Conquer Club

I notice the following in the avatar department around here... you've got a couple of varieties that predominate. What do you think is the coolest? Poll above...

The ones that can't be listed on account of being original?

The exception by far. Maybe 1 in 10 tops. So vote "other" then... it's there for a reason.

gdeangel wrote:The exception by far. Maybe 1 in 10 tops.

That's why they're the coolest.

Meh.

Well, you'd think nobody ever puts their car/kids/dog/cat on these things... so untrue.

But now, particularly when I see people flaming wicked and they either have, or in the past had, copied her avatar, I must ask... what does it mean when someone copies you avatar (i'm not talking about making a copy and doctoring it up with degrading stuff... just an exact copy)? It just doesn't make sense to me...

I think mine is relatively original.

hecter wrote:I think mine is relatively original.

Yours looks like boobies.

Simplicity is king!?

C.

pokemon ftw

Well... another thought occurred to me. Suppose your someone like wicket who had established "goodwill" associated with her online persona here. Now, upon being banned/sacked/whatever you want to call it... does that person has the right to compel the site to remove what is essentially a common law trademarked avatar (only trademark if you were a paid mod, buy the way, i.e., using the avatar in commerce... so the rest of us are out of luck)?

Thoughts on this one folks??

Well, since people use avatars that aren't actually pics of themselves, I don't think you can claim them as originals that should be trademarked. If someone else wanted to proclaim their love of limes, as I do, then they can. I think the King uses her old avatar.

BTW, I do love limes, and I think it is a great avatar.

jbrettlip wrote:Well, since people use avatars that aren't actually pics of themselves, I don't think you can claim them as originals that should be trademarked. If someone else wanted to proclaim their love of limes, as I do, then they can. I think the King uses her old avatar.

BTW, I do love limes, and I think it is a great avatar.

Clearly a trademark doesn't have to be a picture of ones-self. You have rights in most states in your own image regardless of usage in trade. But so many people have been voting for original "art" or "composition" type avatars as being the best, I think that someone who has that kind of avatar has a strong case, for example, if I were making money on the web with a blog or something like that that was associated with three limes, and then I came over here and used the three limes, (and assuming it was not someone else's copyrighted picture - which would open up a whole other can of worms - cf. other categories in my original poll) and I had established the validity of my mark, and that people here are "purchasing" content based on my "three lime" mark, I would have a pretty good argument that I could force the site to remove the avatar if they restricted my ability to control the content associated with the mark, or, in the alternative, that they MUST give me mod privileges over all content associated with my mark (i.e., right to control the quality of the associated content.)

Problem is, of course, most web image compositions are taken from some other source as a deliberate reference to another tradmarked product or persona (e.g., mugen) as a way of boostrapping a brand. But it looks like I'm the only person in that boat who cares about this thread.