Sponsorship advertising patches on gear?

[Victor]

I'm trying to understand the underlying logic of the seemingly contradictory USFA rules addressing ad patches on gear. Anyone?

Under C.3.(b), re fencing clothing and equipment, "No advertizing is permitted either on the clothing or the equipment of a fencer," except as outlined earlier regarding "marks" (which are a different matter entirely, relating to usual product labels). The main point here is that you can't put a patch on your clothes from a firm other than the manufacturer or distributor. No patches.

Then, under the same rule C.3.(b), a couple of paragraphs later, "If a federation and/or a fencer have signed a sponsorship contract with a commercial or other company, the logo of that sponsorship partner ... may be affixed at the top of the sleeve" etc.

So, with a contract, a logo patch is OK; without a contract, no advertising allowed.

Does that sound about right? And why is it thus?

[AndrewH]

I think that, since to my knowledge NO individual fencer has ever been sponsered by a company, the second part of that rule really is probably meant to apply only to federations. So the USFA doesn't want fencers say, advertising their own business on their uniform, but if the USFA gets money from a company, then it's ok to put their logo on the Olympic team's uniforms. That way sponserships without a contract (promoting your own company) are prohibited, but USFA approved sponserships (where the USFA is getting a cut of it) are OK. They probably only worded it as "fencer/federation" to make it seem more fair, while they knew that no fencer would be able to get a sponsership by themselves.

But imagine if the rule was lifted? We might attract a redneck following, what with the fencers walking around looking like NASCAR pit crew.

EDIT: the NCAA is much more strict about advertising. We weren't even allowed to wear Adidas socks to regionals.

[DHCJr]

First this is a FIE rule, the USFA just copies it. Second you need to read the whole to find the consistency. What they are talking about is the manufacturer putting marks on the equipment. When the manufacturer puts any larger than what is specified in Section A, then it is considered advertising and consider illegal.

Have you seen 3 strips on some jackets and breeches, those are illegal. Before someone points out the Olympics, Addidas who sponsored most of the teams got the individual countries to make the 'Official' Olympic country mark look like it did. Thus, the U.S. fencers who received the free uniform can not use it in any other FIE competition, because the symbol is not the country symbol for World Cup and World Championships.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

You need to read the whole to find the consistency. What they are talking about is the manufacturer putting marks on the equipment. When the manufacturer puts any larger than what is specified in Section A, then it is considered advertising and consider illegal. ...

Uh, DUH. As I said in my original post, "marks" are another matter entirely. So, yeah, I did red the entire section to make sure I had the proper context.

So, no, I'm not talking about product/manufacturer marks. To repeat myself, I'm looking at the rules specifying sponsorship advertising. "What they are talking about" is actually a couple of different things in that section of the rules.

[DHCJr]

Then you are reading the wrong part. When it gets bigger than a certain size, it is considered advertising, even if it is by the manufacturer. That particular paragraph of the rule is specifically talking about the manufacturer. That is why they direct you to the definition in section A.

The third paragraph gives the regulations for non-manufacturers advertisement.

The rule book, which is MOSTLY a translation of the FIE rule book.

Let me give you an even more contridictory set of rules.

I state that any competition with 15 fencers can NOT be run using POOLS. I will use as my proof O.12. If you compare the FIE and the USFA rule book and look at O.14, you will see a difference. There are pool orders for 4, 5, 8, etc. in the USFA rule book that is not in the FIE rule book. But O.12 specifies you can ONLY have pools of 6 and 7.

I agree that the Publicity Code is not clear, but what that paragraph is talking about is Manufacturer's advertisement (marks larger than allowed).

[Victor]

You're not really being helpful here, DHC. You're somehow missing the point by just a smidgeon.

A manufacturer "mark" is defined under A(a). A sponsored "advertisment" is defined under C(a). Remember, that's A and C, two different areas for two different issues.

The section C referal to section A is only to remind the reader of what a mark is -- because advertising is "any name or badge OTHER THAN a mark."
(And a second note at C(a)2 pointing to section A is only if the mark is larger than allowed, which makes it an advertisment. So we can skip past that, too.)

Now look again at C(b), first paragraph, begins, "No advertizing is permitted..." And then keep reading to the third paragraph, "If a federation and/or fencer have a signed sponsorship contract... the logo ... may be affixed."

Or even better, just skip this entire thread and let the next guy deal with me instead. Yeah. Definitely. You shouldn't have to deal with me; you deserve better.

But thanks for trying. It was very nice of you.

[kalivor]

The U.S. rules look like a bad translation of the original French. Check out the British rules for a better one: http://www.britishfencing.com/Public...de,%202004.pdf

[vafencer]

I think I can answer your question, but will defer to someone more informed if they choose to respond...

From a legal standpoint, any advertising you put on your uniform, without a signed contract, I believe can *technically* be considered copyright or trademark infringement. I wouldn't be suprised if the reprocussions of such infringement can be extended beyond the owner of the uniform, but possibly the organization allowing the uniform to be worn.
More importantly, I suspect the USFA, and FIE alike, would really prefer fencing to *not* become nascar, and makes the initial declaration that no logos are allowed. Otherwise, you could see people running around with their favorite pro football patch and the number 3 everywhere.
But, since the USFA/FIE understand the effect of publicity, and are ultimately more interested in seeing the sport grow rather than shrink, they will allow advertisements (of certain sizes) given that the fencer wearing said advertisement has a signed contract with that company/organization such that the fencer receives some compensation for wearing the patch, and can thus promote the sport.

[Victor]

Thanks. Good points.

