Copyright question

[hazelsmrf]

It was the sticker that was printed by a person without permission for their own personal use, not one received from proper channels.

Oooooh OK. Right, I get that. Well let's put it this way. If my daughter wanted me to make her an Anna and Elsa sticker and I drew it on sticker paper and cut it out for her, that's fan art, Disney won't care about that. If I sold that sticker to a customer, that's where Disney *should* care about it. I say should, because well, Disney lets a lot of that stuff slide. But that does not make it legal, or ethical for a business to make a single penny off of something like that. Just because many businesses DO do it, does not make it right.

 

[ams]

Oooooh OK. Right, I get that. Well let's put it this way. If my daughter wanted me to make her an Anna and Elsa sticker and I drew it on sticker paper and cut it out for her, that's fan art, Disney won't care about that. If I sold that sticker to a customer, that's where Disney *should* care about it. I say should, because well, Disney lets a lot of that stuff slide. But that does not make it legal, or ethical for a business to make a single penny off of something like that. Just because many businesses DO do it, does not make it right.

It may be illegal, but is Disney going to file a lawsuit with you over those stickers? No. I bought my wife's nieces a plastic snowmobile you ride down a hill, stripped everything off it and did a Frozen wrap on it and gave it to them for Christmas. Is Disney going to sue me? Nope. So the point is, Disney or any other company wouldn't give a crap over it because it's not worth thousands of dollars to try and sue you over something so small. If you were selling them, that is a different story or if you used it for personal use in order to gain media attention.

So the point is, while it's often not legal, 99% of companies could careless. You aren't worth their time. The problem with these other sign shops on this forum, is if they visited your shop and found out you did something "illegal" they will take photos, contact the company and try to bust you. So just don't share with anyone else.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

It may be illegal, but is Disney going to file a lawsuit with you over those stickers?

Disney started the process (first is a letter to see if the offending party complies) over a customer picture of $6.94 toy that was taken after the toy was purchased at the WalMart store. The issue that Disney had was actually with what WalMart did (in my non legal mind), but I would be willing to bet that it's easier to go after a little person and scare them, then it is "someone" of equal stature.

This whole conversation though is about the legality of something, not rather or not you can/will get away with it and/or rather or not the C/B of going after a little person like us is actually worth it to a company.

So the point is, Disney or any other company wouldn't give a crap over it because it's not worth thousands of dollars to try and sue you over something so small. If you were selling them, that is a different story or if you used it for personal use in order to gain media attention.

They may indeed give a crap, but won't do anything if it isn't worth thousands of dollars or if it would do more damage to them in the public perception (of course, that didn't stop Disney re-sending those letters for the above issue).

Again, you are drawing wrong conclusions. How many posts on here of people complaining about concepts that they have drawn up, but don't seek legal measures, because the costs (both in time and money) of those measures exceeds what the job was worth? It still bothers them, they still don't like it, they still give a crap that it was done, but they don't pursue it.

I would be very surprised that Disney doesn't care all the instances of people doing this for their own personal use (and I'm willing to bet that they do add up to a significant amount in total, so while your one instance may mean squat, overall it adds up).

 

[Gino]

So again, in your world, you can do anything wrong, illegal or say anything you want..... as long as you don't make money on it, huh ?? Or get caught.

With your thinking, you can make layouts, drawings and logos for someone and as long as they don't pay you for it, they can do what they want..... right ??

How much free crap do you think you can make, not charge for and get away with ??

Generally, I don't blow the whistle on anyone, but how 'bout since we have your blessings, why doesn't someone call the people you are stealing from and let them know what you're doing ??

Did it ever occur to you, it's not just the using their property illegally that's the only issue. You're proably not using correct colors, in appropriate situations and lotsa other illegal usage of the logo. They wanna make sure, if when being used...... legally......... it is being used 100% correctly and up to their standards. What might be good enough for you and your customers, might not be good enough for them.

You do realize, that's why so many corporates have what they call authorized dealers ?? They know the ins & outs and the proper usage for using which logo, theme or whatever..... whenever.



You have proved publicly, you are a 100% hack. Anyone that has no respect for the law in any situation, is a menace. Our industry has enough problems without the likes of someone of your low integrity...... no let me correct that.... with NO integrity, to have it within our walls as a trade.

I will never lift a finger to help you ever again.

 

[Stormyj]

I used to own a DQ and they were also quite strict with their logo usage. It pretty much followed the exact same guidelines as HD.
Didn't read through all the entries, but here ya.
http://provationsgroup.org/ftpfiles... Images/HD_Visual_ID_Trademark_Guidelines.pdf

 

[signguypgh]

Our shop did a job 8 months ago for a motorcycle service shop that wanted logos for all the major brands they service on an illuminated awning. They are along a busy state road. Shop was not an official dealer, just ordered parts from these brands when needed. I was asked to "collect" the logos online. This had fail written all over it from the beginning but of course I didn't know what I was talking about , just get the logos.

