Intellectual property rights

I understand there opinion and agree but if they win this where will it end?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/n​ews/magazine-22617001

it will end right where it should. This is a very specific example of why you need releases of property or people when you use their images for selling things. The fact that images that started out as essentially journalistic (don't need a release) ended up being used commercially (need a release) _is_ actually a rip off.

Just because you consider someone ignorant to their rights, doesn't give you a free pass to abuse them.

Flores wrote in post #15975743
it will end right where it should. This is a very specific example of why you need releases of property or people when you use their images for selling things. The fact that images that started out as essentially journalistic (don't need a release) ended up being used commercially (need a release) _is_ actually a rip off.

Just because you consider someone ignorant to their rights, doesn't give you a free pass to abuse them.

Yes but they are talking about the word Masai. If this holds up there would be no English tea, American muscle car, Scottish short bread etc etc
As for photographs I do not like mine taken without permission, not a cultural thing, so all the more reason not to do it for commercial gain, journalistic or just a tourist without permission when it is cultural thing.

The Voluntary Code route is about the best they're going to be able to do. By all the laws surrounding other types of intellectual property, ownership of "Maasai" as a brand or trademark is a cow that's already left the barn.

And I doubt "Maasai" is the most widely used cultural name. I suspect "American" is used by far more than 80 companies, and that might be true of "British" and "English" as well.

One of the big differences between "American muscle car" and "Maasai running shoes" is that the car is described as such because they are American made cars that follow a general trend from various American automakers, and isn't actually a brand. The Maasai however, aren't very well known for their running shoes, and as such using their name in reference to the shoes in marketing is rather exploitive.

Luckless wrote in post #15976009
One of the big differences between "American muscle car" and "Maasai running shoes" is that the car is described as such because they are American made cars that follow a general trend from various American automakers, and isn't actually a brand. The Maasai however, aren't very well known for their running shoes, and as such using their name in reference to the shoes in marketing is rather exploitive.

There are hundreds of companies specifically branded "American," such as, right off the top of my head:

"American Family Insurance Company"
"American Broadcasting Company"
"American Home Mortgage"
"American Greetings"
"American Apparel"
"American Express"

If you get down to state and local companies, you can open a phone book and find hundreds across the nation.

Yes, and the key part there is that those companies Are American or were founded as such. Bit of a difference.

Luckless wrote in post #15976430
Yes, and the key part there is that those companies Are American or were founded as such. Bit of a difference.

Based on national and international trademark laws, there is no difference whatsoever. Nothing in law keeps a British company from calling itself "American...."

Luckless wrote in post #15976430
Yes, and the key part there is that those companies Are American or were founded as such. Bit of a difference.

How about in the UK, then...

http://www.start.biz …rch_name.php?na​me=America

http://www.start.biz …ch_name.php?nam​e=American

One key to the best approach for the Maasai is, "what are they trying to achieve"?

If all they want to do is to stop people / businesses / organizations from using their tribal name for commercial purposes, then the "name and shame" approach works very well. A good example is the campaign by Native American tribes in the USA to achieve that. If is not perfect (e.g. Washington Redskins), but it is largely effective.

If they want to get income from licensing their name, well, that will be a tough go. They will not have the moral high ground, since they are not arguing against exploiting the name; they are only arguing about who gets the money from exploiting the name.

RTPVid wrote in post #15976742
One key to the best approach for the Maasai is, "what are they trying to achieve"?

If all they want to do is to stop people / businesses / organizations from using their tribal name for commercial purposes, then the "name and shame" approach works very well. A good example is the campaign by Native American tribes in the USA to achieve that. If is not perfect (e.g. Washington Redskins), but it is largely effective.

If they want to get income from licensing their name, well, that will be a tough go. They will not have the moral high ground, since they are not arguing against exploiting the name; they are only arguing about who gets the money from exploiting the name.

I am not sure the name and shame works well, until today I did not know anything about the American Native tribes campaign.

cdiver2 wrote in post #15976989
I am not sure the name and shame works well, until today I did not know anything about the American Native tribes campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g …erican_mascot_c​ontroversy

Can't really see how they hope to achieve anything. Problem with trademark law (or the benefit depending on your POV) is that it is basically first come first serve. Doesn't matter if my name is Mark and my brother is called Spencer, we won't be able to call our clothes shop Marks and Spencers because someone else got there first.

The Maasai weren't using the term to trade so they don't have any existing Trademark rights to enforce while others have been using the term and as such would have a better claim under Trademark law.