NYSE Sends Cease and Desist Letter To News Organization 131
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently, the New York Stock Exchange has registered a trademark for their trading floor, and they claim that no one can use a photograph of the trading floor without permission."
Take it to court (Score:5, Informative)
Fight it all the way. Taking a picture of something that is open for a news story is perfectly allowed.
Re: (Score:3)
From a public standpoint, this kind of action by the NYSE smells of desperation. A desperate need for money something which you would think the NYSE would not want to put out to their trading public. You would think that any perceived revenue that same ass hat bean counter seeking a bonus and the disingenuous lawyer seeking fees would be pretty small compared to the image they are putting out to the market. They are so desperate for income they want to charge for photographs of the internals of their build
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this is a clear sign that the NYSE is decaying from inability to adapt. The whole idea that we should have people shouting across a densely-packed floor to trade securities is obsolete and they should have done who most other such exchanges did long ago: go fully electronic. The fact that someone today can still become a better trader via better shouting and physical skills is severe inefficiency and anachronism.
More and more the NYSE is acting as a gatekeeper and monopolist, making its money from i
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think so, but people have successfully argued for trademarks on images of e.g. the exterior of the Empire State Building.
The real overreach here is the NYSE thinking that a trademark means they get to control all use of the trademark. In reality, trademarks only cover uses that could be confused with legitimate use.
If TPM were to open a stock trading floor, then they'd have something to worry about. As a publisher, they have as much right to publish photos of the NYSE floor as they do the Windows lo
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Taking a picture of something that is open for a news story is perfectly allowed.
Not inside a private building. If the owner wants to close it off to outside photographers, they have every right to do so. (And no it's not like a mall or restaurant, which are legally defined as "public facilities".)
Re:Take it to court (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming a trademark on it is perfectly fine. It means that Nasdaq and the London Stock Exchange can't use the photo in any of their promotional materials. Newspapers quite often print trademarks when publishing stories about the trademark owner. That is a perfectly legitimate use of a trademark. Nobody is going to pick the Washington Post and mistake it for the New York Stock Exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither are trying to be a stock exchange, and neither are claiming to be in any way related to NYSE, so there is no trademark violation.
Re: (Score:1)
Their only option would be to ask the photographer to leave and put them on trespass notice. They would not gain any control of the images taken, those become protected property of the photographer as soon as the image is recorded. Malls are restaurants are treated the same way.
It sounds like they are trying to Trademark the floor itself in an attempt to prevent photographers from photographing it. That is BS, even if the Trademark is upheld, using it in a news story is an acceptable use of the Trademark
Re: (Score:3)
The NYSE trading floor is a secured and private location -not open to the general public.
Don't invite newspaper photographers inside if you don't want pictures taken. Once you let them in to take pictures you can not tell them how to use those pictures (barring the existence of a previous contract). The pictures belong to the photographers, or their employers, not to the NYSE.
Re: (Score:2)
Say no to facepalm (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they don't want anymore facepalm shots, reflecting the true economy, eh?
Almost makes sense... (Score:1)
The NYSE has a reputation to uphold, like any other organization. The trading floor is as recognizable at the Coca-Cola ribbon, so why shouldn't it be a trademark? The C&D was referring to an article that could harm NYSE's reputation, so why should the organization just sit idly by and be tarnished? Perhaps more to the point, why should they let a trademark be diluted, facing potential problems later?
I see nothing to be outraged about here.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially considering their reputation isn't tarnished already. I mean, it's not like they are partly responsible for one of the worse recessions in 100 years.
Re:Almost makes sense... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
NYSE is an exchange company. They are not investors, they do not tell banks to accept bad loans, and don't really do much of anything that caused the recession. Blaming NYSE is like blaming Ford for a bank robbery, because the robbers drove a Ford getaway car.
They are also a publicly traded company. That right there is the problem. It's like blaming Ford for a bank robbery because the executives at Ford are band robbers.
Re: (Score:2)
because the executives at Ford are band robbers.
Isn't band robbery what the RIAA organizations engage in?
Do they allow high frequency trading? (Score:2)
If they allow high frequency trading, they're making a profit from destabilizing the economy. It's time for a tax on transactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't help but tax everything.
Re: (Score:2)
A tax would be the most simple way to dampen fluctuations and stabilize a system that can otherwise become chaotic (see flash crashes). Using a 'heartbeat' so that all transactions that accumulated within a fixed time period are calculated as executed at the same time might also fix the problem.
