71% Favor the Washington Redskins Keeping Their Nickname.

  • 83 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Master_Live (14184 posts) 17 days, 18 hours ago

Poll: 71% Favor the Washington Redskins Keeping Their Nickname. (36 votes)

Yes, the Team Should Keep the Redskins Nickname. 58%
No, the Team Should Change the Redskins Nickname. 42%

Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskins

From the article:

Nearly three-fourths of Americans favor letting the Washington Redskins keep their nickname, but the percentage who think it should be changed has tripled in the past two decades, according to a poll conducted by Langer Research for "Outside the Lines."

Nearly a quarter (23 percent) of Americans surveyed now think the name should be changed, up from 8 percent in 1992 and up 9 percentage points in the past year alone.

The poll of 1,019 Americans, conducted on landlines and cellphones between Aug. 20 and Aug. 24, found that 71 percent favor keeping the nickname -- but that's down from 89 percent when the question was first asked 22 years ago. It also found that 68 percent of people responding think the nickname is not disrespectful of Native Americans, compared to just 9 percent who say it is "a lot" disrespectful. (Nineteen percent say it shows "some" disrespect.)

The polling conducted for "Outside the Lines" showed no difference in attitude between men and women, or whites and non-whites.

Politically, however, 89 percent of Republicans and 88 percent of people who consider themselves conservative say the team should keep its name, compared to just 58 percent for Democrats and 53 percent for liberals, according to the poll. In terms of political leanings, 83 percent of Republicans see no disrespect in the Redskins name. That drops to 68 percent of independents and 57 percent of Democrats.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A nonscientific survey by ESPN's NFL Nation revealed that 58 percent (167) of 286 players questioned say the Redskins should not change their name, but 42 percent (119) said they should. Of 51 Redskins players polled in a separate survey, 26 said the team should keep the name, one said it should be changed, and 24 didn't want to answer.

NFL Nation polled 51 Redskins players in a separate survey, with 26 (51 percent) saying they should keep the nickname and one saying it should be changed. Twenty-four players said they didn't want to answer -- a handful saying it was up to owner Dan Snyder or team president Bruce Allen.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11452022/nfl-nation-confidential-majority-players-support-washington-redskins-nickname

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gotta say, Redskins doesn't feel like a slur in the way I feel apprehension for a word like nig***. Maybe the fact that while African Americans and Native Americans have suffered similar atrocities throughout history, the plight of AA have been more extensively documented and remained in the public sphere to this day while it might have inadvertently sidelined the grievances NA might still have. Perhaps I have been desensitized by years of watching the NFL and the Washington Redskins nickname being virtually incontrovertible.

The meaning or connotation of words can change through time.

I would say that I'm indifferent whether or not the team changes the name. But if there is evidence that a significant number of Native Americans find the term disrespectful and derogatory then I would support efforts to make the team change its name.

So what about you OT? Should the Washington Redskins change their name or is this just an example of the PC Police run amok?

#51 Edited by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

@korvus said:

@Aljosa23 said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Native_Americans_and_organizations_opposed

That's a lot of groups/organizations who oppose the name. I can dig around more but I'm at work right now.

Then this is why the name should be changed...not because random people think it's offensive to other people. No polls needed on this =)

Wrong,

Free Speech is Free speech and is protected under the 1st amendment , if these native americans feel that a name is offensive to them then they should get people to rally behind them and speak with their wallet, not get the government to censor the club from using a name that never had any inclination of derogatory meaning about native americans.

But i suggest you go watch Chef goes nanners on comedy central and learn just how ludicrous all this PC´ness has become.

#52 Edited by Korvus (3211 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@korvus said:

Then this is why the name should be changed...not because random people think it's offensive to other people. No polls needed on this =)

Wrong,

Free Speech is Free speech and is protected under the 1st amendment , if these native americans feel that a name is offensive to them then they should get people to rally behind them and speak with their wallet, not get the government to censor the club from using a name that never had any inclination of derogatory meaning about native americans.

But i suggest you go watch Chef goes nanners on comedy central and learn just how ludicrous all this PC´ness has become.

Sorry, I mistyped. What I meant to say was "Then this is why the name change should be considered...not because random people think it's offensive to other people"...i'm not advocating the change. I'm at work so I type quite halfassedly sometimes and am not very clear =)

#53 Posted by MrGeezer (56127 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@MrGeezer said:

Um...unless the government FORCES the Redskins to change their name, then changing their name would be an act of free speech.

It's just like when you're macking on some fly honey in the club, and she gets offended when you compliment her on her big fat ass. You can apologize and then complain about how she was suppressing your free speech, but that'd be bullshit. She didn't make you censor yourself, you did that to yourself. You were free to maintain your stance on her butt being big, and ruin your chances of getting laid. It's not her fault that you thought that potentially getting laid was more important than standing by your words.

And what do you think the case is about?

