Caps Sued Over Weagle
Wednesday · Jun 30 · 2010 | 11:16 AM PDT
Designer claims infringementA few weeks ago a lawsuit was filed against the Washington Capitals for copyright infringement. Apparently, a fan from Vienna claims the team's new secondary logo, introduced in 2007, was his idea.
Here's an excerpt from an article in the Washington Business Journal from June 18:
Chris Joannou claims he started tinkering with the Caps’ old logo in his spare time in 1993. He sent the team an unsolicited drawing of an eagle and the Capitol dome embedded in a hockey stick. Very Pittsburgh Penguin-y, but the late Abe Pollin, the Caps owner at the time, allegedly acknowledged the design in a July 1993 letter.
“Very creative, very bold, and I like it,” Pollin supposedly wrote. “We haven’t thought of changing the Capitals’ logo or name; but, if and when we do, your logo will certainly be given consideration.”
A couple of years later, Joannou alleges, he showed Caps officials two versions of another proposed logo, this time with an eagle astride the Capitol building, its wings outstretched in a “W” shape.
The law firm Stueve Siegel Hanson are representing Joannou and included another version of the Weagle logo in their complaint. What do you guys think of them?
Lawsuit logo comparison
It's worth noting there is a reason most pro sports teams don't accept unsolicited artwork. Crap like this. I'm not discounting Joannou's claims. Maybe he created this in the 90s, maybe he didn't. Maybe it's similar, maybe it's not. That's for a judge to decide. All I know is that if you give someone artwork without any prior agreements, you're just setting yourself up for problems.
If you find yourself wanting to submit artwork to a team, I highly recommend first reading this post about unsolicited artwork over at PuckDrawn. Johnny's got a lot of great information there for logo designers, including an Idea Submission Form.
Meantime, I'll try to keep an eye on this story and see where it goes. The Weagle is possibly one of the most popular secondary logos in the NHL. It would be a shame to see it disappear.
Reader Comments (22)
If you send something unsolicited, without a copyright water mark, sorry to say that it is now in the realm of public use. It's different if you posted it on your blog and said "look at this logo I did" but when you EMAIL IT to the corporation without a copyright, you're screwed.
So why is he suing the Caps now, instead of 3 years ago when the Weagle was introduced?
It WOULD Be Sad To See It Gone. It's A Good Logo.
If it's true that Reebok created the Weagle logo known and loved these past three years, they may have never known about the fan submission, which allegedly took place 14 years earlier. Moreover, there's been plenty of organizational change within the Caps. For one, if Abe Pollin did indeed see this submission and respond to the person that submitted it, it doesn't mean he kept it around long enough for anyone under the current ownership to see it - and before that sale ever took place, we had the blue-black-copper redesign.
It also doesn't help that Pollin is no longer with us, and is thus unable to support or refute these claims.
this guy is just trying to start trouble.
The sketches of the Eagle on the capitol building were done as concepts for the then-yet-to-be-named Washington Nationals.
This case is going to get turned down faster than a WOW nerd at a speed dating session.
And The Weagle Appears Much Different.
Bye-Bye Case.
1) I think this guy is pulling everyone's leg. if this is true, he would have spoke up a when they unveiled it.
2) I think all three of them suck.
3) This coming from a Penguin fan, I'm with the Capitals in this one.
just give the guy some tickets and an autographed o v jersey and i' m sure he'll go away. he clearly did influence this logo in some way but if it isn't his copyright, what does he expect? i think he just wants a high five and some kudos.
Well, it's absolutely derived from that design. Like others have said, why did he wait so long? Somethings fishy about this.
Well, either way, the "Defendant's Infringing Logo" :D looks way better.
I feel kind of bad for that Joannou guy if he's really telling the truth. Still, if he is a real fan, this is a real dick move on his behalf aswell.
I'm totally on the Caps' side on this one.
How can you say it's definitely this guy's logo?
Look at DC United of the MLS logo. Looks awfully similar doesn't it? And is even somewhat similar design idea to the Philadelphia Wings lacrosse team? Who's going to stand up for them???
This kid is ridiculous. Give him some petty pocket change so he stops whining
For the record, sending something unsolicited definitely does NOT make something public domain. Everything you create has an inherent copyright whether you register it or not. Simply sending it to someone does not and cannot take this away.
That said, to recover he'd have to prove the caps saw his logo before they developed theirs. That's the hard hill to climb. Yea he says the caps sent him a letter, good luck proving it, and proving it was about THIS logo.
