[Lnc-business] protecting party assets

Mon Aug 7 13:27:46 EDT 2017

The Bylaws do not say that.  So the nudist causus just needs to find an
affiliate to say okay then?  I know multiple affiliates who are irritated
enough at this that they might.

The Oregon PAC is eagerly waiting for our cease and desist letter.

That is actually one that could arguably be legitimate.  They are confusing
people.

This is a good exercise in be careful what you ask for.

I can just see the Reason Hit and Run headline now:

The Libertarian National Committee Threatens Nudists

This almost feels like a Monty Python skit.

I am hoping fellow committee members see how absurd, aggressive, and
vindictive we will be to send cease and desist letters to our own
activists.  The word cringe doesn't even begin to describe it.

I would expect we will get several more nuclear middle fingers.  Then
what?  Sue our activists?

-Caryn Ann

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:17 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> As I said - "other than when the state affiliate says they can."  In my
> view, the affiliate can delegate this, to cover such things as
> subaffiliates.  If the affiliate endorses one or more candidates prior to
> the primary, those candidates can use our IP.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Erin Adams <
> erinadams at thefeldmanfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Joshua said “To allow pre-nomination candidates to use it (other than
>> when the state affiliate has said they can, which I am fine with) is to
>> allow people to represent themselves as being approved by us, with
>> absolutely no process.  “. What about Candidates in States Like Oklahoma
>> where there is no Nomination process allowed by the state other than a
>> primary? Are we going to say that candidates may not use our branding
>> leading up to the primary? Even in cases , Like in Oklahoma, where that
>> primary may indeed be a semi open one?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows 10
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>> *Sent: *Monday, August 7, 2017 11:07 AM
>> *To: *lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> *Subject: *Re: [Lnc-business] protecting party assets
>>
>>
>>
>> I am skeptical on IP.  Nonetheless, I believe that this board is not an
>> ideological sounding chamber, but a governing board, and takes its
>> fiduciary responsibilities in the real world, not our ideology.  I do not
>> think we're fulfilling our responsibilities if we acquire IP and then fail
>> to defend it.  In the case of purchased IP such as our logo, that amounts
>> to giving away money.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding pre-nomination candidates: Sure, we want to see our logo being
>> made visible far and wide.  So does, say, Cabot Cheeses.  But it doesn't
>> follow that Cabot will be thankful if some other cheese company throws
>> their logo onto their product.  The logo doesn't exist just to be seen, but
>> to function as a form of imprimatur.  To allow pre-nomination candidates to
>> use it (other than when the state affiliate has said they can, which I am
>> fine with) is to allow people to represent themselves as being approved by
>> us, with absolutely no process.
>>
>>
>>
>> The same holds for groups.  It is was mentioned somewhere in this thread
>> that, well, people can do research and see if the group actually speaks for
>> this party.  I disagree entirely.  No good advertisement rests on the
>> viewer doing further research, and people who are offended by the group
>> seeming to speak for us (such as the Augustus Invictus / Hoppe Caucus) are
>> not going to do further research - they're just going to conclude they
>> don't like us, and tell all their friends the same thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> RE:  Oregon:  Suffice it to say I disagree with just about everything
>> that's been said on the topic on this thread, but I'm also not sure it's
>> relevant anyway.  The fight in Oregon is over who the leadership is of the
>> affiliate, not who the affiliate is, and therefore I think it's a bit off
>> the point to refer to the PAC as relevant here.  The point remains, though
>> - whoever the leadership is, presumably they will decide to whom they grant
>> permission to use our IP.  All sides should agree, I would think, that
>> whoever is not the leadership (I am sure I know who that is, but seem to
>> have failed to convince this board) should not be able to give out
>> permission to use our IP.  I don't think the Oregon question, therefore,
>> has anything at all to do with how this matter should be decided.
>>
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Oliver Hall's attention is requested for this email:
>>
>>
>> LP Bylaws, Article 5.1, "No person, group or organization may use the
>> name "Libertarian Party" or any confusingly similar designation except the
>> Party or an organization to which the Party grants affiliate party status
>> or as otherwise provided in these bylaws."
>>
>> This provides a very narrow scope for use of our party name.  Yet one
>> only has to search on Facebook for the name "Libertarian Party", and you
>> will find many groups that are not the national party, and are not an
>> affiliate of the national party, but they use our party name to increase
>> their profile in search results, build their own following, and use the
>> group for their own purposes.
>>
>> One such example can be found here:  (fair warning - this page contains
>> varying degrees of nudity)
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/233590827023815/
>>
>>
>>
>> We also have a trademark on the name "Libertarian Party".  My
>> understanding of intellectual property law is that we need to actively
>> defend our right to the name or else over time we diminish our ability to
>> successfully defend it.
>>
>> Our bylaws don't mention the logo, but am I correct to presume that we
>> have also staked out a legal claim to our past and present logos?
>>
>> I also see other groups (not our affiliates) using our logo in their
>> memes, incorporated into their own logos, etc.
>>
>> Some of these could potentially be rectified by merely asking the groups
>> to cease using our name and/or logo.  Others might need to receive
>> cease-and-desist letters from our attorney.
>>
>> I'd like to discuss this at our upcoming LNC meeting.  Perhaps it makes
>> sense to just make it part of the Special Counsel agenda item, since we'll
>> likely want to chat with Mr. Hall about it.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170807/7c6ddb54/attachment-0002.html>