:17 pm
Stephen Lingwood said…
Be gone with you and your simplified American spellings. We'll have none of that nonsense here.
7:33 pm
Robin Edgar said…
That's funny. I always thought that "the Cruciform and the colour red" were registered trademarks of Switzerland, to say nothing of the famous Swiss Army Knife.
8:16 pm
Rich said…
A registered trademark isn't the same thing as copyright, or intellectual property of any kind.

Registering a trademark allows you to say "people recognize my brand by this visual quality" in any future court case about people stealing your brand identity.

In other words, if a rival postal service launched and painted its vans and post boxes plain red, the Royal Mail could take them to court and have sufficient evidence that this service was trying to piggyback on the identity of Royal Mail to gain customers.

If you're not a postal service, the trademark on the colour red isn't stopping you from doing anything.
11:55 am
Stephen Lingwood said…
Wow, I didn't expect anyone to have an actual proper answer to my ponderings.
1:33 pm
ellenhawley said…
I'm late to the discussion, but hey, what are a few years between friends who've never heard of each other before? Yes, you do need to ask permission before using the red crayon. And the Soviet flag? That's been retroactively sued for copyright violation.
11:41 am
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th...
3 comments
Read more

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...
3 comments
Read more

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...
14 comments
Read more