As I don't live in the US, I'm not sure the Democrat label applies to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like if Ford sold a car as "the best car to rob banks with" and then someone robs a bank with it. Yeah, that makes them at least partially liable.
Re: (Score:2)
Every individual on that trading floor is a market maker and uses their personal accounts to make markets.
It's quite likely that none of the people in a colored jacket is a market maker - they're basically blue collar workers perfoming the same mechanics that the NASDAQ does electronically. The folks on the trading floor don't make any (non-mechanical) decisions when it comes to trading; that would be their bosses.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
NYSE? Were they a trading platform for credit default swaps? I get that many active participants on the floor are partly responsible, but I haven't heard anything about the stock exchanges being culpable.
Re: (Score:3)
A: Because the use of trademarks associated with a company is perfectly legal in the context of a news story about that company.
B: I don't need a B. But a company is NOT entitled to use the courts to prevent "harm" caused by the public becoming aware of their own failures.
Re: (Score:2)
The news story wasn't directly about that company, though. It was about an overzealous FBI agent revealing an FBI investigation into an insider trading scheme. By throwing the trading floor picture onto the article, the publisher implies that NYSE itself is a part of the insider trading.
The NYSE is perfectly justified in using the legal system to stop libel and trademark dilution. That's probably what their perspective is, and I doubt very much this will ever even reach a court. They sent a letter. There's
Re: (Score:2)
The NYSE is perfectly justified in using the legal system to stop libel and trademark dilution.
Then if they think they are being libeled they should *fanfare* file a defamation suit. Secondly, how is it trademark dilution? Was the company using the picture attempting to pass itself off as the NYSEin some way? If not, there is no trademark dilution. Trademark law, despite what you and the idiots at the NYSE think, does not work that way. You don't get to claim trademark to squelch stories that you don't like. Basically you're about as wrong as can be on both the 1st Amendment and trademark law a
Re: (Score:2)
To further add, true "trademark dilution" would, for example, be people who say that one is "Photoshopping" an image to any sort of image manipulation regardless of whether it was truly done in Photoshop. By using the trademarked name in this way, there is an attempt to try to disassociate the trademark with the singular product. There is no such thing in the case of a news story using a picture of the NYSE trade floor.
Re:Almost makes sense... (Score:5, Informative)
Gee, maybe I'm wrong. Let's go look it up real quick [wikipedia.org]...
Trademark dilution is a trademark law concept giving the owner of a famous trademark standing to forbid others from using that mark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness. In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another's trademark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with, those of the trademark owner.
So there's this news article about the FBI and investment companies, and TPM threw NYSE's trademark on there because... um... why, exactly? Well, maybe because it's a generic "stock trading" image that people will recognize, but it's not generic. It's a trademark. Putting the NYSE image on an unrelated article reinforces the idea that the NYSE is generic, and that certainly would "lessen its uniqueness".
Looks like dilution to me. Reading the actual C&D letter, the NYSE is not at all requesting censorship of the article. They just want the picture removed so they aren't directly associated with an insider trading investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it was an image of a couple guys standing in front of computers that happens to be on the NYSE floor. Take a look at the picture, does it look like a trademark to you? Would you even know it was a picture of the NYSE if it wasn't labeled right below as a picture of the NYSE?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So there isn't a single other stock exchange that looks roughly the same? The overhead monitors would be a sensible design decision at any SE, so I don't see that being specific to the NYSE. Perhaps having the overhead monitors in a quad formation around some kind of pole? That seems pretty sensible to reduce the space that they take up and to allow viewing from all directions. I just don't see such a small area in the picture being terribly unique to the NYSE, nor do I really see that it has any bearin
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the trademark has already been diluted because the trading floor image of the NYSE is already seen as a generic "stock trading" image. In fact, if they filed a lawsuit over this, I hope that trademark gets invalidated.
It seems just absurd to trademark the floor of the NYSE considering that it's been the generic "stock trading" image for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Gee, maybe I'm wrong. Let's go look it up real quick [wikipedia.org]...
Gee, maybe you could have read all of my posts where I even add a clarification that provides examples of true trademark dilution.
So there's this news article about the FBI and investment companies, and TPM threw NYSE's trademark on there because... um... why, exactly?
Because it's one of numerous stock photos of the NYSE that are used in stories about stock markets, investing, etc.
Well, maybe because it's a generic "stock trading" image that people will recognize, but it's not generic. It's a trademark. Putting the NYSE image on an unrelated article reinforces the idea that the NYSE is generic, and that certainly would "lessen its uniqueness".