A: This is about some Native american Women not suing the club but actually going to court to have the United states Trademark remove the registered trademark or B: This is a club wanting to change their name because they feel like....

So yes the US gov. is actually forcing or trying to force a name change by removing the trademark rights, and i hope i dont have to tell you what something like that means right?

In no way shape or form does removing the trademark force them to change the name. They are absolutely free to keep the same name and continue operating without copyright protection.

#54 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6986 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

They should change their name. The Chiefs, Braves, and Indians should, too.

You are right and then we should also get Blackhawks, Red Sox, Indians, Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, New England Patriots, Raiders, Vikings (I particular find this offensive to me as a nordic descended who can trace it back to the vikings) particular Cleveland Browns, to change their name as well.

Particular Browns and White Sox is hugely racist.

Also at the same time we should remove those words from the english language also, just to make sure that noone would ever use them again.

We shouldn't change anything. They should, so half of the country wouldn't view them as backwoods, racist organizations.

#55 Edited by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@Jacanuk said:

@MrGeezer said:

Um...unless the government FORCES the Redskins to change their name, then changing their name would be an act of free speech.

It's just like when you're macking on some fly honey in the club, and she gets offended when you compliment her on her big fat ass. You can apologize and then complain about how she was suppressing your free speech, but that'd be bullshit. She didn't make you censor yourself, you did that to yourself. You were free to maintain your stance on her butt being big, and ruin your chances of getting laid. It's not her fault that you thought that potentially getting laid was more important than standing by your words.

And what do you think the case is about?

A: This is about some Native american Women not suing the club but actually going to court to have the United states Trademark remove the registered trademark or B: This is a club wanting to change their name because they feel like....

So yes the US gov. is actually forcing or trying to force a name change by removing the trademark rights, and i hope i dont have to tell you what something like that means right?

In no way shape or form does removing the trademark force them to change the name. They are absolutely free to keep the same name and continue operating without copyright protection.

Are you just trying to act ignorant or don't you actually know how much a team like Redskins who have the 3rd most valuable brand in sports earns?

So your claim here is either just to be a jokester or you really need to understand just how much a brandname is worth and how much goes into making sure its protected, so having a unprotected name would be insane and would allow for anyone to copy and make money on dumb people who dont care if it comes from the org. source.

So of course removing the trademark is forcing them to change the name. Thats the whole idea behind doing it that way.

#56 Edited by LostProphetFLCL (17148 posts) -

It baffles me that people still don't understand what is wrong with that team name, and keep throwing out the jackass argument that there are so many other teams with Native American names.

News flash: The issue isn't that it references Native Americans. The issue is that the name is a freaking racial slur. It would be the equivalent of the team name being "The Washington Blackies". Only reason this has gone on as long as it has is because the Native American population is fairly small and most people here in the US likely have not even met any Native Americans so they just stay ignorant to the issue.

#57 Posted by MrGeezer (56127 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

Are you just trying to act ignorant or don't you actually know how much a team like Redskins who have the 3rd most valuable brand in sports earns?

So your claim here is either just to be a jokester or you really need to understand just how much a brandname is worth and how much goes into making sure its protected, so having a unprotected name would be insane and would allow for anyone to copy and make money on dumb people who dont care if it comes from the org. source.

So of course removing the trademark is forcing them to change the name. Thats the whole idea behind doing it that way.

They still have COPYRIGHT protection, which makes it highly unlikely that anyone is going to start selling unofficial merchandise to any substantial degree.

#58 Posted by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

It baffles me that people still don't understand what is wrong with that team name, and keep throwing out the jackass argument that there are so many other teams with Native American names.

News flash: The issue isn't that it references Native Americans. The issue is that the name is a freaking racial slur. It would be the equivalent of the team name being "The Washington Blackies". Only reason this has gone on as long as it has is because the Native American population is fairly small and most people here in the US likely have not even met any Native Americans so they just stay ignorant to the issue.

This post makes me so sad for the future.

But let me ask you something. You are in a group of 1000 people and are looking at this egg, 999 of them sees it as a oval shape and not as a egg. But one sees it as a egg and gets offended. Who should we follow, the 1 person who sees it as a egg or the 999 who just sees it as a oval shape.

#59 Posted by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@Jacanuk said:

Are you just trying to act ignorant or don't you actually know how much a team like Redskins who have the 3rd most valuable brand in sports earns?

So your claim here is either just to be a jokester or you really need to understand just how much a brandname is worth and how much goes into making sure its protected, so having a unprotected name would be insane and would allow for anyone to copy and make money on dumb people who dont care if it comes from the org. source.

So of course removing the trademark is forcing them to change the name. Thats the whole idea behind doing it that way.

They still have COPYRIGHT protection, which makes it highly unlikely that anyone is going to start selling unofficial merchandise to any substantial degree.

I think you have to read up on your Trademark law.

Copyright protects works of authorship, such as writings, music, games, comics and works of art that have been tangibly expressed.

