copyright

[Marlene]

If people don't see anything wrong with it perhaps in this day and age there isn't anything wrong with it. At least nothing which would warrant the draconian efforts usually seen when attempting to enforce whatever rules there be however outdated they might be.

go ahead and make a great big Harley logo and sell it to see an "attempt" to enforce the laws. not seeing anything wrong with it does not make something right. I see nothing wrong with kicking the nuts in of anyone I think is being a pain in the ass but I would bet I would be jailed for doing it.

 

[iSign]

^ what he said!!

...OR, you say sure, for $100 an hour, I'll do all the leg work here,,, otherwise if you just want a sig, at the quoted sign price, contact me when your ducks in a row!

To the guy who wants corporate's number... do you have a client? What permission are you wanting to ask for? From your posts it sounds like you don't have a client to justify permission... If you do, they should pave the way for you.

 

[WhiskeyDreamer]

To the guy who wants corporate's number... do you have a client? What permission are you wanting to ask for? From your posts it sounds like you don't have a client to justify permission... If you do, they should pave the way for you.

he wants permission to sell and distribute corporate logos...in other words he wants to be a reseller of the decals (and other products), but wants to go about it legally....

 

[threeputt]

Sadly the whole body of law dealing with copyright and attendant issues is hopelessly chained to another era. An era when the means of reproduction were not virtually universal and laws, even then silly, could at least be enforced.

Time marches on and the entire concept of 'intellectual property', whatever that might be, has been, if not negated, at least re-defined, with the advent of universal reproduction capabilities. Nowadays enforcement of these antiquated notions more often than not results in parties to any action looking ridiculous.

If people don't see anything wrong with it perhaps in this day and age there isn't anything wrong with it. At least nothing which would warrant the draconian efforts usually seen when attempting to enforce whatever rules there be however outdated they might be.

Bob, you and I usually agree on most topics. But I'm not sure where you're coming from on this. Do you not respect the concept of individual property rights? (with respect to intellectual property)

 

[natedawg9640]

he wants permission to sell and distribute corporate logos...in other words he wants to be a reseller of the decals (and other products), but wants to go about it legally....

correct sort of... but more over, i want the ability to use the logos on end user items (and I do have a consumer in mind already, but they aren't affiliated with the companies), as well as sell overages via like ebay or something. it would be small run items... not mass produced stuff.

 

[bob]

Bob, you and I usually agree on most topics. But I'm not sure where you're coming from on this. Do you not respect the concept of individual property rights? (with respect to intellectual property)

I'm not sure.

On one hand it doesn't seem like 'intellectual property' the kind of thing that lends itself to a traditional concept of 'ownership' without a foray into 'thought crime'. On the other hand, people should be able to profit from their work. But should they profit from selling it or from others using it? Way back when, I made an excellent living writing code. Should I be compensated every time someone runs some program I wrote or was getting paid to initially create it sufficient. For me it's the latter.

Perhaps what I object to most strenuously is the rats nest of antiquated rules and regulations that various organizations seem so desperate to maintain at all costs, even sanity. There is a bright side, being the endlessly entertaining rationalizations conjured up to support what is fundamentally insupportable.

I also object to the idiotic notion of 'potential damage'. If someone were to commandeer a logo/icon/whatever and use it for malicious and/or nefarious purpose is one thing and prosecution would be in order for the maliciousness, not simply the use. But to protest benign use claiming 'potential' damage is seems silly.

I just don't know.

 

[Joe Diaz]

I just got through dealing with a project involving a sports team (da BEARS), We got permission from them to do the project. It was actually easier than I thought it would be to get a hold of someone. I assumed the bigger the organization the more of a pain it would be. Lucky I was wrong with that.

(disclaimer: this could be different for other organizations or companies, so you should always check.)The guy I talked to at da Bears, said that it was the right thing to do to contact them, and also said that many people don't.

He gave us the go ahead. He explained to me that if we were just doing a one off project for a fan, that would be okay. If we were mass producing and selling a retail product with that logo, we would need to become licensed, which would cost us fat cash.

