Official Church Logo . . .

[consiglieri]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

The Church

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

This strikes me as offensive on a number of levels.

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Though I don't speak for the Church on this matter, I can conceive of at least one good reason for the policy. Some Church members may not conduct themselves in an exemplary manner or they may misrepresent the Church's position on this or that matter. Use of the official logo implies official endorsement of their actions or words when there is no such endorsement.

[Lareliw]

At the same time though, who IS the LDS church if it is not the LDS people? It seems more like a business practice than a worshipful one. (No offense meant, honestly. Just reminds me of trademark logos)

[oremites]

Nothing's stopping you from making your own church logo and putting that on your T-shirt.

In fact, that would be a great contest - create the best Unofficial Church Logo. I'm sure we could get some fantastic-looking stuff that would look much better on a mug than the official one.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

This strikes me as offensive on a number of levels.

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I take no offense as the dirty dirty apostate that uses the logo as me avatar and as a screensaver.

My limited understanding of copyright law is that they have to prove that you were gaining a commercial benift when using the logo, so I don't think it applies here, though I admit I am no lawyer and could very well be wrong here.

I also realize that copyright law in the United States is very very complex and is more idiotic than the US tax code, with the number of potential loopholes in it.

So any origination that seeks to protect there logo must ban everyone from using it for legal loophole purposes. Of course as everyone knows the only people that go after private use of copyrighted materials for non commercial use is those greedy record companies that like to sue the elderly because there grandchild went on frost wire and downloaded the latest single.

I agree with you Consiglieri, the Church shouldn't prevent the membership from private non commercial use of its logo as a screen saver or avatar, I think the problem is that the massive amount of loopholes in US copyright law makes doing so also allow others to potentially us the logo from uses than private non noncommercial use by the members.

I have yet to get a angry email from the President of the Church or stand before a disciplinary council (though that might change soon) so I feel this is more of a legal jargon baloney than a legitimate restriction on the membership of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

At the same time though, who IS the LDS church if it is not the LDS people? It seems more like a business practice than a worshipful one. (No offense meant, honestly. Just reminds me of trademark logos)

To take an extreme example as an illustration, were the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre "the LDS Church" when they undertook to murder those travelers? I maintain they were not, since they were acting in violation of Church teachings.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Use of the official logo implies official endorsement of their actions or words when there is no such endorsement.

Only to the expensive and ultimately useless copyright attorneys, everyone else has the two brain cells to rub together and figure out that a logo doesn't equal official Church statement. Anyone can make a logo, if you want something official go to an official site, not a public forum.

[Duncan]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

This strikes me as offensive on a number of levels.

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Anyone can easily slap the logo on a bunch of junk and say its official and sell it or say the Church endorses it or something along those lines and the Church wants to avoid all that mess. I am no lawyer, thank heavens, but I see it as a copyright thing

[Lareliw]

No, they were not "the LDS church" but rather people of the LDS church. It was not condoned by the church proper (as far as I know or have read).

[LDS Guy 1986]

To take an extreme example as an illustration, were the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre "the LDS Church" when they undertook to murder those travelers? I maintain they were not, since they were acting in violation of Church teachings.

See this is exactly what expensive lawyers do, that take a extremely rare and ultimately unrelated event and try and make it seem like it makes sense in the context of there silly and useless arguement, then if you don't agree with them they sue you for every penny you got!

[LDS Guy 1986]

So Scott since you are the outhouse lawyer here, how many lashes do I get and when. Cause now I am curious, plus I really want to meet the President of the Church in person, if that take 40 lashes to do then so be it!

[LDS Guy 1986]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

This strikes me as offensive on a number of levels.

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Also I must inform the Bishop that he is in violation of copyright law when he puts the official logo on the program for our sacrament meeting and our ward events, since neither of these things are official publications of the church!

It' looks like we all are going to be logoless with even program in the Church from this moment forward!

[LDSToronto]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

This strikes me as offensive on a number of levels.

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

For commercial use, I agree with restrictions; the church has the right to protect it's image and it's members (imagine all the crappy products you could sell LDS if it appeared the church endorsed those products).

For personal use, I believe it should be allowable. For one, there is no harm in putting the logo on baptismal programs, sacrament programs, etc. Second, some may use the logo on their personal websites, and while the church may fear that this endorses the opinion expressed on the website, it's not really much different than someone saying that they belong to the church and then sharing their opinions verbally.

Plus, I agree with consig's sentiment - we are the body of the Church. We are the voice of the Church. And showing the spectrum of voice and belief would be a wonderful thing.

H.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Also I must inform the Bishop that he is in violation of copyright law when he puts the official logo on the program for our sacrament meeting and our ward events, since neither of these things are official publications of the church!

It' looks like we all are going to be logoless with even program in the Church from this moment forward!