I can sympathize with both sides on this. The similarities are striking, so the guy has grounds to be suspicious and even feel slighted, but I think the actual Weagle was probably conceived independently, and the similarity is a coincidence
I agree with Banned in DC, if this was his idea, why say something now, instead of three years ago when the logo was unveiled. In addition, where's the "original" submitted logo, the one that Poile supposedly acknowledged. I don't see it anywhere, oh no wait, that's because based on the description, it has no resemblance to the "Weagle" logo.
Now, as far as the unsolicited submission goes, simply put the problem comes from how did (s)he show the Capital officials the logo designs. If it was by mail, (s)he's boned, as there's simply no way for him to prove that they actually received the logos in question, and that they could have been come up with independently.
I once sent an idea for storyline for a Collectible Card Game, unsolicited, to the company that produces the game. About four years later, a character appears with the same name as a goblin tribe/mountain range that I had done. Did I, and will I, seek a lawyer?
No.
I'm not petty. If my idea derived something into the game, or even if it didn't, I'm happy that the name exists in the game, and don't want any recognition, or any financial compensation. In addition, I can't even prove that they received my submission in the first place.
What Joannu is doing is unbelievable pathetic, imo, and another in a long line of examples of how pathetic the litigious nature of the American legal system really is.
What took three years? Have you ever seen the legal system work? Everything about it is slow and painful. It may have taken the guy this long to find a lawyer and figure out how they are going to proceed with this.
Personally, I think it's ridiculous. If you blindly sent it, you're an idiot if you now expect compensation. If you are the Caps brass and you saw it and used it without throwing the guy a bone, then you're morally screwed as well.
Best case scenario, the logo disappears and Logo Boy gets squat. Great logo but too bad.
I highly doubt that the plaintiff's logo is even original. As a graphic designer, I look at the plaintiff's logos and can tell that something ain't right.
Look at Plaintiff Logo #1, the style of the capital building is completely different than the style of the W and the eagle's head. The eagle's head looks pretty silly, IMO, and the W is bland, with a boring bold outline of consistent width. But the capital building uses sleek lines, has style and looks professionally done.
It looks like he made Logo #2 first. Then he found a nice capital building in a logo for a bank or insurance company, and thought it would look good in his Weagle, stuck it in there and made a couple more changes to the W. But given how lame the rest of his work looks, he didn't design that capital building.
There are similarities between the initial designs and the one being used today, namely the fact that the building along with the eagle form the "W" which is the main point I would assume. Obviously the newer logo that is being used is cleaner and better, but there may be a case here.
This could get interesting, if the plaintiff does win he would either be entitled to a cash settlement or royalties every time the logo is used, I don't think the Capitals will like either, it could be gone.
You have to be VERY careful, I have had work stolen, including a company logo that I should have been heavily compensated for. I presented it as an idea, but they started using it without permission.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the logo and would hate to see it go.
i took business law and im pretty sure the guy wont win because he sent in the artwork with no request by the team, like you said. if i gave an idea to burger king randomly and they used it, i would get no credit because they didnt ask me and it says so in most company's policies.
First off I must say I love this Blog and site. Its wonderful to see people have the same passion for hockey logos as I do.
I am a Graphic Designer and from what I can see there really is no case here. They Capitals have changed it enough that the logo itself is technically not the same. Therefore he will loose. Just because they used his unsolicited idea he will have to prove that they knowingly new this was his idea and that is harder then you think. However with him causing this stir now the Caps will probably settle out of court just so they don't have to worry about it.
Corporations use the "no unsolicited work" policy BECAUSE of crap like this. Joe Public isn't going to know whether a similar design is already in the works or not, so if they submit theirs and get a friendly brush-off form letter in response, they make the assumption that it's THEIR idea under consideration, when in reality, Corporate Partner ABC might have already worked something out in exclusion of Joe.
As Jared noted, the burden of proof is on the complainant. "Righteous indignation" rarely holds up in court. Also, the length of time is irrelevant. Legal processes are drawn out for many, Many, MANY reasons. Just because We the People think things should be done in one way or another doesn't make it the RIGHT way (again, "righteous indignation" is not a defense -- didn't work with your parents when you were 7 and it won't work with a judge, magistrate, or trustee today).
Another issue...Joannou sent the logo to the Capitals in 1993, when it was owned by Abe Pollin. Now he's suing Ted Leonsis--bought the team in 1998--for copyright infringement on a logo he sent to a different owner more than 15 years ago? How can he even prove that Leonsis's design team, who worked with Reebok on the new logo, even saw Joannou's logo?
Sorry to bump this so far, but I did some research into the matter and found out that the Capitals reached a settlement agreement with Joannou...
http://www.stuevesiegel.com/CM/Results/WashCapitals.asp
Seems to me like the Capitals were possibly thieves...
"This matter has been settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties. "
Oh well, these things happen, glad to see they worked it out.
Hope the caps win the cup this year!