There is a huge difference there and not having a trademark protection again will leave them open to anyone using "redskins" on their product and sell it.

#60 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150329 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

This story is proof that PC´ness has gone way way way overboard and when even Stewert begins to go crazy about it and jump on the "they should change it" its even more clear that they should of course keep it.

This is nothing but censorship and censorship is censorship no matter how its done. And any censorship should be stopped at the spot.

Overboard? Look I'm not for all the PC that goes on...but that is an offensive name.

#61 Posted by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

This story is proof that PC´ness has gone way way way overboard and when even Stewert begins to go crazy about it and jump on the "they should change it" its even more clear that they should of course keep it.

This is nothing but censorship and censorship is censorship no matter how its done. And any censorship should be stopped at the spot.

Overboard? Look I'm not for all the PC that goes on...but that is an offensive name.

And? you have every right to express that opinion like the team has every right to have this name.

I dont find anything offensive in a word, why would i?

I find offense when a person use that word to express his/hers hateful narrow mindedness but again why would i be angry over a word.

#62 Edited by MrGeezer (56127 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@MrGeezer said:

They still have COPYRIGHT protection, which makes it highly unlikely that anyone is going to start selling unofficial merchandise to any substantial degree.

I think you have to read up on your Trademark law.

Copyright protects works of authorship, such as writings, music, games, comics and works of art that have been tangibly expressed.

There is a huge difference there and not having a trademark protection again will leave them open to anyone using "redskins" on their product and sell it.

Trademark protects the name. So what you're essentially saying is that you can start selling team merchandise just so long as you specifically remove the team's name.

And no, it doesn't work like that. If you don't believe me, try selling a line of Chicago Bulls merchandise without the words "Chicago Bulls" on it, and see how fast it takes for you to get sued up the ass for copyright infringement. Anything with the team logo on it is immediately protected by copyright regardless of whether or not it has trademark protection. Even use of team colors can potentially land you in trouble. If it worked the way you think it does, then everyone would ALREADY be selling knockoff merchandise simply because a team's branding relies just as much on overall aesthetics. A Dallas Cowboys shirt is recognizable as a Dallas Cowboy's shirt even without the words "Dallas Cowboys", so by your reasoning the Cowboys have zero protection against unauthorized merchandise if the maker simply removes the name.

#63 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150329 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Jacanuk said:

This story is proof that PC´ness has gone way way way overboard and when even Stewert begins to go crazy about it and jump on the "they should change it" its even more clear that they should of course keep it.

This is nothing but censorship and censorship is censorship no matter how its done. And any censorship should be stopped at the spot.

Overboard? Look I'm not for all the PC that goes on...but that is an offensive name.

And? you have every right to express that opinion like the team has every right to have this name.

I dont find anything offensive in a word, why would i?

I find offense when a person use that word to express his/hers hateful narrow mindedness but again why would i be angry over a word.

What does being angry have to do with anything? Are you moving the goal posts? It is an ethnic slur....always was....and it's offensive that in it's still okay to use the term. And by making it a team name....it says just that. As for list above....Chiefs, Braves et al are not slurs and as such are not analogous to the conversation.

#64 Edited by Chutebox (36630 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

This story is proof that PC´ness has gone way way way overboard and when even Stewert begins to go crazy about it and jump on the "they should change it" its even more clear that they should of course keep it.

This is nothing but censorship and censorship is censorship no matter how its done. And any censorship should be stopped at the spot.

Overboard? Look I'm not for all the PC that goes on...but that is an offensive name.

That depends on the context in which you use it. The word gay isn't offensive. If I call someone gay for doing something stupid, then it becomes offensive (to some obviously).

Does anyone here really think the team name was used in an offensive context? Really? Does anyone really think Native Americans themselves would use the term for their school names? Do you think they would design the Redskins' logo if it was offensive?

Come on, people.

#65 Posted by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@Jacanuk said:

@MrGeezer said:

They still have COPYRIGHT protection, which makes it highly unlikely that anyone is going to start selling unofficial merchandise to any substantial degree.

I think you have to read up on your Trademark law.

Copyright protects works of authorship, such as writings, music, games, comics and works of art that have been tangibly expressed.

There is a huge difference there and not having a trademark protection again will leave them open to anyone using "redskins" on their product and sell it.

Trademark protects the name. So what you're essentially saying is that you can start selling team merchandise just so long as you specifically remove the team's name.

And no, it doesn't work like that. If you don't believe me, try selling a line of Chicago Bulls merchandise without the words "Chicago Bulls" on it, and see how fast it takes for you to get sued up the ass for copyright infringement. Anything with the team logo on it is immediately protected by copyright regardless of whether or not it has trademark protection. Even use of team colors can potentially land you in trouble. If it worked the way you think it does, then everyone would ALREADY be selling knockoff merchandise simply because a team's branding relies just as much on overall aesthetics. A Dallas Cowboys shirt is recognizable as a Dallas Cowboy's shirt even without the words "Dallas Cowboys", so by your reasoning the Cowboys have zero protection against unauthorized merchandise if the maker simply removes the name.

