North Carolina Lottery officials had to pull the plug on their new logo after it was learned that copyrighted material was used to make it.
After pulling the logo, lottery officials made efforts to conceal the logo from public view by asking media outlets to not show it.
Lottery Post feels that if CBS News can knowingly display forged documents to hurt President Bush in the weeks before a presidential election, then showing a small logo graphic is not too bad.
Outstanding...it looks like the logo that would come off one of those earth-friendly shopping bags that you see people toting around in grocery stores that don't want to use paper or plastic.
Come to think of it, a graphic artist would have known better. I bet you they didn't hire a graphic artist. I bet you those dummies don't have a graphic artist. What idiots.
My wife's best friend is a graphic artist. I am sure she could have done a terrific job on it for next to nothing. She designed the packaging in Libby Loo.
<< Lottery Post feels that if CBS News can knowingly display forged documents to hurt President Bush in the weeks before a presidential election, then showing a small logo graphic is not too bad. >>
Not that the logo they decided not to use isn't slightly newsworthy, but that's the lamest excuse to rationalize a decision that I've seen in a long time. Did Lottery Post hire a cranky 10 year old to make their editorial decisions? Did they run it by their 12 year old lawyer to see if publishing it is fair use, or did they decide that because other people pirate enormous amounts of music it would be okay to knowingly violate the copyright on a little bitty logo?
Maybe if the NC lottery had used a graphic artist they'd have gotten a better logo and had somebody on the staff who had at least a rudimentary knowledge of copyright. It's also possible that they thought their clip art was safe because many packages are billed as copyright free, though the fine print often limits uses to non-commercial use.
<< Lottery Post feels that if CBS News can knowingly display forged documents to hurt President Bush in the weeks before a presidential election, then showing a small logo graphic is not too bad. >>
Not that the logo they decided not to use isn't slightly newsworthy, but that's the lamest excuse to rationalize a decision that I've seen in a long time. Did Lottery Post hire a cranky 10 year old to make their editorial decisions? Did they run it by their 12 year old lawyer to see if publishing it is fair use, or did they decide that because other people pirate enormous amounts of music it would be okay to knowingly violate the copyright on a little bitty logo?
Maybe if the NC lottery had used a graphic artist they'd have gotten a better logo and had somebody on the staff who had at least a rudimentary knowledge of copyright. It's also possible that they thought their clip art was safe because many packages are billed as copyright free, though the fine print often limits uses to non-commercial use.
Excuse me, but Lottery Post is not profiting from displaying the failed NC Lottery logo. The NC Lottery WOULD have profitted over it's use.
Thanks for posting it Todd, I was actually curious to see what it looked like.
<< Lottery Post feels that if CBS News can knowingly display forged documents to hurt President Bush in the weeks before a presidential election, then showing a small logo graphic is not too bad. >>
Not that the logo they decided not to use isn't slightly newsworthy, but that's the lamest excuse to rationalize a decision that I've seen in a long time. Did Lottery Post hire a cranky 10 year old to make their editorial decisions? Did they run it by their 12 year old lawyer to see if publishing it is fair use, or did they decide that because other people pirate enormous amounts of music it would be okay to knowingly violate the copyright on a little bitty logo?
Maybe if the NC lottery had used a graphic artist they'd have gotten a better logo and had somebody on the staff who had at least a rudimentary knowledge of copyright. It's also possible that they thought their clip art was safe because many packages are billed as copyright free, though the fine print often limits uses to non-commercial use.
Excuse me, but Lottery Post is not profiting from displaying the failed NC Lottery logo. The NC Lottery WOULD have profitted over it's use.
Thanks for posting it Todd, I was actually curious to see what it looked like.
Excuse me, but Lottery Post is profiting from publishing the logo. There may or may not be much of a profit but this is clearly a commercial enterprise, and the purpose of everything that's published here is to attract customers and generate revenue. Is there a reason you think that's relevant, though?
People being curious is most of what makes the logo newsworthy. I didn't criticize the publishing of the logo, only the bizarre explanation.
<< Lottery Post feels that if CBS News can knowingly display forged documents to hurt President Bush in the weeks before a presidential election, then showing a small logo graphic is not too bad. >>
Not that the logo they decided not to use isn't slightly newsworthy, but that's the lamest excuse to rationalize a decision that I've seen in a long time. Did Lottery Post hire a cranky 10 year old to make their editorial decisions? Did they run it by their 12 year old lawyer to see if publishing it is fair use, or did they decide that because other people pirate enormous amounts of music it would be okay to knowingly violate the copyright on a little bitty logo?
Maybe if the NC lottery had used a graphic artist they'd have gotten a better logo and had somebody on the staff who had at least a rudimentary knowledge of copyright. It's also possible that they thought their clip art was safe because many packages are billed as copyright free, though the fine print often limits uses to non-commercial use.
