Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NFL Claims the Fleur-De-Lis, They Guarantee

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the what's-mine-is-mine-and-what's-yours-is-mine dept.

Idle 26

margaret writes "Now that hell has frozen over and the New Orleans Saints are amazingly good, the NFL has decided to start issuing cease and desist letters for use of the fleur-de-lis, a symbol dating back to the 12th century which has long been ubiquitous in Louisiana culture. Hell, it's on the official city flag, and Quebec's flag too — is the NFL going to go after the Canadians next?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Boy Scouts (3, Informative)

yakatz (1176317) | more than 4 years ago | (#30945702)

And it has been the symbol of world Boy Scouts for over 100 years. Will the NFL go after them too?

Re:Boy Scouts (1)

qwertphobia (825473) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948672)

while the NFL was created in 1920,

Re:Boy Scouts (0, Flamebait)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949814)

But the Boy Scouts date to 1913.

Re:Boy Scouts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30958032)

That is not really the date that matters. What matters is the date they started using the fleur-de-lis

Re:Boy Scouts (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 4 years ago | (#30963896)

Yes, and the NFL never officially used it or claimed it until now. Fail.

Re:Boy Scouts (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 4 years ago | (#30981414)

Actually 1907 is considered the beginning of the scout movement. But I suppose it took a few years for the Americans to join this "little" club a retired british general started.

for further reading: http://scout.org/ [scout.org] and of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Organization_of_the_Scout_Movement [wikipedia.org]

Re:Boy Scouts (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 4 years ago | (#30960648)

And it has been the symbol of world Boy Scouts for over 100 years. Will the NFL go after them too?

Big hunky athletic types who like to dress up in armour plate and romp around nekked in rooms with 47 other like-minded (for typically small values of "mind") males, and now they're going after Boy Scouts ...

Why do I find myself less than surprised.

Bunch of closeted poofs, the lot of them. (No disrespect intended to proper un-closeted poofs intended.)

Re:Boy Scouts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968578)

Nice troll, very homophobic.

But, please try harder. Conflating being gay with being a pedophile has been done to death. If you aren't even going to try and beat the typical Fox News talking head for anti-gay slurs, you may not have much chance of getting a strong rise out of slashdot.

I must congratulate you on the use of "poof" though. Gays as effeminate - both homophobic and misogynist. Congrats on the fine upbringing, your parents must be so proud.

Amazing (2, Interesting)

hogggwallop (1333549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30946464)

Amazing how one can write an article like this and not mention France a single time :)

Re:Amazing (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947944)

Now you see what happens if you chop of a kings head - His coat of Arms gets grabbed by the NFL...

IMHO companies and organisations should be suable for beeing stupid and pissing everybody off in the process. Maybe we could ask the French to sue them about it. Or the Boy Scouts, or a few thousand city councils, a country or two and a lot of other people

Damn thee, ancient Montesinoses! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30946546)

Guys, I'm worried! There are three fleur-de-lis on my family crest, I don't want to get sued!

Liberte, egalite, footballite! Cue Le Marseillaise (1)

mnmlst (599134) | more than 4 years ago | (#30947948)

We will not suffer through this oppression by King Roger! To the barricades, mes amis! Le fleur de lis is the symbol of Le Ancien Regime, so on to New Orleans where we will show them who is boss with our red cockades. We shall erect le guillotine and make clear who will control the symbols of Le France!

I say let them (1)

Lazypete (863757) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948118)

Well if they want to play rought, let them, I cant wait to kick their ass in court! Quebec Lives!!!

Re:I say let them (1)

labradore (26729) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977100)

They have courts in Canada? I thought everyone was too polite to sue.

Re:I say let them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30983362)

some people here in quebec are ready to die for that fleur de lys haha

Legal issue is suspect, here (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30948166)

The NFL Saints can trademark a specific design - like gold, with black and white borders [nfl.com] but they can't trademark the fleur-de-lis itself. They also can't trademark this design if its already in common use.

Re:Legal issue is suspect, here (0, Troll)

amplt1337 (707922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949778)

You're forgetting the main Legal Issue in American jurisprudence:

The law is what whoever can actually afford the lawyers says it is.

Re:Legal issue is suspect, here (2, Informative)

Rary (566291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949808)

The article summary is stupid. The particular fleur-de-lis that they're going after is very clearly intended to be a reference to The Saints. It's on a shirt that has a slogan referencing a song about The Saints.

The NFL's claim is a bit shaky here, but suggesting they're going to start going after any and all use of an old and widely-used symbol just because they've now gone after a specific NFL-oriented use of that symbol is just stupid.

Re:Legal issue is suspect, here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30956814)

You actually READ the article on which you are commenting? You must be new on slashdot...

Re:Legal issue is suspect, here (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30960974)

"The NFL Saints can trademark a specific design - like gold, with black and white borders but they can't trademark the fleur-de-lis itself."

Guess what, these fleur-de-lis are almost always following heraldic conventions. That means that only certain combinations are possible. For example: Yellow(gold) on blue or red on white but never yellow on white. Due to the limited amount of heraldic colours there are basically a number of permutations you can have with a fleur-de-lis, the symbol of the kingdom of France, on a field. Therefore the creative input can be stated as almost minimal(all the thinking has been done for them) and it should not qualify as an enforcable creative product.

Should be interesting ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#30949774)

This should be interesting to see blow up in their faces.

The logo was chosen for the Saints because it had long been associated with New Orleans, not the other way around. I can really see a court giving them a pretty big smack down -- especially since they're also asserting control of "Who Dat" as a trademark when it belongs to someone else.

Just the sort of thing you'd expect.. (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30950436)

Just the sort of thing you'd expect from cowards who wear sissy pads for a sport played in shorts and a t-shirt by the rest of the world.
It makes me ashamed to say I live in the U.S. when Aussie football and Hockey are tougher sports.

Better article: they're claiming "who dat" too (3, Interesting)

margaret (79092) | more than 4 years ago | (#30951614)

Since I submitted this, nola.com came out with a more in depth article. The NFL is claiming "who dat" too, which has also been around for years and years, AND the roman numerals XLIV, which have been around, since... well, the Romans. The article goes more in depth about the history of "who dat" which is pretty interesting.

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2010/01/post_140.html [nola.com]

Re:Better article: they're claiming "who dat" too (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30964954)

he roman numerals XLIV, which have been around, since... well, the Romans

Not quite. The Romans didn't use subtractions in their numerals. They'd use "IIII", not "IV". In other words "XLIV" would be "XXXXIIII" in Roman times

Re:Better article: they're claiming "who dat" too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30973742)

I'm here to complicate things for you. The uneducated might write it that way, but the leading reason to avoid writing "IV" was not an inability to subtract, but out of deference to Jupiter—that is, IVPPITER. The concept of using subtraction to denote 4 and 9 can be seen on the earliest shepherds' counting sticks that the system ultimately derives from. See Wikipedia.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?