Again please read up on Trademark law before you continue down this path of making yourself look absolutely foolish.

Copyright is a term used about the protection as i again said contains original Music, Books, art, games, etc. It does not again protect trademarks and logos which are used to market a brand. Thats where a trademark protection comes in. And if i were to make a Chicago Bulls shirt or a Dallas Cowboys i would be hit with a notice of infringement of a protected trademark, i would not be facing any copyright infringement since i wasn't copying a game or music nor was a copying a actual original Chicago bulls design.

And its not by MY logic, its by the logic of laws

But we can take a quote from my Trademark law book

"A trademark is a word, symbol, or phrase, used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller's products and distinguish them from the products of another. 15 U.S.C. � 1127. For example, the trademark "Nike," along with the Nike "swoosh," identify the shoes made by Nike and distinguish them from shoes made by other companies (e.g. Reebok or Adidas). Similarly, the trademark "Coca-Cola" distinguishes the brown-colored soda water of one particular manufacturer from the brown-colored soda of another (e.g. Pepsi). When such marks are used to identify services (e.g. "Jiffy Lube") rather than products, they are called service marks, although they are generally treated just the same as trademarks."

And again lets take the copyright one just for kicks

"A copyright protects a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictorial or graphic, audiovisual, or architectural work, or a sound recording, from being reproduced without the permision of the copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. §102. The copyright in a work vests originally in the author(s) of the work. The author(s) may transfer the copyright to any other party if she(they) choose(s) to do so. 17 U.S.C. §201. Subject to certain limitations, the owner of a copyright has the sole right to authorize reproduction of the work, creation of a work derived from the work, distribution of copies of the work, or public performance or display of the work. 17 U.S.C. §106. This right lasts for the life of the author plus fifty years; or in the case of a copyright held by an entity, for seventy-five years. 17 U.S.C. §302."

#66 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150329 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Jacanuk said:

This story is proof that PC´ness has gone way way way overboard and when even Stewert begins to go crazy about it and jump on the "they should change it" its even more clear that they should of course keep it.

This is nothing but censorship and censorship is censorship no matter how its done. And any censorship should be stopped at the spot.

Overboard? Look I'm not for all the PC that goes on...but that is an offensive name.

That depends on the context in which you use it. The word gay isn't offensive. If I call someone gay for doing something stupid, then it becomes offensive (to some obviously).

Does anyone here really think the team name was used in an offensive context? Really? Does anyone really think Native Americans themselves would use the term for their school names? Do you think they would design the Redskins' logo if it was offensive?

Come on, people.

Uh the term was always an offensive slur. Image choosing a team for any other ethnic slur and see how far that gets you. And gay has had several different meanings over time. Not sure what that has to do with anything....but imagine choosing a slur for gay people as a team name. Think anyone would consider that a compliment?

#67 Posted by Chutebox (36630 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Jacanuk said:

This story is proof that PC´ness has gone way way way overboard and when even Stewert begins to go crazy about it and jump on the "they should change it" its even more clear that they should of course keep it.

This is nothing but censorship and censorship is censorship no matter how its done. And any censorship should be stopped at the spot.

Overboard? Look I'm not for all the PC that goes on...but that is an offensive name.

That depends on the context in which you use it. The word gay isn't offensive. If I call someone gay for doing something stupid, then it becomes offensive (to some obviously).

Does anyone here really think the team name was used in an offensive context? Really? Does anyone really think Native Americans themselves would use the term for their school names? Do you think they would design the Redskins' logo if it was offensive?

Come on, people.

Uh the term was always an offensive slur. Image choosing a team for any other ethnic slur and see how far that gets you. And gay has had several different meanings over time. Not sure what that has to do with anything....but imagine choosing a slur for gay people as a team name. Think anyone would consider that a compliment?

No, it was not always a slur. Why would a Native American, who was the first to use the term, slur against his own people?

#68 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150329 posts) -

@Chutebox: Well that kind of depends on which history one reads. Nonetheless by the 1800s and on the term took on an offensive meaning. And some Native Americans equate it with the N word. And thus...it should be changed.

#69 Posted by Master_Live (14184 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Jacanuk said:

This story is proof that PC´ness has gone way way way overboard and when even Stewert begins to go crazy about it and jump on the "they should change it" its even more clear that they should of course keep it.

This is nothing but censorship and censorship is censorship no matter how its done. And any censorship should be stopped at the spot.

Overboard? Look I'm not for all the PC that goes on...but that is an offensive name.

And? you have every right to express that opinion like the team has every right to have this name.

I dont find anything offensive in a word, why would i?

I find offense when a person use that word to express his/hers hateful narrow mindedness but again why would i be angry over a word.

