A parody does allow derivatives. Law is one huge and horribly complex grey area. If this comes before a jury, they will be asked to decide which of at least two legal interpretations it best fits. Some will favour the defence, some the prosecution...Again, the legal test is whether the "average person," meaning usually the judge or the members of a jury, depending on the type of case, would determine that the potentially infringing design is "clearly a derivative" of the original.
There are no objective criteria, including whether or not there are certain elements included or not. It's a completely subjective decision. One of those "I know it when I see it," things. And yes, given the subjectivity of branding and even commercial art, it's the best possible way.
The difference is two-fold. For one, EAA seemingly isn't willing to "look the other way" anymore. Whatever bad blood has developed between the two organizations, it's poisoned any notion of "Ah, just let it go. They're not really hurting anything."If SOS just uses the beerventure logo at the tent at the convention, I could see it being interpreted as parody, it's all in fun, after all. If they used the logo on beer in cans sold outside the convention, that's a different matter.
Some friends and I used to put on the "Connecticut Yankee PPG Boogie", a two day event for paramotors. More than once I heard the Saturday night festivities referred to as the "beer boogie".
I absolutely HATE the direction the EAA has gone since the late 90's. I grew op in the 70s/80s and subscribed to Kitplanes when the actually had most of the rag dedicated to BUILDING AIRPLANES!!!!! The 'Stress without tears' series of articles was re-read dozens of times as my dumb a** tried to figure out the math.I never liked Tom P’s EAA logo. Back in the 90’s, I showed it to a friend who creates logos for a living, he said it was a terrible logo, as it inferred that EAA was an aerospace defense contractor, not a bunch of homebuilders. Then I showed him the original logo, and he immediately recognized it from car windows and said the “cute” little homebuilt at the bottom told the whole story and the spelled out Experimental Aircraft Assn put a name to it. He was puzzled as to why anyone with any marketing sense would allow it to be changed...and, I suppose that’s the reason: egos overruled intelligence, just part of the human condition. Tom wanted to distance himself from Dad and make EAA his own, so he did just that and rebranded the organization.
In the late 80’s, there was some minor disagreement around Chapter insurance in Canadian Chapters. If they were paying the same dues as US Chapters, they should get insurance, too. It was then that EAA first viewed EAAC as a liability, and went after EAA of Canada, threatening to sue them for (c) infringement: after three decades of amiability, so the alienated Canucks decided to hell with the greedy Yanks in Oshkosh and EAAC became RAAC (Recreational Aircraft Assn of Canada). Decades later, there is again an EAAC, so hopefully history won’t repeat itself.
I don't think EAA ever willingly "looked the other way" regarding beer sales and possibly other private enterprise near the convention grounds.EAA seemingly isn't willing to "look the other way" anymore
You would make a great marketing guru, Matthew!I have never liked the new logo, the old one was much more meaningful.
“Sounds like there's a wide-open space for a 'replacement' organization that sticks to its roots”
It’s been tried, by Paul P himself. Seems that he agreed with most of what is being said here about what EAA has turned into. It was the Sport Aviation Association (SAA)
They held several fly ins at Frasca Field (C16 - Urbana Illinois). It was so grass roots that Paul was working the food line - yep he served me a hot dog!
Or, make such a fuss at every EAA function that they pay us to secede. I think we should hold out for transfer of ownership of all the Sport Aviation archives and exclusive rights to all images and likenesses of Steve Whittman and Paul Poberezny.