So then where are all the other C&Ds to cover the numerous amount of other articles that use similar stock photos of the NYSE? Oh right, they don't exist. And since the NYSE has let all those other stories go, they've already diluted their trademark by lack of
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and if we are going to use wikipedia then maybe you should actually read what a trademark is?
A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.
A generic stock photo of the NYSE trading floor is not a "distintive sign or indicator" and thus does not fall under a trademark. You can't claim trademark on every single stock photo of the trading floor just as Subway Restaurants can not claim trademark over any sign that says "Subway" in it. The Subway trademark is a distinctive sign of the business.
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic I couldn't put a picture of people eating a McDonalds burger in an article about fast food, because it'd dilute its uniqueness. I'd say this more a case of smearing a trademark, like say if you in every article about car accidents put a Ford. Yes, Ford is a car but you'd smear the impression that Ford = unsafe cars all over the trademark. It's not diluting, it's not making it generic, it's making negative associations to your brand. Just as if you made an STD warning ad using a stock photo, th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This means you can't have a cleaning company called Microsoft Cleaners despite the fact that a cleaning company does not in any way compete with Micros
Re: (Score:2)
And as a final response to show you are totally full of shit. this [uspto.gov] is the actual registered trademark of the NYSE. The picture used in the article is not the same as the registered trademark thus the NYSE is even more full of shit. Once again, a trademark is a "distinctive sign or indicator of a business" and the picture in the article is not of their trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Three replies to a single comment. Either you have problems organizing your thoughts, or you love your jerking knee.
I find it amazing that your definition of "true" trademark dilution is different from every [harvard.edu] other [fenwick.com] definition [wikipedia.org], where associating a trademark with something undesirable is illegal. It's irrelevant that the picture was a "stock image", as there is no such legal status. What matters is that the picture is distinctly recognizable as the NYSE, even without the existence of any other logos.
One o
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic the owners of any readily identifiable building or monument should be able to do the same. That's batshit crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
this actually is true. I worked at an agency in NY that sent out a little flash based " christmas card" to its clients every year . One year, it was going to have the tree at Rockefeller and the skating rink in the background. As this was for a commercial purpose, we actually would have to clear copyrights and trademarks to use the image. The issue wasnt who owned or took the picture, the issue was actually the content. The image was replaced instead of paying for the rights to use that image.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The press writes articles about stuff. Sometimes, those articles cast actors and organizations in a less than positive light. If this is what they deserve, the press is performing one of the more socially vital functions around. If it is undeserved, they can be be taken to court for libel. "Trademark" is intended to protect a company's distinctive marks from being used deceptively in the marketplace, not to give an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The article in question isn't about the NYSE, though. It's about an FBI investigation. Attaching a NYSE trademark implies that NYSE is involved.
So what? Care to cite any statutory law that makes this remotely relevant? If that were true it would be a case for a defamation suit, not a trademark suit especially when the article in question is from November of last year which shows a clear lack of trademark enforcement. This is also ignoring the fact that the use of this supposedly 'trademarked' image has been used in generic articles about stock trading, investments, etc for years and years and years without the NYSE doing anything basically does
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The C&D was referring to an article that could harm NYSE's reputation, so why should the organization just sit idly by and be tarnished?
Boohoo? Unless the article is found by a court to be libelous, why should they be able to stamp out people reporting facts that the NYSE doesn't like to be publicized? What next? The President, members of Congress, etc get to C&D stories that show their misdeed to the public?
Re: (Score:2)
The C&D was referring to an article that could harm NYSE's reputation, so why should the organization just sit idly by and be tarnished?
Yes, of course the NYSE should be able to veto any news articles that aren't sufficiently respectful.That they could sue anyone who published untrue stories as libel isn't enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are hundreds if not thousands of stock photos of the NYSE trading floor that are used in stories about investing, stock markets, etc in stories that aren't about the NYSE specifically. They've already made their 'trademark' generic through lack of enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Laches would only apply to the current case, and only if the delay was found to be unreasonable. Six months is pretty quick for a legal claim. Whether NYSE has sent C&D letters to others who used their trademark would only affect whether the trademark is genericized to the point of being invalid, but even then the enforcement is only one of several criteria considered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NYSE cannot selectively choose now to be the time to start enforcing it when then haven't in the past.