It is an ethnic slur....always was....

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/es/definicion/ingles_americano/redskin

Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.).

#70 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150329 posts) -

Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.).

Yeah and one site says it came from a tribe in Canada etc. Others say non NA came up with the term. Nonetheless its derogatory and has been since the 1800s.

Like I said above it depends on which version you follow. But the term Redskins no longer applies to body paint.

#71 Edited by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Jacanuk said:

This story is proof that PC´ness has gone way way way overboard and when even Stewert begins to go crazy about it and jump on the "they should change it" its even more clear that they should of course keep it.

This is nothing but censorship and censorship is censorship no matter how its done. And any censorship should be stopped at the spot.

Overboard? Look I'm not for all the PC that goes on...but that is an offensive name.

And? you have every right to express that opinion like the team has every right to have this name.

I dont find anything offensive in a word, why would i?

I find offense when a person use that word to express his/hers hateful narrow mindedness but again why would i be angry over a word.

What does being angry have to do with anything? Are you moving the goal posts? It is an ethnic slur....always was....and it's offensive that in it's still okay to use the term. And by making it a team name....it says just that. As for list above....Chiefs, Braves et al are not slurs and as such are not analogous to the conversation.

Well, change angry for offended does not matter to me.

Anyways you again might see this as a racial slur, but thats a meaning people have given it, the org. meaning was just a native american and had no racial intention.

But in the end all that matters is free speech and the law, and here the law does not see your meaning or my meaning or anyones offense to a word, its black&White and free speech allows for a name like redskins.

#72 Posted by MrGeezer (56127 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:

@MrGeezer said:

@Jacanuk said:

@MrGeezer said:

They still have COPYRIGHT protection, which makes it highly unlikely that anyone is going to start selling unofficial merchandise to any substantial degree.

I think you have to read up on your Trademark law.

Copyright protects works of authorship, such as writings, music, games, comics and works of art that have been tangibly expressed.

There is a huge difference there and not having a trademark protection again will leave them open to anyone using "redskins" on their product and sell it.

Trademark protects the name. So what you're essentially saying is that you can start selling team merchandise just so long as you specifically remove the team's name.

And no, it doesn't work like that. If you don't believe me, try selling a line of Chicago Bulls merchandise without the words "Chicago Bulls" on it, and see how fast it takes for you to get sued up the ass for copyright infringement. Anything with the team logo on it is immediately protected by copyright regardless of whether or not it has trademark protection. Even use of team colors can potentially land you in trouble. If it worked the way you think it does, then everyone would ALREADY be selling knockoff merchandise simply because a team's branding relies just as much on overall aesthetics. A Dallas Cowboys shirt is recognizable as a Dallas Cowboy's shirt even without the words "Dallas Cowboys", so by your reasoning the Cowboys have zero protection against unauthorized merchandise if the maker simply removes the name.

Again please read up on Trademark law before you continue down this path of making yourself look absolutely foolish.

Copyright is a term used about the protection as i again said contains original Music, Books, art, games, etc. It does not again protect trademarks and logos which are used to market a brand. Thats where a trademark protection comes in. And if i were to make a Chicago Bulls shirt or a Dallas Cowboys i would be hit with a notice of infringement of a protected trademark, i would not be facing any copyright infringement since i wasn't copying a game or music nor was a copying a actual original Chicago bulls design.

And its not by MY logic, its by the logic of laws

But we can take a quote from my Trademark law book

"A trademark is a word, symbol, or phrase, used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller's products and distinguish them from the products of another. 15 U.S.C. � 1127. For example, the trademark "Nike," along with the Nike "swoosh," identify the shoes made by Nike and distinguish them from shoes made by other companies (e.g. Reebok or Adidas). Similarly, the trademark "Coca-Cola" distinguishes the brown-colored soda water of one particular manufacturer from the brown-colored soda of another (e.g. Pepsi). When such marks are used to identify services (e.g. "Jiffy Lube") rather than products, they are called service marks, although they are generally treated just the same as trademarks."

And again lets take the copyright one just for kicks

"A copyright protects a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictorial or graphic, audiovisual, or architectural work, or a sound recording, from being reproduced without the permision of the copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. §102. The copyright in a work vests originally in the author(s) of the work. The author(s) may transfer the copyright to any other party if she(they) choose(s) to do so. 17 U.S.C. §201. Subject to certain limitations, the owner of a copyright has the sole right to authorize reproduction of the work, creation of a work derived from the work, distribution of copies of the work, or public performance or display of the work. 17 U.S.C. §106. This right lasts for the life of the author plus fifty years; or in the case of a copyright held by an entity, for seventy-five years. 17 U.S.C. §302."

"A copyright protects a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictorial or graphic, audiovisual, or architectural work, or a sound recording".

Which often (but not always) includes logos.

