• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

Discussion Can I use brand logos on my design without permission (please read)

Joe House

Sign Equipment Technician
Don't think England has been a commonwealth for a long time. Something to do with Cromwell, but I could be mistaken.
It is considered a constitutional monarchy.
You've prooved my point about what we would know about laws over there. I couldn't even get the form of government correct:oops:

:thumb: Good catch. I didn't realize it was the same person, but something seemed familiar.
I didn't realize it was the same person either till I did the search to prove the point that this question has been asked and answered.
 

ikarasu

Active Member
I have no idea when stealing became an Okay thing to do ?? Stealing is stealing..... regardless of what transpires. Money changing hands, someone getting a favor or whatever..... if you take something which is not yours, it's stealing. How frickin' dumb can you people be ??

Oh, I'd like that loaf of bread and seeings how I'm hungry, I'm just gonna take it. No money passed anyone's palms, so it should be alright, huh ??


Thing is.... everyone around this place in the last 10 months seems to think differently and wanna change the rules of stealing. So, 100 people can't be wrong if they all agree, huh ??
Theres a difference between stealing, and what he's suggesting... Albeit a small one.

Ever download a mp3? Or watch a youtube video that wasn't from the creators channel? Or stream a show from an un-official source? Thats the same thing that's going on here...

If you steal a loaf of bread, the store lost physical product. Something they could have sold, but now can't. Then you're actually hurting their bottom line. If I right click and save the signs 101 logo up in the top, and print myself a bumper sticker... Does the owner lose any money? ?They didn't actually have anything "Stolen" in that sense. I could even stretch it and go so far as to say they might make more, by my free advertising on my car.

I'm not saying using someone elses artwork is legal, or even ethical. I'm just saying theres a difference between stealing, and "Theft" of digital files.

I live in Canada. And there is A LOT, and I mean A LOT of youtube videos and trailers, and whatever kind of videos you can think of out there, that we get a very annoying "This video is not available in your country" messages for. I could search for hours to find the Canadian source for the video... But 90% of the time there isn't one. or I could use a proxy/VPN to trick the site into thinking I'm visiting from America. Which is also technically "Theft".

The copyright system is broken... It was made before digital days, and needs to be upgraded. I will say, as it stands, it is 100% illegal to copy the logos and put them on the bike, even for personal use. Will you get in trouble, will the company even care? Who knows. It's a slippery slope.

Some companies have to go after everyone - Even if its for personal use. Theres been many cases where they said they didn't mind personal use, but if they allowed it, then it'd set precedent and they couldn't enforce their copyright on people trying to proffit of their work.

I usually try to contact the author and ask if it is ok. You'd be surprised at how many say feel free for personal use. Of course It's usually smaller, unknown companies I've asked... The bigger ones might have a different view on it.
 

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
If you steal a loaf of bread, the store lost physical product. Something they could have sold, but now can't. Then you're actually hurting their bottom line. If I right click and save the signs 101 logo up in the top, and print myself a bumper sticker... Does the owner lose any money? ?They didn't actually have anything "Stolen" in that sense. I could even stretch it and go so far as to say they might make more, by my free advertising on my car.

I'm not saying using someone elses artwork is legal, or even ethical. I'm just saying theres a difference between stealing, and "Theft" of digital files.

I think that this is the problem that most people have. It's easier to wrap ones head around theft of a physical product, versus theft of a digital file.

Is there loss of revenue...in some instances yes.

Easier to be seen if they sell a product and then someone prints off a freebie for a "friend" (the exact same product that is sold by said company) and that's loss of revenue that the company would have ordinarily received had the person gone through the "proper" channels to get said product.

That's a fairly obvious sense of loss, sometimes it's not all that easy.

As far as "free advertising", that may or may not be a good thing. It depends on what it's associated with, if it is associated with something else.

If it's a logo that's going on something that is used for competitions or something like that, it could be perceived that that company is backing that person. If that person is a whackadoo (for whatever reason) that would be no bueno for those that sponsor that person (or thought to have sponsored that person, or even sponsored an event that would be perceived as questionable, perception is everything).