Yes, they can. The trademark holder may choose not to pursue uses which are inconsequential. It may choose to grant permission to use the trademark. It may just plain not care. As long as the general appearance is that the holder hasn't abandoned the mark, and the mark still identifies the holder, the trademark is still likely to be considered valid. If a court determines that the trademark is valid, the holder controls its use. Requiring absolute enforcement would place an undue burden on the holder, so it
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they can. The trademark holder may choose not to pursue uses which are inconsequential. It may choose to grant permission to use the trademark. It may just plain not care. As long as the general appearance is that the holder hasn't abandoned the mark, and the mark still identifies the holder, the trademark is still likely to be considered valid. If a court determines that the trademark is valid, the holder controls its use. Requiring absolute enforcement would place an undue burden on the holder, so it's not required.
See Sawyer v Kellogg:
. . . in trade-mark cases that lack of diligence in suing deprives the complainant in equity of the tight either to an injunction or an account. . . A long lapse of time will not deprive the owner of a trade-mark of an injunction against an infringer, but a reasonable diligence is required of a complainant in asserting his rights . . .
Of course the plaintiff may explain to the court the reasons they did not pursue all individuals. The court will accept practical reasons. For example, Coca-Cola may not be able locate or know the true identity of the infringers of their trademark. What Coca-Cola cannot do is simply to let them exist. Most often, trademark infringing products are confiscated and destroyed by the holder. If Coca-Cola did not destroy the products, it could be seen as an endorsement of the practices.
I
Newsworthy event (Score:1)
Great... (Score:1)
Another day... (Score:2)
Prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering the location has been photographed infinite times and lots of video before this decision, how can it ever be enforced?
Re: (Score:1)
Prior Art doesn't hold much weight with copyright (Score:2)
You're thinking patents, I think. Someone sued Lucas over Star Wars copyrights, and lost, iirc. The reason they tried to use was that it had become a common cultural icon. One could say the same thing about Coca-Cola or Disney characters. But neither are in danger of losing their copyrights.
Mickey Mouse is seen everywhere as well. But if you were to take a picture of a tshirt with the Mickey Mouse logo on it, then that photo would possibly be in violation of copyright. It is effectively a reproduction
Re: (Score:2)
It does hold weight with trademark though. If you don't protect a trademark you can lose it. There is a difference between trademark and copyright, and the article is talking about trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
No. If they have a supposed trademark, whether registered or not, and they don't defend it then you lose it.
Trademark them all.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
prior art (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that "trading floor" goes back a ways. Like maybe 10,000 years or so. So does "a bunch of loud mouths standing around shouting prices". You can take a picture of people doing this kinda thing in every major city in the world, 24 hours a day, and could have do so at any time since the invention of the camera in 1837.
Prior art bitches.
Re: (Score:2)
heheheh ... I got special mention! Slashtard of the Day!
Is 36K now "low index"? damn, I remember when it was still 1K to be low. Read a post maybe 10 years ago by a guy UIDed at around 300 and everyone changed the subject to "how did you first hear about /.?" Hey Commander Taco, those were the wild days, weren't they? Man look at all we've lost since then ...
Re: (Score:2)
Man look at all we've lost since then ...
Lots of hair, mostly.
NYSE Floor Trading Irrelevant in 21st Century (Score:2)
The NYSE trading floor depicted in the photo is mostly irrelevant with, presumably, most, trades being done electronically.
Furthermore, the NYSE itself is no longer the NYSE alone ... it's part of a larger company, NYSE Euronext.
Ron
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, it's the most recognizable image of the NYSE.
Irrelevant. A trademark is a distinctive mark. Secondly, if this were such an issue where are the C&Ds over all the other articles that use stock photos of the NYSE trading floor that aren't about the NYSE in particular? Oh right, there are none and thus the NYSE's 'trademark' has been diluted through their own lack of enforcement and thus been made generic. Basically, the NYSE has fucking failed at their own statutory duty.
my workaround (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Surely an upward-tranding chart would be more indicative of fraud?
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot doesn't let me do big ascii art diagrams, but something that slopes up then drops down to the floor suddenly like /| would be the best indication.
Re: (Score:2)
Or this ass-hat. [dvcplanners.com]
Own the light? (Score:2)
Owning and controlling something is fine and dandy. Literally trying to own and control the photons that bounce off of your property is too ludicrous for words.
Re: (Score:2)
It's indicative of the attitudes on Wall Street in general. They believe it's their natural right to own everything they touch or that touches them.
absurd (Score:2)
The real reason that this is absurd is this: Trademark law is intended to prevent one company from dishonestly associating themselves with the reputation of another company. For instance making a shiny white PC and branding it an ApplePC would obviously be an a
Re: (Score:2)
So if this is legit then selling a photo taken virtually anywhere in pubilc in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world would be a trademark violation.
No, only if you take a photo of something that is already trademarked and then publish it yourself for profit.
