cloversridge

In that document, there's a grid that shows what's subject to license. Forms, letterhead, envelopes, Annual reports, newsletters, and council and unit websites are excluded for license. Patches, shirts, etc., generally all product, requires a license.

I'm not sure about the Vision video, but it wouldn't surprise me if maybe BSA is paying the royalties and not passing it on. I understand that BSA regularly tracks and pays royalties on several books, as well many Norman Rockwell and Joseph Csatari paintings it uses on products and the image of MacKenzie Scout (which belongs to a northeast council, I think). I long thought that Rockwell images belonged to BSA, but many of were works created by Rockwell for Brown & Bigelow. How many others of us who use those images on things can say the same? I know some councils have used

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about this. Let me share more about what I've learned: 1. Units and councils may still use the marks for informational and educational purposes. Councils may use the marks for FOS materials, too. They may not use the marks on products (things that are or could be sold) without those products being produced by a BSA licensee. 2. The generic fleur-de-lis is not a proprietary BSA mark (although several versions of what's known as the "Universal Emblem" are, as was mentioned before). Some folks are worrying too much about this. 3. I doub

I understand that this is a clarification of mark use based on ongoing infringment by manufacturers who make a product for one council, then advertise and try to sell to other councils; as well as issues with web infringments (pay-per-click, porn, etc.), product liability concerns, and overall protection of the marks. Nattional provided a memo to council SEs, Regional staff and others in mid-October. I also understand that a FAQ-sort of document was issued last week to the same people that answers a number of questions that were raised and provides further clarification on what has to be