Now, of course, one or two freebies doesn't sound like a big deal. You start having people print off one or two freebies all over the place. Or creating product that could be had through "normal" channels.

What about the shops that pay their "pound of flesh" to produce those logos on goods for sale? That's dinging them too.

The copyright system is broken... It was made before digital days, and needs to be upgraded.

I do agree with that. There are quite a few things that need to be overhauled and modernized (some theories and notions, I think are still valid, but need to be applied in a modern context).

Unfortunately, those in power to be make changes, ironically, don't seem to be up with the times themselves and it's scary what legislation they are trying to push through versus what needs to be actually overhauled and improved upon. So I don't think anything is really going to change.

I usually try to contact the author and ask if it is ok. You'd be surprised at how many say feel free for personal use. Of course It's usually smaller, unknown companies I've asked... The bigger ones might have a different view on it.

Typically because the bigger companies are in a better position to leverage the value that their IPs carry. Smaller companies may even not value branding at all. How many on here have had clients do branding at the very end only to have a pathetic budget for branding/signage etc?

Now one can reject, hate, ignore, disagree with, or whatever else I hadn't though of, the laws that are on the books, but that doesn't necessarily make them go away or make the situation any less illegal. Even if the laws are outdated. Trust me, I don't agree with everything that's out there on the books, but I actually have more issue with just ignoring and doing what I want to do. But too each their own.
 

Gino

Premium Subscriber
Let me give you guys a for instance and then maybe you'll stop trying to convince yourself it's not stealing, just theft.

For instance only..... this is not a real life situation, but a facsimile on all counts.

I have a friend who has a Cycle Shop and wants a logo of Harley Davidson on his wall, cause he works on those kinda bikes. I give it to him as he fixed a front end problem with mine. No money is exchanged. It might actually be considered bartering, but I digress.
My other friend runs a House of Porn Shop and rides a Harley and wants a logo for Harley, too. I give it to him, cause he's an old friend and he doesn't sell bikes or anything related to Harleys. No money transaction takes place.

Do you think Harley wants to see their logo in a Porn shop ?? Do you think Harley cares if no money going back and forth matters ??

Now, let's try another approach to your non-stealing episodes.
You have some hack who has a friend who wants the Harley logo on his house and this hack does a horrible job duplicating the logo and it's actually pretty bad looking. First, does Harley care if the hack got permission or not ?? Probably, but more so, do you think they want their logo being displayed in a horrible fashion..... in poor taste........ even though no one was handled ??
Harley... and any other person who has this kind of property, has the only right to tell who, where and how it can be used, regardless of money going back & forth, favors or anything else. It's their property and their alone. They control it. Not some sign hack or third class lawyer.
This topic is coming up more & more, since the walls have been lowered in this sandbox and all the hobbyists and other hacks are just flowing in with their low standards and little to no integrity for other people's rights and property. Put a frickin' 'sticky' up somewhere condemning this practice and anyone who asks this question again be hanged, drawn and quartered..... then shot til dead.
 

ikarasu

Active Member
Let me give you guys a for instance and then maybe you'll stop trying to convince yourself it's not stealing, just theft.

For instance only..... this is not a real life situation, but a facsimile on all counts.

I have a friend who has a Cycle Shop and wants a logo of Harley Davidson on his wall, cause he works on those kinda bikes. I give it to him as he fixed a front end problem with mine. No money is exchanged. It might actually be considered bartering, but I digress.
My other friend runs a House of Porn Shop and rides a Harley and wants a logo for Harley, too. I give it to him, cause he's an old friend and he doesn't sell bikes or anything related to Harleys. No money transaction takes place.

Do you think Harley wants to see their logo in a Porn shop ?? Do you think Harley cares if no money going back and forth matters ??