Job goes up, within two weeks they get a cease and desist stating they don't have the permission to use the logos. Dealers who pay fees for the privilege were pissed. Logo's come down, generic text goes up.

I reiterate my original point that the logos never should have been sold. I insist that at the very least the customer should be told they are entering a situation where their investment could easily be wasted and they should think about more creative options instead (giant fiberglass motorcycle, carved sign, anything!).

Of course that doesn't gain traction. I'm told that the problem was that it was posted on facebook and that's how the lawyers found it.

It was a hack job from the beginning. I would like to say it's common sense...The general rule is that if a customer wants an image that is a corporate/franchise logo or art there are three possible scenarios.

1. Client has rights to use art and has access to quality files
2. Client has rights to use art but does not know how to access quality art files (i.e. use corporate website, contact, ect.)
3. Client doesn't have the rights and want a hack job.

Work with people in scenario #3 at your own risk. The bigger the investment the bigger the trouble. For my part, I would rather offer them something creative, original and interesting rather than a hack job.

 

[sardocs]

My 2 cents...

 

[hazelsmrf]

With your thinking, you can make layouts, drawings and logos for someone and as long as they don't pay you for it, they can do what they want..... right ??

This would still be considered commercial use, even if you're not taking any money for it.

 

[ams]

I actually don't do it myself, but am saying 99% of the time, for small personal stuff, no one is going to care.

 

[signbrad]

1. If someone brings you artwork to print, what's your legal responsibility to make sure they have
permission to have it printed

This would be a good question to ask a trademark lawyer.

My gut reaction is that we are not expected to go out of our way to police the actions of our clients. When a customer wants a truck lettered, do we ask if it's a stolen vehicle? How would we even know for sure if the client has the right to commission a job? Sometimes it may seem obvious. When someone claiming to be from the Kansas City Royals baseball office calls our shop and orders sign work that is to have the franchise logo, we don't question it. But when someone wants the same logo put on a small lighted sign for their basement, it is probably a trademark infringement. My boss usually does it anyway. Sometimes he will say, "You know you're not supposed to do that, don't you." But, generally, his policy is "don't ask, don't tell."
What if the Royals office finds out about the basement sign? They might insist that the sign owner take the sign down, maybe even destroy it, like the Harley-Davidson executives in the example posted above. Or they might ignore it, knowing that it is not really a threat to their trademark (FYI: in the US, this would probably not be a copyright issue, but a trademark issue).
Would the Royals litigate? To what end? Would a judge even hear the case?
The whole point is to stop the infringement. Once the infringement stops, then it's 'game over.' What is left to do?
Infringement is usually not a crime in the same sense as say, murder, where the perpetrator needs to be caught and brought to justice. And, of course, the idea of sending a cease-and-desist letter to a serial killer is ludicrous. The point is, these crimes are not even in the same ball park.

Would our shop be in some kind of trouble for producing the basement sign? I suppose the Royals could send a letter demanding that my boss never infringe their trademark again. Or worse, we could never get any work from them again. Other than that, what would they do?

More than once, we have been in a situation where a customer has hired us to produce sign work that was a trademark infringement. We were not aware that the jods involved infringement, but in every case (I remember three) it was the client who was threatened with legal action. We were not. We were not even contacted by the trademark owner. In fact, in all three cases, we didn't even find out that infringement occurred till the clients came back to us to take the signs down and order new sign work.
In the worst case, a shoe store owner had to change his company name, pay a graphic designer to design a new logo, and then have us re-make his channel letters at three store locations. So we made all his signs twice, plus some additional signs for two new stores. Even worse, unbelievably, his new name was also an apparent infringement. So after another name change and another logo design, we built sign packages for the five stores again. On the third go-around, he wisely hired an attorney to do a trademark search before spending money on sign work.
In each instance, though, neither the store owner, nor the trademark owner claiming the infringement, accused our shop of any wrongdoing.


But what if there are financial damages to the trademark owner?

But what if a screen shop decides to print 10,000 T-shirts for profit, knowingly using someone's trademark on the shirts without permission. The trademark owner might not be satisfied with sending a cease-and-desist letter. What if the shop had already sold half the shirts and made some money? What if the trademark owner in some way lost money because of the shirt sales? The trademark owner may feel that they should receive a money award in addition to injunctive relief (an injunction is an order by a judge to stop the T-shirt production). The trademark owner might sue and could be awarded the defendant's profits from the sale of the shirts, in addition to any financial damages caused by the infringement. They could also be awarded legal costs, such as filing fees. In some cases the award could include attorney's fees. --information from Intellectual Property. Patents, Trademarks d Copyrights by Richard Sim (2001, Delmar).