Even in the event that the Redskins logo didn't qualify for copyright protection (which it almost certainly does), the USPTO decision doesn't affect the logo used apart from the Redskins name. Use of the logo is still protected by trademark and (almost certainly) copyright.

"And if i were to make a Chicago Bulls shirt or a Dallas Cowboys i would be hit with a notice of infringement of a protected trademark, i would not be facing any copyright infringement since i wasn't copying a game or music nor was a copying a actual original Chicago bulls design." The case could be made that you were copying an actual original design depending on how similar it was to original Bulls merchandise. Like I said before, there's a good chance the court wouldn't rule against you, but it'd be enough to get you in court.

But yeah, I was wrong about one thing. The Bulls uniform (for example) would be protected by trademark (in addition to copyright for the logo). However, what you're failing to understand is that the USPTO ruling only affects six specific marks, all of which specifically involve the use of the word "redskins". The redskins logo when not used in conjunction with the word redskins is still protected by trademark. Apart from the specific marks outlined in the ruling, any other unauthorized use of the Redskins logo would still be protected by trademark.

#73 Posted by Chutebox (36630 posts) -

@Chutebox: Well that kind of depends on which history one reads. Nonetheless by the 1800s and on the term took on an offensive meaning. And some Native Americans equate it with the N word. And thus...it should be changed.

So because some people used the term in a different context in which it was originally created, we should all stop using it even though it's being used in a positive way?

Ya, no thanks.

#74 Posted by sSubZerOo (43075 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Jacanuk said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Jacanuk said:

This story is proof that PC´ness has gone way way way overboard and when even Stewert begins to go crazy about it and jump on the "they should change it" its even more clear that they should of course keep it.

This is nothing but censorship and censorship is censorship no matter how its done. And any censorship should be stopped at the spot.

Overboard? Look I'm not for all the PC that goes on...but that is an offensive name.

And? you have every right to express that opinion like the team has every right to have this name.

I dont find anything offensive in a word, why would i?

I find offense when a person use that word to express his/hers hateful narrow mindedness but again why would i be angry over a word.

What does being angry have to do with anything? Are you moving the goal posts? It is an ethnic slur....always was....and it's offensive that in it's still okay to use the term. And by making it a team name....it says just that. As for list above....Chiefs, Braves et al are not slurs and as such are not analogous to the conversation.

Well, change angry for offended does not matter to me.

Anyways you again might see this as a racial slur, but thats a meaning people have given it, the org. meaning was just a native american and had no racial intention.

But in the end all that matters is free speech and the law, and here the law does not see your meaning or my meaning or anyones offense to a word, its black&White and free speech allows for a name like redskins.

...........WTF DOES THAT even mean? "No racial intention" it's the naming of a specific RACE of people one that was given to them by whites.. Can you even get more racial than that? This has to be the dumbest claim I have seen in a while..

Furthermore the franchise was established within the 1930s in which whites used stereotypes to create their mascots based off a race of people that didn't have much rights at the time.. And yeah your right, that is why the pressure should be pressed upon the NFL to even allow said franchise to compete in the league to begin with, with out fines or other such stuff at the very least..

#75 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150329 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Chutebox: Well that kind of depends on which history one reads. Nonetheless by the 1800s and on the term took on an offensive meaning. And some Native Americans equate it with the N word. And thus...it should be changed.

So because some people used the term in a different context in which it was originally created, we should all stop using it even though it's being used in a positive way?

Ya, no thanks.

There is nothing positive about that name....

#76 Posted by MrGeezer (56127 posts) -

Also relevant (and directly from the USPTO website)....

"What this decision does notmean: this decision does not, however, require the Washington D.C. professional football team to change its name or stop using the trademarks at issue in this case.

oLosing the federal registration of a trademark does not necessarily mean that the owner loses all legal rights in the mark. This is because trademark rights in the United States come from use of a mark on or in conjunction with goods or services, not merely from the additional, optional step of federal registration.

oThe TTAB determines only whether a mark can be registered with the federal government (and thus gain the additional legal benefits thereof), not whether it can be used.

oThe mark owner may still have rights in the mark based on use, known as “common law” rights -and those use-based rights may continue to exist even if a federal registration is cancelled."

While this ruling (assuming that it isn't overturned on appeal) will certainly cost the Redskins money (assuming they choose to not change the name), it is far from a simple case of "now anyone can make whatever Redskins merchandise they want to." The ruling doesn't remove existing copyrights, it doesn't affect all trademarks, and it doesn't remove any common law rights that the teams has. When it comes to the team being "forced" to change their name, a far bigger factor is likely to be political pressure and loss of sponsorship.

#77 Posted by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:
@Jacanuk said:

@MrGeezer said:

@Jacanuk said:

@MrGeezer said:

They still have COPYRIGHT protection, which makes it highly unlikely that anyone is going to start selling unofficial merchandise to any substantial degree.

I think you have to read up on your Trademark law.

