Photocopy

A guy I once worked with always referred to photocopying as “xeroxing”. Quite often he’d get up from his desk and say, “I’m just going to grab a xerox of this document.”

I used to remind him that we didn’t have a Xerox photocopier. It was another brand of copier. “Ah, but Xerox is an original,” he used to say, “everyone knows that xeroxing is the same as photocopying.”

So at what point, I wonder, does a well established brand name enter day to day language and somehow be deemed to “belong” to everyone, rather than the person (or company) who originally coined it?

Take the “word” hoover for example. It’s a very well known brand name for home appliances. Hoover made a reputation for themselves as manufacturers of vacuum cleaners.

So well known and familiar has the brand become that many people now refer to vacuum cleaning as hoovering, and any brand of vacuum cleaner, regardless of its name, as a hoover.

That must greatly frustrate the manufacturers of other vacuum cleaners, but be deeply satisfying for Hoover. Even if a consumer did not buy one of their… hoovers, they are probably telling their friends what a great hoover their hoover is.

Imagine though you could be penalised for referring to a vacuum cleaner by its incorrect brand name. What if ACME vacuum cleaners decided to sue everyone they heard calling their device a hoover?

Or imagine if you could be sued for using the word hoover in the wrong context. Imagine having to pay damages because you said you were doing the hoovering rather than the vacuum cleaning?

But it looks like you could find yourself in hot water for forgetting, albeit unintentionally, that a word (or name) was in fact a brand name.

Such is the case for Benjamin Ruhe, a Sydney based web designer who has been running a photo collection website called Life through a polaroid since 2002.

Polaroid as we all know, are the manufacturers of a camera that processes and prints photos taken with it instantly. And it seems the company is not completely happy with the extent to which its brand name has been assimilated into the culture, especially if it seems someone stands to profit from that brand name.

The Polaroid brand, like Hoover, was a run away success, and polaroid has, over time, become a de facto way to refer to taking photos, or even photographs themselves.

I’m sure that must be deeply satisfying for a company like Polaroid, to have made a product that has become so ingrained in our culture that we don’t take photos, we take polaroids. Hell, there’s even a band called the Polaroids.

Not for much longer I suppose.

The truth is Benjamin doesn’t make a cent out of the fact he uses the word “polaroid” in his domain name. He’s just someone who likes taking photos and posting them on his website, for all to view, free of charge.

That is lost on Polaroid though. They intend taking legal action over his unacceptable copyright infringement.

I hope they intend to do the same to all those people calling any sundry photo a polaroid. That surely has to rate as copyright infringement as well?

And since they are at it, Hoover should really clamp down on the incorrect use of their brand name at the same time. And Xerox should go after my former colleague.

Meanwhile the lawyers laugh all the way to the bank.

It’s a case of tall trees catching the most wind gone disturbingly wrong. Anyone care for a dose of common sense?