Those who have been reading following internet coverage of Perry v Schwarzenegger, the trial to overturn Proposition 8, might have visited the Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker for the latest coverage of the trial. That site features a logo featuring two women and two children--a slight variation of the official Yes on 8 logo featuring a man, a woman and two children.
In what could only be considered an epic act of stupid, the main sponsor of Proposition 8, Protect Marriage, sued the Courage Campaign over the use of the logo:
SACRAMENTO, CA - In yet another dispute stemming from a landmark trial to determine the future of same-sex marriage in California, a group offering trial updates is being sued over its parody of the Proposition 8 logo.
The Courage Campaign Institute Web site has been offering daily updates on the trial that began last week in San Francisco federal court. The site includes a modified logo used by ProtectMarriage.com, the primary sponsor of Prop 8, which banned gay marriage. The modified logo shows two women with two children.
The argument? That the intellectual property of Protect Marriage was infringed because the logos are "substantially indistinguishable." The defense, of course, has been arguing that legalization of gay marriage will result in the end of Western society, which makes the idea of the logos being "indistinguishable" deliciously ironic. This was not lost on the Courage Campaign's counsel:
"while our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is 'substantially indistinguishable' from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect."
While the suit is still ongoing, Protect Marriage did file for a temporary restraining order to force removal of the logo--which was appropriately denied.
It's hard to imagine why Protect Marriage would engage in this. First, they stand very little chance of winning; second, they look overbearing; and third, the only thing they would accomplish is to get the logo removed, rather than the whole site. Meanwhile, all they've accomplished is to gain traditional media exposure for a site covering a trial that they were trying to keep out of the public eye.