Now, let's try another approach to your non-stealing episodes.
You have some hack who has a friend who wants the Harley logo on his house and this hack does a horrible job duplicating the logo and it's actually pretty bad looking. First, does Harley care if the hack got permission or not ?? Probably, but more so, do you think they want their logo being displayed in a horrible fashion..... in poor taste........ even though no one was handled ??
Harley... and any other person who has this kind of property, has the only right to tell who, where and how it can be used, regardless of money going back & forth, favors or anything else. It's their property and their alone. They control it. Not some sign hack or third class lawyer.​
This topic is coming up more & more, since the walls have been lowered in this sandbox and all the hobbyists and other hacks are just flowing in with their low standards and little to no integrity for other people's rights and property. Put a frickin' 'sticky' up somewhere condemning this practice and anyone who asks this question again be hanged, drawn and quartered..... then shot til dead.

That depends. I'd personally never print something for a friend to put in his business, whether it's a porn shop, or a harley shop. If said friend wanted to decorate his mini fridge in his mancave and make it look like the harley davidson logo or something... I might be ok with that.

I can go on ebay and buy one of a million harley davidson decals. /Even ones that say "Official", which I doubt 90% of them are. Point is... I'm sure I can buy an official sticker from somewhere, and display it in my porn shop. Which "Kind of" makes the usage point moot. Albeit, I'll admit there are probably some shops who don't sell, or want anyone else to use their logo. I haven't seen any that are that protective... everyone has at least some merchandise with their logo that you could buy.

I'll agree 100% with your second point though. We do a lot of work that needs to be 100% perfect. We actually have clients come in and inspect our process, and outcome of how their logos / files look every couple months. So you do have a point there.

Anyways... as I said, I believe it's 100% illegal. I'd only ever do it for personal, and maybe for a friend depending on what its for. It's a case by case for me. That may make people consider me "unprofessional" or a "Hobbyist", but it is what it is. It used to also be illegal for someone to record a TV show with their VHS recorder, or PVR... Now it's not. Times change, and so do laws. I never saw anything wrong with recording a movie to watch it later on VHS.... But the cable companies are still fighting that tooth and nail saying it's theft. I believe the official stance is if you're recording it for yourself, it's ok... If you plan on making copies / handing it out, then it's copyright theft.

Thats kind of my view with this topic. I'd never steal someones work if I had a choice. Hell, I sent someone on deviant art $50 after he let me use his image for a canvas for my basement. I believe artists should get paid for their work, I just don't think someone wanting to decorate their bike, or basement wall harms billionaire companies, that would have never saw a cent from these people anyways. I also believe they wouldn't care... I guess thats what makes it ok to me. If harley saw a wall decal in my basement, said they didn't like it... I'd take it down, never use their art again... whether they threatened to sue or not. Which is why I always try to ask permission first... It's just not always easy getting a hold of someone from a company that can give authorization.
 

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
It used to also be illegal for someone to record a TV show with their VHS recorder, or PVR... Now it's not.

I don't think it was ever illegal, if you are referring to the Beta Max case back in what '84? They attack it from the perspective though that Beta Max was mainly developed as a tool to infringe or something along those lines. The same type of case that was brought up against Utube recently. And Napster as well back in the day. Although they did win with Napster and I do believe it was due to the fact that Napster claimed that they could control what was flowing through their servers. Utube did not make that claim. But that's my non-lawyer opinion mind you.

In that instance though, the culprits would be more like Adobe, Corel, those that make software that's easier for people to infringe on others. While the software does make that easier, it wasn't developed in that vein.

Some of the reason why they still fight tooth and nail on a lot of this stuff is what you already pointed out. The system is bent toward that type of proactive approach. Only way to see if something sticks is to give it a shot. I do believe the ones that are the more aggressive tends to be ones that have their own in house counsel that make their salary regardless if there is a case or not. Corporate wants to put them to work to justify the expense, but that's just me speculating.

You want to see something really bad, look up what Disney was doing about a picture posted of a legally purchased toy before The Force Awakens was released in theaters.

Laws do change, but have to wait until they do change.

Some things, I hope will change, but like I said, they have some backwards notions of tech going through those hallowed halls that don't have me holding my breath for them to make changes that would be any more palpable for us here.