Either way he said we should contact them for permission. In that case it was pretty easy.

One other time we wanted to get permission from hasbro to do a project with a transformers theme. It was a pain in the butt to get through to someone there. So I'm guessing it depends on the company.

I well say this. I'm a glass half full type of guy. I think it's great that there are people in this industry that are concerned about this topic. I think it's because many of us have been on the receiving end, and have had people try to use our ideas and designs without compensating us. In this day and age, where some industries seem more concerned about the bottom line then doing the right thing, it's good to see fellow sign makers and designers discussing this issue.

Regardless of the legality of it, Getting permission to use someone else brand is the right thing to do.

 

[Flame]

correct sort of... but more over, i want the ability to use the logos on end user items (and I do have a consumer in mind already, but they aren't affiliated with the companies), as well as sell overages via like ebay or something. it would be small run items... not mass produced stuff.

Honestly...? Not happening, been there done that, it's a PITA and cost you a small fortune to get a license.

 

[Just Another Sign Guy]

i have my own 'feelings' about the law...about the entire concept, etc. but to me that really doesn't matter.

what does matter is that we all have a basic understanding of what is and is not allowed under the law so that we do not create issues or potential issues for ourselves and our clients.

it is more than obvious that a great many people within our industry have no grasp of even the basic concepts. look at how many people are under the impression they can modify an image by x % and it now 'theirs'..look at how many people 'think' they are creating professional, protectable original identities/brands/logos/etc for their clients that are simply placing clipart images that they have no right to use the images in the manner that they are in many cases.

if you call yourself a graphic designer, sign shop, image consultant, marketing master..i don't care what you call yourself...a professional in this industry in one shape or another... in my opinion you look foolish and unprofessional when spouting incorrect information as if it was fact. ignorance of the law does not allow you to escape it. there are too many in the industry passing along misinformation. there are too many passing along erroneous information to clients and in many instances causing many unnecessary misunderstandings and problems that could easily be avoided by taking the time to gain even the most basic understanding of the concept.

 

[threeputt]

Should I be compensated every time someone runs some program I wrote or was getting paid to initially create it sufficient.

Well, that's the beauty of a little thing called licensing. Ownership can be retained, but the use of the property can be greatly extended (or limited) to others. (otherwise there is no commercial value in creating art, music, code, etc.)

With regard to the posed question, (above) much is not known. ie: Were you working in the hire of others when you created it? Will a EULA be a (practical) useful device in this partcular case or not? etc.

 

[natedawg9640]

Eula?

 

[Joe Diaz]

Eula?

End User License Agreement

 

[wetgravy]

If people don't see anything wrong with it perhaps in this day and age there isn't anything wrong with it. At least nothing which would warrant the draconian efforts usually seen when attempting to enforce whatever rules there be however outdated they might be.

right. So, you're the type then that forces me to water mark and de-resolution all my art so people can't gank it like a candy bar at a convenience store. Thanks for making that clear. Let me guess, you also supported that bill they were trying to pass in the big house that made ALL art not claimed through hundreds of dollars of registering on databases ... public domain.

 

[bob]

Well, that's the beauty of a little thing called licensing. Ownership can be retained, but the use of the property can be greatly extended (or limited) to others. (otherwise there is no commercial value in creating art, music, code, etc.)

With regard to the posed question, (above) much is not known. ie: Were you working in the hire of others when you created it? Will a EULA be a (practical) useful device in this partcular case or not? etc.

It's unclear that licensing is not merely an extension of the basic silliness. If someone pays someone else to paint a picture, write a song, code a program, why isn't that the end of it? The person that did the work was paid for its work, why should it be any concern to the originator if the parties that commissioned the work might, or might not, be successful in marketing that work?

Simply because you can do something does not render that thing sensible.

Regards prior work I've done. Virtually all of it, with one notable exception, was done for pay, either as an employee or as a contractor. I have no interest in it other than what I originally was paid for it.

