Originally Posted by
kbarch
If someone puts up a billboard, they have no control over its replication in photos, videos, etc. The baseball games we see on TV are copyright exclusively by MLB: Citibank, Coca Cola or whoever have no rights to their rebroadcast or redistribution - or to limit it - no matter how big their billboards in the outfield are.
I know about that.
You aren't talking about photograph or videos. So, even though this is true, it's not relevant.
MLB and Coca Cola certainly have copyright/trademark control over their logos put on shirts. It's bizarre that you think they'd be fine with what you are talking about.
Originally Posted by
kbarch
I don't disagree with your last point, but the distinction between advertising signage/ graphics and product branding is material to the kind of control the owner can have. A sponsor or advertiser buys the use of time and space that belongs to or is controlled by others, while product branding goes on their own stuff before they sell it.
This makes no sense.
In all these cases, it's the decision of the owner of the branding. ("Volunteer advertising" isn't really a thing.) The "others" don't get to do anything they want with the logo.
What the "others" do is at the will of the owner (the key distinction you keep ignoring.)
Copyright and trademark laws exist. There have been lots of legal cases about them. Much has been written about fair use.
Yet, your weird argument ignores all of it.
Originally Posted by
kbarch
That's why I kept going back to the manufacturer. In the absence of the team for which the design was created, they would have copyright for the thing as a whole.
You assert this but that doesn't make it true.
Originally Posted by
kbarch
As for the sponsors whose graphics serve only as advertisement, their rights are subordinate - if they exist at all.
No, you can't opt out of copyright/trademark laws by calling it "advertising".