For me personally, I never understand how some people could say something isn't good to do in a professional setting, but it OK in a private one or are willing to consider it in private or are more unsure about how they would answer it. I don't understand the nexus that binds that duality of a thought process. But I've been known to be weird like that.
 

ikarasu

Active Member
I don't think it was ever illegal, if you are referring to the Beta Max case back in what '84? They attack it from the perspective though that Beta Max was mainly developed as a tool to infringe or something along those lines. The same type of case that was brought up against Utube recently. And Napster as well back in the day. Although they did win with Napster and I do believe it was due to the fact that Napster claimed that they could control what was flowing through their servers. Utube did not make that claim. But that's my non-lawyer opinion mind you.

In that instance though, the culprits would be more like Adobe, Corel, those that make software that's easier for people to infringe on others. While the software does make that easier, it wasn't developed in that vein.

Some of the reason why they still fight tooth and nail on a lot of this stuff is what you already pointed out. The system is bent toward that type of proactive approach. Only way to see if something sticks is to give it a shot. I do believe the ones that are the more aggressive tends to be ones that have their own in house counsel that make their salary regardless if there is a case or not. Corporate wants to put them to work to justify the expense, but that's just me speculating.

You want to see something really bad, look up what Disney was doing about a picture posted of a legally purchased toy before The Force Awakens was released in theaters.

Laws do change, but have to wait until they do change.

Some things, I hope will change, but like I said, they have some backwards notions of tech going through those hallowed halls that don't have me holding my breath for them to make changes that would be any more palpable for us here.

For me personally, I never understand how some people could say something isn't good to do in a professional setting, but it OK in a private one or are willing to consider it in private or are more unsure about how they would answer it. I don't understand the nexus that binds that duality of a thought process. But I've been known to be weird like that.
Betamax, and DVDS. They've been trying to make it illegal any way they can - Right now it's legal to make a copy of a DVD you purchased as a backup... But it's illegal to make the copy because the encryption key used to encrypt the DVD is copy protected... So it's technically illegal to make a backup / copy of a dvd / bluray you own.


My opinions are admittedly somewhat skewed on all this though. In Canada... we pay a piracy tax. The music industry somehow convinced the courts that Canadians all pirate. So any VHS/blank DVD / CD, hard drive... anything that stores data on it, has a piracy tax on it. They presume everyone is stealing... They even fought to make it so voice recorders / phones had a piracy tax, because they have storage and can be used to pirate... At least our courts told them where to go on that one.

Probaby why my views are what they are. Which, again... I don't think it's right to proffit of of someone elses work. I wouldn't print a bunch of logos and throw them in my shop. Personal, private use, for stuff I can't legally buy, I don't see a problem with that. I try to ask, and I even throw whoever it is some cash when its possible to track them down. I just don't see something wrong with say Designing a fridge to look like a Tardis from DR who. It somewhat falls under the fan art section.... Something most companies encourage. I don't condone ripping people off, whether it's Joe schmuck from across the border, or a multi-billion dollar car company. I just don't think doing something that wont even take a penny from their pockets, or make them be viewed in a bad way is theft.
 

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
Betamax, and DVDS. They've been trying to make it illegal any way they can - Right now it's legal to make a copy of a DVD you purchased as a backup... But it's illegal to make the copy because the encryption key used to encrypt the DVD is copy protected... So it's technically illegal to make a backup / copy of a dvd / bluray you own.

It may be different up north, but I think that it's illegal to strip the DRM from the device, not necessarily to have an exact byte for byte backup. Which should be able to be done by creating an ISO of the disc.

The ISO backup is only in theory as I actually don't back up my movie discs. I've really never thought of it one way or the other, but I'm thinking that stripping the DRM is where it's illegal or if you were to just take the movie or special features, but not everything else. But I could be wrong. Again, in my non-lawyer opinion.

My opinions are admittedly somewhat skewed on all this though. In Canada... we pay a piracy tax. The music industry somehow convinced the courts that Canadians all pirate. So any VHS/blank DVD / CD, hard drive... anything that stores data on it, has a piracy tax on it. They presume everyone is stealing...

I think I would be jaded if I had to deal with that as well.
 

