Originally Posted by
kbarch
In this case it's not my choice, it's by definition. Graphics and signage that direct ones attention to goods or services that are not contained in or available from the thing on which they are placed are, by definition, advertisements.
It's not really the definition (it's not how the word is used).
If I write your name and phone number on a bathroom stall along with "for a good time, call", by your definition of advertising, you should be happy to pay me.
J&J and Xerox had their brand names turned into every day words. They weren't happy about it.
Originally Posted by
kbarch
It would be absurd to argue that just any reproduction of a logo on advertising signage and graphics is protected by copyright when the whole point of it is to display it in forms NOT connected to the product or service itself -...
Weird.
The point of copyright and trademarks is to have the owner have control how the thing is used or not used. You don't get to decide for them (otherwise, copyright/trademark laws wouldn't mean anything).
I'm pretty sure the law says you can't (that you happen to find it "absurd" is moot).
Originally Posted by
kbarch
... especially when they become so prominent and pervasive that it becomes virtually impossible to capture an image of a sporting event without including them. They are essentially begging to be copied.
They aren't really being copied. Not in the same way. You seem smart enough to know that.
==============
You are using unusual "definitions" that are not standard usage, how people generally understand the terms, or supported by law or anything. It appears you are rationalizing.