Copyright protects works of authorship, such as writings, music, games, comics and works of art that have been tangibly expressed.

There is a huge difference there and not having a trademark protection again will leave them open to anyone using "redskins" on their product and sell it.

Trademark protects the name. So what you're essentially saying is that you can start selling team merchandise just so long as you specifically remove the team's name.

And no, it doesn't work like that. If you don't believe me, try selling a line of Chicago Bulls merchandise without the words "Chicago Bulls" on it, and see how fast it takes for you to get sued up the ass for copyright infringement. Anything with the team logo on it is immediately protected by copyright regardless of whether or not it has trademark protection. Even use of team colors can potentially land you in trouble. If it worked the way you think it does, then everyone would ALREADY be selling knockoff merchandise simply because a team's branding relies just as much on overall aesthetics. A Dallas Cowboys shirt is recognizable as a Dallas Cowboy's shirt even without the words "Dallas Cowboys", so by your reasoning the Cowboys have zero protection against unauthorized merchandise if the maker simply removes the name.

Again please read up on Trademark law before you continue down this path of making yourself look absolutely foolish.

Copyright is a term used about the protection as i again said contains original Music, Books, art, games, etc. It does not again protect trademarks and logos which are used to market a brand. Thats where a trademark protection comes in. And if i were to make a Chicago Bulls shirt or a Dallas Cowboys i would be hit with a notice of infringement of a protected trademark, i would not be facing any copyright infringement since i wasn't copying a game or music nor was a copying a actual original Chicago bulls design.

And its not by MY logic, its by the logic of laws

But we can take a quote from my Trademark law book

"A trademark is a word, symbol, or phrase, used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller's products and distinguish them from the products of another. 15 U.S.C. � 1127. For example, the trademark "Nike," along with the Nike "swoosh," identify the shoes made by Nike and distinguish them from shoes made by other companies (e.g. Reebok or Adidas). Similarly, the trademark "Coca-Cola" distinguishes the brown-colored soda water of one particular manufacturer from the brown-colored soda of another (e.g. Pepsi). When such marks are used to identify services (e.g. "Jiffy Lube") rather than products, they are called service marks, although they are generally treated just the same as trademarks."

And again lets take the copyright one just for kicks

"A copyright protects a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictorial or graphic, audiovisual, or architectural work, or a sound recording, from being reproduced without the permision of the copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. §102. The copyright in a work vests originally in the author(s) of the work. The author(s) may transfer the copyright to any other party if she(they) choose(s) to do so. 17 U.S.C. §201. Subject to certain limitations, the owner of a copyright has the sole right to authorize reproduction of the work, creation of a work derived from the work, distribution of copies of the work, or public performance or display of the work. 17 U.S.C. §106. This right lasts for the life of the author plus fifty years; or in the case of a copyright held by an entity, for seventy-five years. 17 U.S.C. §302."

"A copyright protects a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictorial or graphic, audiovisual, or architectural work, or a sound recording".

Which often (but not always) includes logos.

Even in the event that the Redskins logo didn't qualify for copyright protection (which it almost certainly does), the USPTO decision doesn't affect the logo used apart from the Redskins name. Use of the logo is still protected by trademark and (almost certainly) copyright.

"And if i were to make a Chicago Bulls shirt or a Dallas Cowboys i would be hit with a notice of infringement of a protected trademark, i would not be facing any copyright infringement since i wasn't copying a game or music nor was a copying a actual original Chicago bulls design." The case could be made that you were copying an actual original design depending on how similar it was to original Bulls merchandise. Like I said before, there's a good chance the court wouldn't rule against you, but it'd be enough to get you in court.

But yeah, I was wrong about one thing. The Bulls uniform (for example) would be protected by trademark (in addition to copyright for the logo). However, what you're failing to understand is that the USPTO ruling only affects six specific marks, all of which specifically involve the use of the word "redskins". The redskins logo when not used in conjunction with the word redskins is still protected by trademark. Apart from the specific marks outlined in the ruling, any other unauthorized use of the Redskins logo would still be protected by trademark.

No, or most times not, Copyright doesn't protect logos unless it can be said to be such new design that nothing else exists. So logos belongs under the trademark legislation. Which it does because logo´s rarely meet the requirements to be a sufficient seen as new design. There will almost always be something similar and/or the logo itself will contain other existing artistic renderings Which makes it impossible to claim is a sufficent new design to warrant a copyright.

But to your example its like with the croc shirts back in the 90´s, http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120715000001&cid=1502

Here Lacosta has lost again and again because it´s not a copyright infringement and since its not a direct copy it doesn't violate the registered logo/trademark of Lacosta and therefore there is no legal way to stop these from manufacturing the shirts with the crocs head and tail reversed

So this is again a very serious matter for Redskins and while it certainly doesn't stop the club from making and selling their mechandise it does allow everyone else and their grandma the same right and Redskins are left with no legal way to protect themselves.