Excuse me, but Lottery Post is not profiting from displaying the failed NC Lottery logo. The NC Lottery WOULD have profitted over it's use.
Thanks for posting it Todd, I was actually curious to see what it looked like.
Excuse me, but Lottery Post is profiting from publishing the logo. There may or may not be much of a profit but this is clearly a commercial enterprise, and the purpose of everything that's published here is to attract customers and generate revenue. Is there a reason you think that's relevant, though?
People being curious is most of what makes the logo newsworthy. I didn't criticize the publishing of the logo, only the bizarre explanation.
Excuse me, but I'm not profitting from displaying the logo. Maybe you would like to contibute the same amount out of your pocket that I do every month, just to make this site run? If you saw how much money I LOSE on a monthly basis, you would eat your little words.
It looks like I have unearthed a hard-left radical here, something I enjoy doing.
You hard-lefties act far more like a "cranky 10-year-old" than I ever would.
<< Lottery Post feels that if CBS News can knowingly display forged documents to hurt President Bush in the weeks before a presidential election, then showing a small logo graphic is not too bad. >>
Not that the logo they decided not to use isn't slightly newsworthy, but that's the lamest excuse to rationalize a decision that I've seen in a long time. Did Lottery Post hire a cranky 10 year old to make their editorial decisions? Did they run it by their 12 year old lawyer to see if publishing it is fair use, or did they decide that because other people pirate enormous amounts of music it would be okay to knowingly violate the copyright on a little bitty logo?
Maybe if the NC lottery had used a graphic artist they'd have gotten a better logo and had somebody on the staff who had at least a rudimentary knowledge of copyright. It's also possible that they thought their clip art was safe because many packages are billed as copyright free, though the fine print often limits uses to non-commercial use.
Excuse me, but Lottery Post is not profiting from displaying the failed NC Lottery logo. The NC Lottery WOULD have profitted over it's use.
Thanks for posting it Todd, I was actually curious to see what it looked like.
Excuse me, but Lottery Post is profiting from publishing the logo. There may or may not be much of a profit but this is clearly a commercial enterprise, and the purpose of everything that's published here is to attract customers and generate revenue. Is there a reason you think that's relevant, though?
People being curious is most of what makes the logo newsworthy. I didn't criticize the publishing of the logo, only the bizarre explanation.
Let's send it over to the Powerlineblog.com attorneys and let them weigh in on it.
<< Lottery Post feels that if CBS News can knowingly display forged documents to hurt President Bush in the weeks before a presidential election, then showing a small logo graphic is not too bad. >>
Not that the logo they decided not to use isn't slightly newsworthy, but that's the lamest excuse to rationalize a decision that I've seen in a long time. Did Lottery Post hire a cranky 10 year old to make their editorial decisions? Did they run it by their 12 year old lawyer to see if publishing it is fair use, or did they decide that because other people pirate enormous amounts of music it would be okay to knowingly violate the copyright on a little bitty logo?
Maybe if the NC lottery had used a graphic artist they'd have gotten a better logo and had somebody on the staff who had at least a rudimentary knowledge of copyright. It's also possible that they thought their clip art was safe because many packages are billed as copyright free, though the fine print often limits uses to non-commercial use.
thanks todd,i was curious as to what it looked like.i don't see any harm done because after all its not going to be used anyway....
THE NORTH CAROLINA LOTTERY could've put a little more time and effort into the logo.after all this is a billion dollar enterprise.that logo looked like something a drunk would sketch......
I can see why the board members thought it looks like a plant.
I think it looks like a palm tree, and it reminded me of the S.C. Lottery logo:
I really can't believe they were serious about using that thing.
I also can't stand when they keep referring to these things as "education" lotteries. They got the lottery approved, they should just call it the N.C. Lottery, and stop with the "education" thing. They act like someone is going to say, "Oh, OK, it's for education, put the rest of my paycheck on 1-2-3."
I can see why the board members thought it looks like a plant.
I think it looks like a palm tree, and it reminded me of the S.C. Lottery logo:
I really can't believe they were serious about using that thing.
I also can't stand when they keep referring to these things as "education" lotteries. They got the lottery approved, they should just call it the N.C. Lottery, and stop with the "education" thing. They act like someone is going to say, "Oh, OK, it's for education, put the rest of my paycheck on 1-2-3."
Education probably was part of the name to remind those opponents of the lottery what it is for; thus minimizing the sting of having a lottery in their state. "Well, it is for education, naysayers might think...
^^^^^^- this could have been a logo of the NC lottery Commission!
How many cricket sounds do you think Sheehan heard when he took the cloth off and showed the logo?