 

[threeputt]

If someone pays someone else to paint a picture, write a song, code a program, why isn't that the end of it?

The person that did the work was paid for its work, why should it be any concern to the originator if the parties that commissioned the work might, or might not, be successful in marketing that work?

Well....it runs a little different than that. For example: Say Bob writes a book. He's paid by a publisher okay money for the chore. Book turns out to be a big seller. Hugely popular, wide acclaim. Publisher makes a fortune.

Along comes me. I read the book. I like the book. Decide to change one word and re-distribute it in another part of the world. Have I harmed you? Have I harmed the publisher? Is it in fact even the same work?

This may be a clumsy example but it's the first thing that came to mind. I'm sure you can see what I mean when it comes to software, machine design, etc. Far reaching impact. Just in machine desing alone.

 

[threeputt]

And here's another point. Maybe the most salient of all.

Without possibility of ownership, research and development, creation of new methodologies, new products, etc. will be retarded, if not stopped entirely.

 

[bob]

Well....it runs a little different than that. For example: Say Bob writes a book. He's paid by a publisher okay money for the chore. Book turns out to be a big seller. Hugely popular, wide acclaim. Publisher makes a fortune.

Your point being? The author was paid for the work. The the publisher makes or does not make a fortune should concern the author in what way? The publisher took the risk, the publisher reaps such rewards as he can.

Along comes me. I read the book. I like the book. Decide to change one word and re-distribute it in another part of the world. Have I harmed you? Have I harmed the publisher? Is it in fact even the same work?

Again, the point is...? Did you pay money for the book? If so then it's your book. Do with it as you may. If I were the author, I got paid to write it, I can claim no harm. If I were the publisher, I sold it, I can claim no harm. If I wanted to preclude anyone from copying it it would have been incumbent upon me to find some way to make it that way. Impossible you say? So what I say. If the publisher is troubled by this then he didn't charge enough for it.

About 40 years ago I built a car, I started with a 1959 Austin Healey into which I installed an ~500hp. V8 with an aftermarket automatic transmission and a narrowed aftermarket rear end, new suspension, smartly flared fenders, new everything, and an eye popping candy apple paint job. I sold it for $5K. The guy that bought it tooled around in it for a few months, entered it in the Oakland Roadster show, and then sold it, completely unchanged from when he bought it, for $10K. Should I feel entitled to any of that extra money? I didn't and I don't. I got what I wanted for it. What he did with it was no concern of mine. Moreover, are Mssrs Austin and/or Healy entitled to any of the money I made off of it? What if it had been, say, a book instead of a car. What difference?

Sometimes I do wish I still had it, that sucker could give you a nosebleed.

 

[Flame]

Yet another reason why Bob should never be considered for a position of authority.

 

[wetgravy]

Your point being? The author was paid for the work. The the publisher makes or does not make a fortune should concern the author in what way? The publisher took the risk, the publisher reaps such rewards as he can.



Again, the point is...? Did you pay money for the book? If so then it's your book. Do with it as you may. If I were the author, I got paid to write it, I can claim no harm. If I were the publisher, I sold it, I can claim no harm. If I wanted to preclude anyone from copying it it would have been incumbent upon me to find some way to make it that way. Impossible you say? So what I say. If the publisher is troubled by this then he didn't charge enough for it.

About 40 years ago I built a car, I started with a 1959 Austin Healey into which I installed an ~500hp. V8 with an aftermarket automatic transmission and a narrowed aftermarket rear end, new suspension, smartly flared fenders, new everything, and an eye popping candy apple paint job. I sold it for $5K. The guy that bought it tooled around in it for a few months, entered it in the Oakland Roadster show, and then sold it, completely unchanged from when he bought it, for $10K. Should I feel entitled to any of that extra money? I didn't and I don't. I got what I wanted for it. What he did with it was no concern of mine. Moreover, are Mssrs Austin and/or Healy entitled to any of the money I made off of it? What if it had been, say, a book instead of a car. What difference?

