Copyright? 18 and older only!

[washingtonsignguy]

Customer is a disabled person that has recently been making speeches about the topic of sex. Not sure how else to describe that. But he wants me to put this image on a couple hats and shirts that he can wear to the meetings and possibly sell to those interested. Its not a logo of any business just something funny to kinda break the ice for the audience and hopefully make them feel alittle more open to the topic i guess. I have attatched the image but it is the regular handicap chair guy and then the very commonly found stripper girl combined. Is this okay as far ask copyright goes, i seen some website already selling these things but iam not sure if i would say they own it. I dont know, what do you guys think. Hopefully I am in the realm of appropriate with this.

 

[Mike Paul]

Sell him a logo.
Busted blown-out wheels, guy on the floor with two babes...

 

[washingtonsignguy]

It will probably turn into that and i will try to steer him that direction again, but for this first meeting he wanted something simple to start and see what their reaction was. I am not that worried about the whole thing mostly just curious how cautious i should be on this one.

 

[Rick]

Mudflap girl is a trademark and a big no-no, the ISA I am pretty sure is public domain....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudflap_girl

 

[washingtonsignguy]

Thanks rick. That was a good link. But what are your thoughts on the both together? one being tm and the other public

 

[Rick]

nope... there is not percentage or modified use of it... if you got sued, they would use a side by side analysis, but I would ask. This is one of those uses where the person holding the trademark might allow because it seems like a good cause. But selling it as a product without permission and thats asking to get your butt bit off.

There is also a stripper font somewhere that might have a girl you can use.... or draw one up...

 

[washingtonsignguy]

Good advice thanks rick. Hope fully I can get him into something more along the lines of a custom logo knowing all this now. It should be a fun one to sketch up.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I forget how much of a change there has to be between the copyright item and the one in question, or maybe that isn't good law anymore and has been done away with.

You could always change the "assets" a little bit and have her hands around his head and maybe slight different hair style.

 

[bayshorecreations]

Sounds simple to me, use the handicap guy and create your own stripper to go on top of him.

 

[Techman]

I forget how much of a change there has to be between the copyright item and the one in question, or maybe that isn't good law anymore and has been done away with.

There is not standard amount of a of change to make it legal... Thats a fantasy dreamed up by some unknown. .

They only standard of infringement is. Will a reasonable person confuse one item with another. If yes then its infringement./

 

[bayshorecreations]

There is not standard amount of a of change to make it legal... Thats a fantasy dreamed up by some unknown. .

They only standard of infringement is. Will a reasonable person confuse one item with another. If yes then its infringement./

Can anyone define "a reasonable person"? Seems as thou if you had a good lawyer you could run that trial so long that the Judge would just throw it out of court.

 

[Techman]

Reasonable person has already been defined for legal terminology

 

[WildWestDesigns]

There is not standard amount of a of change to make it legal... Thats a fantasy dreamed up by some unknown. .

Actually there was a standard mentioned in one Judge's opinion that he gave. Opinions by judges that are of the "winning" side if you will, can very much carry the weight of law. It's the dissenting opinion that does not, but can make for an effective counter argument.

 

[SAS]

Try Google for some inspiration.

http://www.google.com/images?um=1&h...L78AbxuZHGDQ&ved=0CDIQ1QIoAA&biw=1045&bih=400

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Reasonable person has already been defined for legal terminology

It's still fairly loose though and open to interpretation.

I remember a Supreme Court case that happened. Two people, one wanted land that the other had. The landowner didn't want to sell. While the landowner was drunk one night, the other man that wanted to buy the land approached this notion as a lark(I can't remember the specifics of it) and managed to get the landowner, who was in a drunken stupor, to sign of title to other man.

Well after he came to and found out that he signed away his land, he sued. Went all the way to the Supreme Court and they found, despite testimony from every one in the bar, that the former landowner was of reasonable and sound mind to conclude that the offer was legitimate and that he was indeed signing away his land.

To my knowledge that case has never been over turned and is still good law. I would say that a reasonable person is up in the air if that example qualified as a person of reason and sound mind.

 

[Techman]

I would love to see the actual transcripts of this case. It sounds fishy, In any case...

I would say that a reasonable person

Two different terms.

A reasonable person can be defined as reasonable yet be drunk at the same time.

I know about the reasonable standard. I have tested it and been tested many times and never lost a case in court.

 

[Locals Find!]

It's still fairly loose though and open to interpretation.

I remember a Supreme Court case that happened. Two people, one wanted land that the other had. The landowner didn't want to sell. While the landowner was drunk one night, the other man that wanted to buy the land approached this notion as a lark(I can't remember the specifics of it) and managed to get the landowner, who was in a drunken stupor, to sign of title to other man.

Well after he came to and found out that he signed away his land, he sued. Went all the way to the Supreme Court and they found, despite testimony from every one in the bar, that the former landowner was of reasonable and sound mind to conclude that the offer was legitimate and that he was indeed signing away his land.

To my knowledge that case has never been over turned and is still good law. I would say that a reasonable person is up in the air if that example qualified as a person of reason and sound mind.

The case your referencing is an Urban Legend. Federal Law does not allow a person to sign a binding contract if they have even so much as one drink. It falls under coercion. The contract would be null and void. I have seen a lot of Real Estate deals get over turned due to that one. Its day one when getting a Real Estate License in just about every state.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

The case your referencing is an Urban Legend. Federal Law does not allow a person to sign a binding contract if they have even so much as one drink. It falls under coercion. The contract would be null and void. I have seen a lot of Real Estate deals get over turned due to that one. Its day one when getting a Real Estate License in just about every state.

I'll find it in my Con Law book, I had to study it.

 

[Gino]

I wouldn't use it. Too many pitfalls and just plain dead-ends.

To me that's the same as using Bugs Bunny with Coca-Cola.​

Create something entirely of your own without using nationally known icons.

 

[ddarlak]

your safe, your stripper has much bigger breasts and she only has one leg!