An infringement lawsuit is rarely done frivolously because it is so very expensive. When I took some classes in intellectual property at a community college here in Kansas City, my professor, a local patent and trademark lawyer, said that the main goal of a trademark owner whenever there is an infringement is to stop the infringement, to stop the wrongful use of the trademark. They always hope that a cease-and-desist letter will do the job. The trademark owner wants to avoid litigation, if possible.


Copyright and trademark are not the same

This string of posts tends to confuse trademark and copyright protections. In the US they are not the same. They each protect different things and in different ways, though there can be overlap. The standards to determine infringement are not the same, nor are the penalties. The costs for registration are not the same, either, and they are administered by two separate parts of the government. Copyright law was written into the US Constitution and is handled by the US Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress. The US Patent and Trademark Office is part of the Department of Commerce.

A logo is generally not protected by copyright in the US. Most logos do not meet the standards to qualify for copyright protection.
In fact, the Copyright Office may have a tendency to not grant copyright protection to graphic arts layouts in general, such as sign layouts (see Linda Joy Kattwinkel's article on this: https://graphicartistsguild.org/tools_resources/registering-your-copyright-in-graphic-design) However, artists portfolios can receive copyright protection. And logos can receive protection as trademarks, both at a national level and at state level. In certain cases, a logo can be protected by both trademark and copyright.
A copyright lawsuit can only be initiated in federal court in the US. There is no small claims court for copyright infringement, though there was discussion of it a couple years ago. There was a preliminary study done by the Copyright Office about the feasibility of having a small claims system for small copyright holders, but nothing has come of it.
Copyright protection in the US is automatic, its protection is for a limited time, and it does not need to be maintained to stay in force, though a copyright must be registered before a lawsuit can be initiated. Trademark protection is another story altogether. Trademark must be vigorously maintained or it can be lost. If it is properly maintained, it can last indefinitely.
The Coca-Cola logo illustrates this. It does not have copyright protection in the US. It may never have had it, as there is question as to who the original designer was in the first place. If it did have copyright protection, it has long since expired. But it does have protection as a trademark, and is one of the Coca-Cola company's most valuable assets. It has been valued at 70 billion dollars.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

My gut reaction is that we are not expected to go out of our way to police the actions of our clients.

"Contributory Infringement" is what I would be worried about. To my non-legal knowledge, that is born out of case law.

More than once, we have been in a situation where a customer has hired us to produce sign work that was a trademark infringement. We were not aware that the jods involved infringement, but in every case (I remember three) it was the client who was threatened with legal action. We were not.

Again, in my non-legal knowledge, I do not believe that they have to go after all parties. They can go after a portion, separately, or all together. I would speculate that it would just be who is more important to them (and what determines that importance).

This string of posts tends to confuse trademark and copyright protections. In the US they are not the same. They each protect different things and in different ways, though there can be overlap. The standards to determine infringement are not the same, nor are the penalties. The costs for registration are not the same, either, and they are administered by two separate parts of the government. Copyright law was written into the US Constitution and is handled by the US Copyright Office, part of the Library of Congress. The US Patent and Trademark Office is part of the Department of Commerce.

The confusion probably stems from section 102 of the 1976 Copyright Act adding in : "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural" to it's list of protections. Now the DMCA, which would probably be the most applicable considering we are focused on digital files, that tends to focus on more of the audio, audio/visual, and software (although for me and my trade, embroidery files have fallen into this category at times, depends on the situation) aspect of it all. At least all the cases that I'm aware of (the much beloved case of Vernor v. Autodesk among them).

 

[Fred Weiss]

Trademark must be vigorously maintained or it can be lost. If it is properly maintained, it can last indefinitely.

This is correct and explains why profit vs. no profit does not matter to a trademark owner. Fear of loss of their rights will motivate most trademark owners to move against any infringement they become aware of. The law states that if the TM owner is aware of any infringement then the TM owner has one year to commence action to stop the infringement or the trademark becomes public domain and all protection is lost.

 

[Marlene]

we make ADA signs for a local university. they have their logo on the signs. the university has a company that oversees their logo and how it is used. we have to pay a fee every year so that we can put their logo on their signs. we also have to file reports with break outs of how many signs and what departments they go to. we aren't selling products to the pubic with the university logo, we are selling them ADA signs that they want their logo on. you would think they would have the right to use it as they please but nope, we have to deal with this overseer company.