Sometimes I do wish I still had it, that sucker could give you a nosebleed.

See, here is the fun part. You bought that book for personal use. not for commercial reproduction. Changing one word in it just makes that a typo. The publisher pays the author for the rights to reproduce that book and has contracts to that effect, and in most cases pay the author royalties for the book when it sells. claiming you own the books reproduction rights are a lot like buying a car and saying "well, I bought this dodge ram, now I can make it exactly the same and sell it as a dodge ram" or "I bought this original painting of a dog, now I am going to make a thousand prints from this" There is a reason why artists can sell an original painting and still own the copyright on it's reproductions. Copyrights do not transfer with sale of artistic or creative works unless it's given up in the form of a contractual sale. I'm darn glad of this too. I do so many illustrations a year it is crazy, if I sell the original I ALWAYS get asked if they can make prints of it ... and try to tell me that they are buying the art, so therefore they should be able to do anything they want with it ... including making money off of it. I then tell them, if they want to sell that single painting for more money than they paid for it ... go for it ... they can burn it for that matter. Reproductions of the work without my permission are copyright theft and they can buy the reproduction rights for it at a very reasonable cost ... basically anything I make I can let them print them up to 1k times for $1500. ALL of my graphic design has exclusive rights on the work, for a price. Just like logos, if I create all the graphics and someone wants to trademark it, they can pay to have exclusive rights on what ever I make for them.


All this comes down to is you're analogy of building a car, selling it, and the next guy selling it for more is NOT copyright theft. It's called selling for a profit, all retail works on this concept. Now if he had made cars EXACTLY the same and sold it as the original, then maybe that is copyright theft. It all comes down to basic logic, you need to understand them properly.

 

[threeputt]

I don't know. Seems like the same people who want it one way might be greatly offended if the shoe was on the other foot.

Take likenesses for example: I'm a world famous actor. My face is my calling card. It's my stock in trade. It's my "property". Maybe I've worked long years to get it to the place it now occupies in the public's mind.

If someone wants to use it to promote a product, they've got to pay me.

Otherwise one day I go into Safeway and see my face on a label for dogfood. Implying that I in some way endorse their product. People say, "hey, that's threeputt, (that really cool, good looking actor) he must think this stuff is really good". "Think I'll get some for Fido". (when the stuff is low grade, ground up beans in reality).

See what I mean? Property is property. Can't use without permission.

 

[Dan Antonelli]

I think its interesting that most people selling 'logos' to their clients that use clip art are unaware that that 'logo' is unable to be copyrighted. It's an interesting thing, because the buyer of the 'logo' could argue he assumed it was original art, or 'his', and that he'd be able to claim some type of ownership to it - since he paid you for it. Like Dan says, sometimes its only after it's on 5 stores, vans, and uniforms that the client decides it's time to register it as TM, and then finds out their mark is not able to be registered.

As Joe mentioned, it's a little disheartening to have your work, or your ideas stolen. For me, it's been my fonts, logos from my books or web site, and my entire web site wording. They say it's supposed to be flattering, but it gets old. I've given up trying to police it, because frankly, there's too many that have that done it, that I don't have the resources. In the most flagrant examples, my attorney deals with it, but it's still a pain in the butt.

 

[wetgravy]

Oh, that should always be discussed when it comes to logos especially Dan. I've done about a dozen logo jobs in the past decade where the last guy they paid for design services used clipart claiming it as original, only to turn out that they couldn't trademark it because it is clipart just changed a little. Almost instantly destroys the trust in the designer/client relationship instantly, clients went away happy but it was work to get them there. If a customer doesn't have the money for a custom logo I give them an option of semi-custom art, just have to tell them they can NEVER trademark it ... still doesn't stop most people on those crowdspring type sites from doing it and claiming it as original. All the custom work though, I give them a year from date of last job done to either get more work done or to buy the exclusive rights to the art, after that I open it up as stock art.