[Victor]

So I s'pose that if I want to wear a small "Team Victor" sponsor patch from my local coffee shop (small biz), and in return the coffee shop gives me chocolate chip cookies for my competition road trips and maybe a T-shirt to wear for training ... Well, I gotta capture that agreement in writing, so it looks like a contract to make the USFA happy.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by Victor

You're not really being helpful here, DHC. You're somehow missing the point by just a smidgeon.

A manufacturer "mark" is defined under A(a). A sponsored "advertisment" is defined under C(a). Remember, that's A and C, two different areas for two different issues.

The section C referal to section A is only to remind the reader of what a mark is -- because advertising is "any name or badge OTHER THAN a mark."
(And a second note at C(a)2 pointing to section A is only if the mark is larger than allowed, which makes it an advertisment. So we can skip past that, too.)

Now look again at C(b), first paragraph, begins, "No advertizing is permitted..." And then keep reading to the third paragraph, "If a federation and/or fencer have a signed sponsorship contract... the logo ... may be affixed."

Or even better, just skip this entire thread and let the next guy deal with me instead. Yeah. Definitely. You shouldn't have to deal with me; you deserve better.

But thanks for trying. It was very nice of you.

You are missing the point. Where in that first paragraph does it says anything about MARKS. It says 'No advertisement'. What is advertisement? They make it easy for us by telling us to look at section A. So what does section A says? A advertisement is a MANUFACTURERS mark that is too big or not their normal mark. Not all manufacturer marks are MARKS. Some manufacturer marks are actually ADVERTISEMENTS. These 'Manufacturer' advertisements are illegal by definition of the first paragraph. They are not talking about non-manufacturers advertisements. That is handled in the 3rd paragraph.

The FIE does not make it easy. Barry Paul and me argue about another very unclear rule. As my signature says, I believe in teaching helps me, so I will continue to try and teach you.

[Victor]

Now you're just being adorable on purpose. Too, too cute -- sort of like my dog when he doesn't understand the cat is hiding under the bedspread.

Thanks for brightening my day, you wacky, wacky man!

(hugs!)

[AndrewH]

The sarcasm isn't necessary at all.

Do you feel the need to act like this in all your posts? I'm amazed how the rest of the posters here manage to put up with you.

[Epee Scherma]

Yeah whats going on lately? I'm seeing more and more flaming of each other on this web board. We're turning into the "fencing sucks" posting board. I think DHCjr is one of the most helpful people on this board when I'm looking for information.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Epee Scherma

Yeah whats going on lately? I'm seeing more and more flaming of each other on this web board. We're turning into the "fencing sucks" posting board. I think DHCjr is one of the most helpful people on this board when I'm looking for information.

I second this. DHCjr is extremely helpful, knowledgeable, and not really anyone who I could imagine being justifyably flamed.

[oso97]

Okay, so bottom line, then in commonly used english, what kinds of "things" are allowed to put on the uniform, post-manufacture. I don't care weather they're called "marks" or "advertisements" or "horsefeathers" I just want to know what I can and can't put on and under what circumstances I can put it on.

[DHCJr]

I have to agree with Victor that it is poorly written. If the 2 paragraphs at the top of the next page were moved up, this discussion would not have come up.

If any one sees Jeff Bukantz of the FIE Rules committee or Carl Borack who is the Chairman of the Protocal and Publicity committee, you might bring it up. The more I read it, the more I see how confusing it can be.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by Victor

I'm trying to understand the underlying logic of the seemingly contradictory USFA rules addressing ad patches on gear. Anyone?

Brother EPEE fencer -- You're looking for logic and consistency in USFA Appendix C, the SUPPLIMENT [sic] where spelling of "advertising" isn't even consistent? Wow.

However, before you go and get sponsored (as an individual fencer) by your local coffee shop in exchange for any type of advertising, check out Appendix C, Chapter II, Section A, number 3 which says ...

A fencer may only enter into an individual advertising contract [...] if this is done with the agreement of his national federation [...]

So if "Team Victor" is an Army of One, you'll need specific USFA approval, not just a written contract. Also see Chapter III, section A.

Now if you're a club going for sponsorship in exchange for advertising, start with Appendix C, Chapter II. Everything applies except Section A number 3.

Now with that background, move on to Chapter IV, Section C, subsection (b). The first paragraph, "No advertizing is permitted...", doesn't appear in the current FIE original of the publicity code. The reason it doesn't make sense in the USFA version and seems to contradict other parts are ... because it doesn't make sense and contradicts other parts, etc, etc. The USFA version simply isn't up to date, was poorly edited and its mother dressed it funny.

[Victor]

Eh, so DHC's a nice, patient guy and I'm naturally sarcastic. (shrug) Kinda stating the obvious there, guys -- you're actually "fanning the flames," if one is so inclined to take the "flaming" analogy a step further. Don't be so quick to assume the worst; we all have bad days.

Alternate responses I could have taken:
* "You're wrong and I'm right, so let's just agree to disagree."
* "How darest thou challenge my gawdly wisdom?!"
* "Uhmmmmmmm.... OK."
* "I still feel strongly about my position, but since you're such a sweet guy, I should maybe reconsider. After all, that's what everyone else on this board does. Right?"
* "&*%$#@& you!"
* "Denial, denial, denial. Victor is a good boy. Mommy still loves Victor. Not wrong, not wrong..." (drool)
* "Why are you trying to opress me?!"

Ehh, I like a polite bit of sarcasm on toast with my marmalade.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by fencerX

Check out Appendix C, Chapter II, Section A, number 3 which says ...

A fencer may only enter into an individual advertising contract [...] if this is done with the agreement of his national federation ...

I didn't even think to hunt down other references far and afield in the rules.

Sheesh. Nevermind already. This is too bloody much trouble.

... On the other hand, couldn't it also make for a fairly strong case if the fencer does it anyway and then claims the rules can be interpretted 17 different ways?