Can a bunch of birthday cake-smeared five-year-olds distinguish between the "real" SpongeBob SquarePants and a convincing lookalike, say, AbsorBert AngularTrousers? Probably not, but intellectual property lawyers can, and that's a real problem for parents seeking favorite—and trademark-protected—cartoon characters to entertain at their children's birthday parties. The Wall Street Journal devoted yesterday's A-Hed to the story, focusing on the costume industry's strategies to avoid lawsuits.

"I try to make my costumes look 40% different," Florida costume company owner Leslie Ann Hooker told the WSJ. "I don't have SpongeBob. I have SquishyGuy." Alas, Hooker recently threw in the towel (we're betting it was yellow and affixed with giant googly eyes). Fearful of lawsuits, she renamed her company and is now exclusively focused on marketing "her self-created band of environmentally conscious super heroes." Other companies are hanging in there, but capturing the essence of a trademarked character with a homemade costume is not easy:

Miriam Sorkin, an office manager in Englewood Cliffs, N.J., threw a fourth-birthday party for her daughter in May and arranged for a costumed impersonator of Dora the Explorer. Though the walk-about "Dora" had the expected pageboy haircut and backpack, her expression was blank and her legs appeared out of proportion to the rest of her body. "When Dora came out," Mrs. Sorkin says, "none of the kids would go to Dora, including my daughter, and a few of the kids started crying."

How do you celebrate the closing of a $2.4 billion deal to acquire a photography giant? We can't say for sure, but at this time of year, we bet it involves sparklers, watermelon, and lots of stock images of American flags. Getty Images announced this afternoon the completion of its acquisition by private equity firm Hellman & Friedman, a deal that was announced back in February and received shareholder approval last month. Hellman & Friedman's other recent media-related investments include DoubleClick, Digitas, and The Nielsen Company.

Getty Images is one step closer to being acquired by private equity firm Hellman & Friedman in the deal valued at $2.4 billion that we told you about back in February. At a special meeting held today at Getty Images' Seattle headquarters, the company's stockholders voted to adopt the merger agreement, under which stockholders will receive $34.00 in cash for each share of Getty Images common stock. The company affirmed today that it expects the deal to close during the week of June 30.

Avoid overly tan models, especially those wearing floral patterns. Instead, focus on multi-ethnic babies and "scary nature." These are just a few tips gleaned from the thousands of lessons taught at the School of Stock, an online educational initiative launched today by the online photo community PhotoShelter.

"We talk to buyers all day and we talk to photographers all day, and we hear pretty much the same thing from each side," PhotoShelter COO Emily Hickey told us this morning. "Buyers are always saying, 'Stock photography is dated and there's a very thin selection in key areas.' And from photographers, we see what they submit, and it's obvious that they have no idea where the demand in the industry really is." Created to bridge the gap is the School of Stock, an online guide to help photographers of all levels understand what stock photo buyers want—from lighting and captioning to specific shots such as "kids being bullies"—and how they want it.

So what are photo buyers most desperate for? "There are some key messages that apply to all of the categories, such as using diverse models," said Hickey, who also emphasized the "insatiable demand for lifestyle photography." The site also highlights the results of the company's industry survey, which reveals rampant discontent among stock photo buyers. Survey respondents indicated the worst categories in stock photography, in terms of quality and breadth of available imagery, were healthcare (88%), multicultural and diversity lifestyle (86%), senior citizens lifestyle (86%), and consumer technology and products (84%). And don't even get them started on the dearth of photos of multi-ethnic senior citizens in hospital settings playing video games. Good luck finding those!

We admit that we've amassed an impressive collection of magazine t-shirts over the years—here a long-sleeved hooded number from Liz Tilberis-era Harper's Bazaar, there a flimsy Elle logo tee—but aside from the odd purple one with the Vanity Fair logo that we picked up on eBay, they were all freebies. Ever the shatterer of paradigms, Rolling Stone is inverting the free-tee-with-subscription concept and selling "collectors' edition t-shirts" that come with a free one-year subscription to the magazine. It's all part of a new exclusive deal with Macy's, surely the most rock n' roll of department stores, in which t-shirts featuring a selection of iconic Rolling Stone covers will sell for $36 at select Macy's stores and online.

According to Macy's vice president of men's fashion Jerry Balest, "The new collection of Rolling Stone tees appeals to today's cross-channel lifestyle," probably not referring to people who take the Eurostar on a regular basis (they tend to prefer Hanro). "Macy's is honored to be exclusively bringing back these covers in a new, wearable way." As for the covers who made the cut, there are the obvious choices—The Beatles (Issue 46, November 15, 1969) and Jimi Hendrix (Issue 809, April 1, 1999)—and then something for everyone:

Other covers featured include Metallica (Issue 617, November 14, 1991), Kid Rock (Issue 843, June 22, 2000), Jim Morrison (Issue 88, August 5, 1971), Johnny Cash (Issue 933, October 16, 2003), Ozzy Osbourne (Issue 901, July 25, 2002), Kurt Cobain (Issue 683, June 2, 1994), Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg (Issue 666 September 30, 1993), The Beastie Boys (Issue 804, January 21, 1999) and Jerry Garcia (Issue 740, August 8, 1996).