Johnny Best

Active Member
So Gino can't make a copy of some porn he got from his friend's store for me? And I agree, Canadians are pirates.
 

jkdbjj

New Member
I think as long as people are respectful this conversation and topic is beneficial.

It's a topic that evolves as technologies change.

Everyone makes decent points.

All I'll add is two things.
One I know people that try to follow the law exactly. So, if it's illegal to print unauthorized logos they won't even if for a spouse.

Then I know some that think life is way to short to waste brain cells on such questions, especially if a friend just likes the logo.

A friend may say to his friend the sign shop owner, "hay I am heading to the gas station to buy a redbull decal I saw for 2 dollars."

Sign friends says I'll make one for you no problem.

Nothing else said. No discussion of right or wrong. No discussion of what's it's usage.

Sometimes it really isn't a big deal. There's always fringe though. Some take it to the extreme and steal lots of things and others sit around waiting to call police on everything they see and lecture people.
 

bob

It's better to have two hands than one glove.
So Gino can't make a copy of some porn he got from his friend's store for me? And I agree, Canadians are pirates.

What, exactly, does a Canadian pirate sound like when it says 'AAARRRRGGGHH". Does it say "AAARRRRGGGHH eh"?
 

SignosaurusRex

Active Member
Hi,

I make graphic kits for MX bikes and I only use logos what I have permission for or a licence but because my friend wants a graphics kit for his (KTM) mx bike could I use the KTM logo in the design? He would also like the redbull logo. Just as long as no money is made as obviously hes a good friend of mine. I have heard that companies such as KTM, Redbull, Monster Energy etc do not like people using their logo with out a licence but if no money is made its should be no problem should it?

It would be great for you answers

Thanks
Chris

Here's something to ponder...
Lets say... You own a trademarked design that you produce in the form of decals, someone wants to put that design on their vehicle and you want x number of $$'s to do so. (The price is really immaterial).That someone has a friend that will reproduce that decal and supply it without any exchange of monies. Would you be pissed off that someone used your trademarked design without your permission? HeII yes you would be! Do you want compensation? HeII yes again!

Why do you suppose these big companies have an in-house legal team that includes specialists in "Intellectual Property Law"? Why do you suppose those guys are called "Trademark Police"?

You can do as you please and take all the risks you feel comfortable with. In the end, right is right and wrong is wrong...you damned well better know the difference if you expect to be around very long without getting your a$$ in a sling that you can't get out of.
 
Last edited:

mcngrafix

New Member
Here's something to ponder...
Lets say... You own a trademarked design that you produce in the form of decals, someone wants to put that design on their vehicle and you want x number of $$'s to do so. (The price is really immaterial).That someone has a friend that will reproduce that decal and supply it without any exchange of monies. Would you be pissed off that someone used your trademarked design without your permission? HeII yes you would be! Do you want compensation? HeII yes again!

Why do you suppose these big companies have an in-house legal team that includes specialists in "Intellectual Property Law"? Why do you suppose those guys are called "Trademark Police"?

You can do as you please and take all the risks you feel comfortable with. In the end, right is right and wrong is wrong...you damned well better know the difference if you expect to be around very long without getting your a$$ in a sling that you can't get out of.
Thanks for the comment. I already know about what happens, I have only come into the bigger part of the industry and I see alot of companies that just use logos without permission. Fair play to them but they are the ones that are going to get caught
 

mcngrafix

New Member
Here's something to ponder...
Lets say... You own a trademarked design that you produce in the form of decals, someone wants to put that design on their vehicle and you want x number of $$'s to do so. (The price is really immaterial).That someone has a friend that will reproduce that decal and supply it without any exchange of monies. Would you be pissed off that someone used your trademarked design without your permission? HeII yes you would be! Do you want compensation? HeII yes again!

Why do you suppose these big companies have an in-house legal team that includes specialists in "Intellectual Property Law"? Why do you suppose those guys are called "Trademark Police"?

You can do as you please and take all the risks you feel comfortable with. In the end, right is right and wrong is wrong...you damned well better know the difference if you expect to be around very long without getting your a$$ in a sling that you can't get out of.
That makes sense!
 
Top