#78 Edited by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

Also relevant (and directly from the USPTO website)....

"What this decision does notmean: this decision does not, however, require the Washington D.C. professional football team to change its name or stop using the trademarks at issue in this case.

oLosing the federal registration of a trademark does not necessarily mean that the owner loses all legal rights in the mark. This is because trademark rights in the United States come from use of a mark on or in conjunction with goods or services, not merely from the additional, optional step of federal registration.

oThe TTAB determines only whether a mark can be registered with the federal government (and thus gain the additional legal benefits thereof), not whether it can be used.

oThe mark owner may still have rights in the mark based on use, known as “common law” rights -and those use-based rights may continue to exist even if a federal registration is cancelled."

While this ruling (assuming that it isn't overturned on appeal) will certainly cost the Redskins money (assuming they choose to not change the name), it is far from a simple case of "now anyone can make whatever Redskins merchandise they want to." The ruling doesn't remove existing copyrights, it doesn't affect all trademarks, and it doesn't remove any common law rights that the teams has. When it comes to the team being "forced" to change their name, a far bigger factor is likely to be political pressure and loss of sponsorship.

And nothing here contradict what i have been saying nor does it support what you are trying to say.

Does the removal of a trademark make all other laws obsolete of course not but when a brand loses most of its protection meaning that it cannot longer sue or stop people from using the redskin name, its not just going to lose a bit of cash its going to lose a hell of a lot of cash.

#79 Posted by Chutebox (36630 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@Chutebox: Well that kind of depends on which history one reads. Nonetheless by the 1800s and on the term took on an offensive meaning. And some Native Americans equate it with the N word. And thus...it should be changed.

So because some people used the term in a different context in which it was originally created, we should all stop using it even though it's being used in a positive way?

Ya, no thanks.

There is nothing positive about that name....

Circling the wagon here, never mind.

#80 Posted by MrGeezer (56127 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:

@MrGeezer said:

Also relevant (and directly from the USPTO website)....

"What this decision does notmean: this decision does not, however, require the Washington D.C. professional football team to change its name or stop using the trademarks at issue in this case.

oLosing the federal registration of a trademark does not necessarily mean that the owner loses all legal rights in the mark. This is because trademark rights in the United States come from use of a mark on or in conjunction with goods or services, not merely from the additional, optional step of federal registration.

oThe TTAB determines only whether a mark can be registered with the federal government (and thus gain the additional legal benefits thereof), not whether it can be used.

oThe mark owner may still have rights in the mark based on use, known as “common law” rights -and those use-based rights may continue to exist even if a federal registration is cancelled."

While this ruling (assuming that it isn't overturned on appeal) will certainly cost the Redskins money (assuming they choose to not change the name), it is far from a simple case of "now anyone can make whatever Redskins merchandise they want to." The ruling doesn't remove existing copyrights, it doesn't affect all trademarks, and it doesn't remove any common law rights that the teams has. When it comes to the team being "forced" to change their name, a far bigger factor is likely to be political pressure and loss of sponsorship.

And nothing here contradict what i have been saying nor does it support what you are trying to say.

Does the removal of a trademark make all other laws obsolete of course not but when a brand loses most of its protection meaning that it cannot longer sue or stop people from using the redskin name, its not just going to lose a bit of cash its going to lose a hell of a lot of cash.

It hasn't lost most of its protection, it has only lost protection with regards to 6 specific marks, all of which involve the use of the name. Any other marks not specifically listed in the ruling are still protected.

And in regards to the logo, can you point me to a source that specifically states that it is ineligible for copyright? I'm not talking about your interpretation with regards to copyright law, I'm talking about actual proof that it isn't protected by copyright. I've found quite a few articles saying that it is protected by copyright, but I don't want to put too much stock into those since they seem to be the writer's interpretation. Has the copyright status of that logo ever been challenged in court or otherwise proven one way or the other? Or is everyone (including you) merely speculating about what WOULD happen if this ever went to court?

#81 Posted by teske4444 (47 posts) -

I think the increased percentage against the name just shows the stupidity of the general population. They will eat up whatever is thrown in front of them, and I believe the recent pieces being done on the "suddenly" controversial name is what's to blame. Had there been no controversy about it, I bet that number would be relatively the same, although slightly lower due to all of the political correctness being shoved down our throats. Are some things blatantly offensive? Yes. Does anything on the line need to be scrutinized? No. Some of my favorite comedies are by Mel Brooks. If someone tried to do something similar to "Blazing Saddles" now, the entire country would be in an outcry. Sometimes people just need to mind their own business and sell out for their 15 minutes of fame.

#82 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5117 posts) -

They should change their name. The Chiefs, Braves, and Indians should, too.

No. Anybody who thinks this must be trolling.

#83 Edited by JangoWuzHere (16125 posts) -

Yeah, and the majority can be idiotic at times. Just because its a traditional name doesn't mean it isn't offensive.