We're only at the halfway mark for this year and what a bumpy, uncertain road its been thus far. First we read of the dire circumstances the architecture industry has found themselves in right now and then we read that Engineering News-Record has just released their annual Top 500 Design Firms survey stating that most of the big name design firms made a killing last year, bumping up their revenues by the billions (admittedly, we had access to this whole survey, but couldn't quite wrap our heads around it until Architectural Record boiled it down into normal people language). So what's one to take from all of this? Well, keep in mind that many of these "top firms" work overseas, so there's your answer. While our pesky American dollars might not be worth much more right now than the paper they're printed on, firms either based in or getting contracts overseas means loads of other currencies far more valuable than our own. Here's a bit:

It seems possible that firms earning money overseas may be insulated somewhat from the troubles that have begun to creep into the U.S. nonresidential market. "The lift provided by nonresidential building during the first two months of this year was not present in March," says Robert A. Murray, vice president of economic affairs for McGraw-Hill Construction. "This is consistent with the general pattern expected for nonresidential building, in which the tight lending environment will dampen the volume of commercial projects as 2008 goes on."

Not long ago, we heard from the good people at Design Within Reach, answering our posted question about whether expanding their retail business into a massive new Toronto location was a good idea or not. Turns out, within two months, that Canadian outlet is one of their top moneymakers, even keeping pace with their New York locations. So it seems like DWR has turned things around and, in the interest of keeping that ball rolling, we ran across an announcement that they're planning to open two new locations, but with a slight twist. Starting in September, in both New York and Santa Monica, the company will open two DWR: Tools for Living stores. Instead of furniture, they'll focus on more cash and carry type merchandise, like artwork, devices for your office and other miscellaneous doo-dads. Here's a bit:

In the fall of 2007, Design Within Reach introduced Tools for Living as a category that encompassed everyday items from cookware to desk sets to portable dog bowls. The items offered are unique in how they solve a problem or make something more comfortable or easier to use. Their smart design elevates them from clever objects to functional tools. The new concept was an immediate success within the existing DWR channels, but it became evident that a store format that included salable inventory would fulfill consumers' desires to have merchandise in hand upon purchase.

In New York City, the DWR: Tools for Living store will be located at 142 Wooster Street, in a 3,500 square foot space that was the former site of DWR's first SoHo Studio. In Santa Monica, the Tools for Living store will be given a dedicated space within the existing Design Within Reach Studio at 332 Santa Monica Boulevard.

It's been plastered on t-shirts (3 for $10, last we checked), bumper stickers, salt and pepper shakers, even a particularly garish Gucci handbag, but for Milton Glaser the sheer endurance of the I ♥ New York logo he developed, gratis, in the late 1970s, is still difficult to fathom. "It is one of those peculiarities of your own life where you don't know the consequences of your own actions," Glaser told The New York Times recently. "Who in the world would have thought that this silly bit of ephemera would become one of the most pervasive images of the 20th century?" Earlier this week, the paper of record focused on efforts to "reclaim the symbol itself, which...has become devalued...through overuse." Initiatives include a difficult-to-reproduce hologram that will mark the logo's licensed use while sellers of unauthorized I ♥ New York goods (no doubt created at home, with help of Courier and Wingdings) will receive a cease-and-desist letter from an Albany law firm.

According to Thomas Ranese, chief marketing officer at Empire State Development:

"We have been reviewing anything found by our licensing agent," said Ranese. Undesirable products include ashtrays ($6.99) and cigarette lighters ($3.99) because the state wants to discourage smoking.

Marshall Blonsky, 70, who teaches semiotics at Parsons the New School for Design, expressed skepticism at the state's new efforts. "Oh, boy! That's very odd!" he exclaimed. "They're trying to re-proprietize this thing." The brand is battered, Mr. Blonsky said. "What was absolutely original and therefore thrilling in 1977," he said, "is now an empty signifier, nothing in it, no communication, zed, zero. It moved from poetry to banality, from red to pink, like a coin that has been rubbed smooth from so much usage."

Not entirely a positive, but we're sure you'll be happy for anything with a brighter outlook than our last couple of real downer posts. Sir John Sorrell, chairman of the London Design Festival was speaking last week to partners in the festival and asked that everyone involved in the design industry keep a stiff upper lip and how the creative fields would be the thing that would lift us all out of economic chaos. Granted, Sorrell probably has to say that, given that the Design Festival launches late this summer and it's kind of a bummer having a big event like that, in any field, not just design, while everyone's getting laid off or finding jobs with tiny salaries; so you sort of have to say, "Look! I promise! We're going to matter! Honest!" But here's to really, really, really hoping that he's right. Here's a bit:

"I believe that the greatest creativity happens in adversity," he says. "And I believe creativity in adversity is the key to success. I believe in the power of design to solve problems and [foster] innovation."

He continues, "Design for me is the powerhouse of the creative industries. It is the catalyst that restarts the economic engines of nations."

In response to Bruce Nussbaum's post the other day over at BusinessWeek, asking if New York was becoming the new hub of design and innovation, Ross Popoff-Walker has a much more articulate and better reasoned reply to Nussbaum than our own. In it, he argues that yes, there might be lots of firms moving to NY or opening satelitte offices, but it's important to distinguish between the different types of design and innovation (i.e. it isn't just advertising) and how essentially academic areas are, and how those aren't moving anywhere anytime soon. Here's a bit:

It's no secret recipe that innovation comes from areas with strong academic environments -- learning hubs like Boston (MIT's Media Lab, Harvard), Pittsburgh (Carneige Mellon U and the Entertainment Technology Center), or Chicago (Institute of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology).

In fact, Pittsburgh is a great case study -- Google opened up an office there because of the rich talent coming from Carnegie Mellon.

So yes, something is brewing in NYC -- the ad/marketing industry is undergoing a transformational shift to a design-focus -- and NYC has always been a hub for advertising.