And only if the trademark owner considers it worse publicity than "bad publicity".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Andy Warhol required any permission for his paintings of Campbell's Condensed Tomato Soup, nor did Banksy for is painting of Tesco Value soup.
Re: (Score:2)
No, only if you take a photo of something that is already trademarked and then publish it yourself for profit.
Sorry, that's not how trademark law works. You seem to be confusing trademark with a copyrighted image. You can use trademarks in articles that are published for profit without needing approval of the mark holder.
And only if the trademark owner considers it worse publicity than "bad publicity".
That's completely irrelevant. A newspaper can write a negative article about McDonalds and use the trademarked McDonalds logo in the article without needing approval from the company and they could do nothing against it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can use trademarks in articles that are published for profit without needing approval of the mark holder.
Depends entirely on what you're using it for.
A newspaper can write a negative article about McDonalds and use the trademarked McDonalds logo in the article without needing approval from the company and they could do nothing against it.
Yes, that's a simple example of fair use. But it can't write an article that's not really about McDonald's and use the McDonald's logo just to draw attention to it.
Trademark copyright (Score:2)
Trademark law is there to protect a trade mark from being used by someone else to advertise their similar product.The news report did not post a picture and attempt to pass it off as their trading floor. That is dilution of brand and therefore against trademark law. I can use a trademark any time I want as long as it refers to the owner of the trademark. For example, Pepsi can display Coke's Trademark if they are doing a comparison. They do not need a license to do it. I could also write an article about th
Re: (Score:1)
Those things are all true, except the last (and only with a contrafactual assumption there). If it were the case that Coke did not, in fact, have high-fructose corn syrup in it, then they could complain about your picture of Coke. Just because it is a soft drink, and popular, doesn't give you the right to print a picture of the trademarked Coke logo when that has nothing to do with the story. (In the real world, Coke is full of HFCS, and it would be fine.)
In this case, the NYSE has nothing to do with the
Re: (Score:2)
So all the court convictions of insider traders on the NYSE does not point to the fact that insider trading happens there? Just because the NYSE itself is not doing insider trading does not mean that the NYSE is not related to it. That would be like banning the picture of a gun involved in a murder because the gun manufacturer did not pull the trigger and does not want to be associated with murder.
I am not related in any way to paedophilia therefore I could sue for slander. The NYSE, where insider trading
Re: (Score:2)
Those things are all true, except the last (and only with a contrafactual assumption there). If it were the case that Coke did not, in fact, have high-fructose corn syrup in it, then they could complain about your picture of Coke. Just because it is a soft drink, and popular, doesn't give you the right to print a picture of the trademarked Coke logo when that has nothing to do with the story. (In the real world, Coke is full of HFCS, and it would be fine.)
Says who? I assume you have case law and/or statutory law to back this up, right?
Actual trademark image (Score:2)
Here's the actual trademark image. [uspto.gov] from the USPTO. "The mark consists of a representation of an actual building interior, namely, a securities exchange trading floor."
Here's the image from the article. [talkingpointsmemo.com] It's not an overview of the NYSE trading floor. It''s a single trading post on some exchange. (Of course, at this point, the NYSE is about the only exchange that still has a trading floor. Most of the trading actually happens in the racks of a colocation facility in New Jersey anyway.) If anybody has a rig
No troll.... I'm dead serious (Score:1)
But what if the entity were an individual? An individual trying to assert their right regarding publication of their trademarked image (i.e., a picture of their face)?
Would you look at the argument any differently?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet we still see CNBC using that hackneyed shot of a "reporter" on the chit-strewn floor, looking up at the camera as bustling and hustling occurs around them.
I wonder if they've started bringing in their own slips of paper as props, and hiring extras ("must bring your own wing-tips") to create the activity.
I have no doubt that the entire scenario is a part of their elaborate scam to induce churn.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the actual active floor of the NYSE these days is a computer data centre with lots of air conditioning tubes, cables, blinkenlights and so on. The real activity takes place on bank trading floors. They put their trades on their computers, and they go to the NYSE computer for processing.e
Re: (Score:2)
"Trolling idiot" works too. Tho I imagine this guy works for NYSE or their PR attack dogs.
NYSE is locked in a death spiral with the other Exchanges. Bad Things are happening to their revenue model. Cry me a river...
Oh, I actually wrote some fiction on the NYSE and high-freq trading. Totally fictitious all around (I've never even been there) but funny as heck IMO:
madscienceunlimited.com/fiction/theexchange.html
I guess I'll get a take-down order now lulz. But at least I didn't include a picture of the trading