I forgot the Christmas card from my ward missionaries as well it had the logo as well! Looks like President Monson arm will be tired we go lashings for 4 people now and who knows how quickly this will explode into massive copyright infringement scandal for the Church!!

[Bsix]

I am sure that Consig is a fine, fine lawyer. However, as professional marketer and having worked with some of the largest brands on the planet...I disagree with him.

It is common practice for organizations to control the use of their logos and brand standards. This has several very good objectives:

1. Prevent the impression of official endorsement by third parties.

2. Prevent commercial use of the brand marks.

3. Assure consistent use of the brand marks in design and brand image.

4. Assure acceptable quality when the brand marks are used (no bad 5th generation copies being used.)

And in a legal area (which Consig can speak to) having such a published standard protects the owner's right to sue offending parties when they want.

Regards,

Six

[Scott Lloyd]

So Scott since you are the outhouse lawyer here, how many lashes do I get and when. Cause now I am curious, plus I really want to meet the President of the Church in person, if that take 40 lashes to do then so be it!

Here's a thought: As a matter of integrity, why don't you write to the president of the Church or somebody else at Church headquarters. Tell whomever that you think the Church's policy regarding use of the logo is silly and useless and you intend to defy it by continuing to use the logo as your personal Internet avatar. Then, if you please, report their response to us. I'd be curious to hear what it is.

[bluebell]

I'm sincerely wondering what the different levels of offense are that you spoke of Consig.?

[Walden]

Scott Lloyd was kind enough to provide me a link to the CHI which provides the following as it relates to the Church logo:

This strikes me as offensive on a number of levels.

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Every good corporation takes it's branding strategy very seriously.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I am sure that Consig is a fine, fine lawyer. However, as professional marketer and having worked with some of the largest brands on the planet...I disagree with him.

It is common practice for organizations to control the use of their logos and brand standards. This has several very good objectives:

1. Prevent the impression of official endorsement by third parties.

2. Prevent commercial use of the brand marks.

3. Assure consistent use of the brand marks in design and brand image.

4. Assure acceptable quality when the brand marks are used (no bad 5th generation copies being used.)

And in a legal area (which Consig can speak to) having such a published standard protects the owner's right to sue offending parties when they want.

Regards,

Six

This applies to commercial use only though, not non commercial private use of a logo.

As I stated this not only prohibits the membership but the local leadership from using the logo for church programs and promotion of ward or stake events, every Stake President and Ward Bishop in the world is in violation of this attorney legal crap according to Scotts position.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Here's a thought: As a matter of integrity, why don't you write to the president of the Church or somebody else at Church headquarters. Tell whomever that you think the Church's policy regarding use of the logo is silly and useless and you intend to defy it by continuing to use the logo as your personal Internet avatar. Then, if you please, report their response to us. I'd be curious to hear what it is.

I will cease and desist when one of three things happen, I am official asked to stop by the Church, counciled by ward or stake leadership to stop, or when every Stake President and Ward Bishop world wide ceases and desists to violate this copyright on a weekly basis.

Until then I leave the outhouse laws to the outhouse lawyers.

[bluebell]

This applies to commercial use only though, not non commercial private use of a logo.

As I stated this not only prohibits the membership but the local leadership from using the logo for church programs and promotion of ward or stake events, every Stake President and Ward Bishop in the world is in violation of this attorney legal crap according to Scotts position.

Where did it say that the logo couldn't be used on programs? I honestly didn't see it.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Where did it say that the logo couldn't be used on programs? I honestly didn't see it.

Well a program is not an official publication of the Church (for all we know right know Bishops from around the world could be destroying the name of the Church via sacrament programs!) neither is is a missionary name tag.

[LDSToronto]

This applies to commercial use only though, not non commercial private use of a logo.

As I stated this not only prohibits the membership but the local leadership from using the logo for church programs and promotion of ward or stake events, every Stake President and Ward Bishop in the world is in violation of this attorney legal crap according to Scotts position.

Not my stake president, and not the bishops in my stake. They all abide by this rule, having read it in the manual.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Where did it say that the logo couldn't be used on programs? I honestly didn't see it.

The logo is prohibited for personal, commercial, or promotional use, and is only allowed on items approved by the Correlation Department. It's in the original post.

H.

[frankenstein]

what consig did not publish was the phone number to the IP department of the Church, the phone number is in the Handbook, in the same section.

It should be expected then that someone must due their duty and call the number to report the violation.

CHI:

The logotype may not be used as a decorative element or a computer screen saver. Nor may it be used in any personal, commercial, or promotional way, such as on family history books, T-shirts, buttons, or banners. Questions may be directed to:

Intellectual Property Office 50 East North Temple Street, Room 1888 Salt Lake City, UT 84150-0018 Telephone: 1-801-240-3959 or 1-800-453-3860, extension 2-3959 Fax: 1-801-240-1187 E-mail: cor-intellectualproperty@ldschurch.org