Pete- I understand. But the club can still have rights to the picture as it is used to designate origin (that is what a trademark is) even if they don't own the underlying copyright in the artwork.

Trademarks and service marks serve one and only one purpose -- they associate goods (trademark) or services (service marks) with the manufacturer or service provider. They protect both the manufacturer and the public. They can be traced back to the days when someone like a silversmith would put his mark on his creation so that a buyer many towns away would know who made it. If the buyer saw Paul Revere's mark, he knew it was qaulity, because Paul Revere was known to make quality pieces.

SImilarly, if this club develops a reputation as a quality organization, anyone seeing their logo (ARTWORK INCLUDED) on an advertisement, flyer, convention banner, magazine, etc, will have reason to believe that the goods or servies are of a quality in line with this club's reputation.

THis is totally separate from the copyright in the picture -- which rests in the person who created it. Now that the logo (which includes his artowrk) has become associated with the club, even the holder of that copyright could not grant permission for someone else to use it as a designation of origin. For example, the person who holds the copyright in the artwork cannot grant me permission to host my own chip show, and use that artwork in my ads. Yes, he holds the copyright, but the club holds the trademark.

The public policy reason for that law is simple- the public would likely be confused into thinking the club was hosting the event. They would expect the same quality event the club hosts. And they might not get it because I could host a lousy show.

I hate to belabor the point, but it really seems that those who write things like "the club doesn't really own the logo" are confusing copyrights and trademark rights.

Of course, perhaps there are additional fact other than those with which I'm familiar.