Copyrighted Artwork?

[oldgoatroper]

I still call Goatwash. Since you can't seem to provide any basis for anything you have posted regarding your twisted views on copyright, how about this (from Wikipedia

"Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.[18] For example, the copyright to a Mickey Mouse cartoon restricts others from making copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works based on Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but does not prohibit the creation of other works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they are different enough to not be judged copies of Disney's.[18] In many jurisdictions, copyright law makes exceptions to these restrictions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses (See fair use, fair dealing). Meanwhile, other laws may impose additional restrictions that copyright does not — such as trademarks and patents."

It clearly states you can NOT make copies of anything that is a copyright. Any by a new definition of what IS a copyright, ANY original piece of art, logo, song, written text, etc is automatically assumed to be under copyright whether actually applied for or not, IF the work is original.

This from the copywright.gov website:

"What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

So...I don't know how you get the notion that as long as you "re-create a logo (or other original work) yourself" and don't use the original file in any way you would be OK, but I would encourage you to stop posting information like that unless you can back it up with solid info that justifies such usage!

Exactly what I've been saying all along.

I used to think the way you did, until one day, many years ago, I was fortunate enough to be educated by a very pleasant and helpful guy from CocaCola's legal dept. And I'm not being sarcastic.

I learned a lot from him and many of my long-held beliefs were turned upside down. I don't have time right to go in-depth right now as I am at work and shouldn't really even be doing this, but that explanation of the roles of copyright and trademark and how completely different they are would probably make a good essay.


By the way, the proper spelling is copyright, not copywright or copyrite.

 

[ForgeInc]

You crack me up. You'll never admit you're wrong on this. You can insult my typos all you want or quote as many legendary coca cola lawyers as you see fit but how does anything you highlighted above relate at all to being able to recreate any logo you want as long as you don't use the original file?

You do realize that copying a print out of an existing cartoon mouse (or logo) and redrawing it exactly as you see it, is totally different than drawing a picture of an original cartoon mouse (or logo) correct? See....in this example the MOUSE is the IDEA which you can't copyright, NOT the drawing (i.e. "the form or manner in which it is expressed" is what CAN be held under copyright, using your bolded terms above.)

Make sense?

 

[ForgeInc]

By the way...to the OP - sorry for being a thread pirate.

 

[oldgoatroper]

You crack me up. You'll never admit you're wrong on this. You can insult my typos all you want or quote as many legendary coca cola lawyers as you see fit but how does anything you highlighted above relate at all to being able to recreate any logo you want as long as you don't use the original file?

You do realize that copying a print out of an existing cartoon mouse (or logo) and redrawing it exactly as you see it, is totally different than drawing a picture of an original cartoon mouse (or logo) correct? See....in this example the MOUSE is the IDEA which you can't copyright, NOT the drawing (i.e. "the form or manner in which it is expressed" is what CAN be held under copyright, using your bolded terms above.)

Make sense?

So, I crack you up, do I?

And do you always interpret a correction as an insult?

I can overlook your arrogance, though. Suffice to say for now, a clear understanding of the different roles of copyright and trademark hinges upon clear and explicit definitions of basic words like "copy", "work", "re-creation" and "performance".

That's all I can devote to this today.

 

[jfiscus]

well, thanks all. I'm still not sure I have a correct answer...

 

[Gino]

Well, I gotta say one thing.... this whole thing has me stumped. What I once thought was Okay, I was taught here, on this site, that it's not and now, I don't see any of those people who told me and many many others over the years chiming in. I find that even more odd, then this new development of how to use these things.... or not.

Where are some of the other 'experts' in this field ?? ​

 

[WhiskeyDreamer]

I understand that an idea can't be copyrighted. Because two people can have the exact same idea at the exact same time and they both own the idea.

BUT it's their expression of that idea that can't be copyrighted. Whether it be a novel, a song, a photograph or a logo, it's still an expression of the idea and that expression is what is covered under copyright law.

Two people can write stories that have the same plot line, but the characters are different, the world is different, dialogue/dialect is different and both can be sold to publishers without issue, but if one of them copies word for word, line for line what someone else wrote, that's plagiarism, and punishable by law.

And all the while, not one of those is covered under trademark.

Oldgoat, can you cite examples other than your CocaCola lawyer buddy?

 

[TyrantDesigner]

Where are some of the other 'experts' in this field ?? ​

Does common sense count?

For the love of all that is unholy people, quit wasting time bickering over pointless stuff. If you didn't make it, do you own some sort of permission or right to use the work? no? make your own ORIGINAL work, or get permission.


Oh, and Original poster ... most likely that $750 is the file transfer fee with usage included ... considering that train is clipart and not their original work most likely ... it's just file transfer. Just make them something new, similar would be fine, just make it look better than that p.o.s. they got elsewhere ... use better art, and more artistic skill, better typeface, and change the badge ... that is fine for an embroidered graphic, but as a decal shape ... complete flop bag.

 

[buckssigns]

And, just for fun and to muddy the waters still further! The locomotive depicted in post #37 is one of William Dean's 2-2-2, '3001' class singles.
That dear old lady never came close to emigrating but she may well have visited the market town Ludlow on the English/Welsh border.

 

[ForgeInc]

So, I crack you up, do I?

And do you always interpret a correction as an insult?

I can overlook your arrogance, though. Suffice to say for now, a clear understanding of the different roles of copyright and trademark hinges upon clear and explicit definitions of basic words like "copy", "work", "re-creation" and "performance".

That's all I can devote to this today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

What you consider arrogance I would submit is simply an attempt to distribute accurate information, because try as you might you can't back up your claims of "you can recreate the artwork from scratch to look as close as you like as long as you do not use -- in any way -- the actual file/printout that came from the other vendor" in any way other than some Coca Cola lawyer told you so.

That is your stance, correct? Simply ludicrous.

I'm with Gino, can any other folks with knowledge of the subject chime in? As much as I enjoy back and forth bantering with OG, it actually is a fairly important point to make sure everyone understands, no?

 

[Gino]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

What you consider arrogance I would submit is simply an attempt to distribute accurate information, because try as you might you can't back up your claims of "you can recreate the artwork from scratch to look as close as you like as long as you do not use -- in any way -- the actual file/printout that came from the other vendor" in any way other than some Coca Cola lawyer told you so.

That is your stance, correct? Simply ludicrous.

I'm with Gino, can any other folks with knowledge of the subject chime in? As much as I enjoy back and forth bantering with OG, it actually is a fairly important point to make sure everyone understands, no?

I'm not doubting what oldgoat is saying..... not in the least. In fact, I believe him. My problem is...... with all the members on this site who have continuously told totally the opposite and sited all kinds of reasons and law-like scenarios. Why are they not coming forth to differ with him ?? Were we led astray on purpose or out of just plain not knowing.

My next complaint is.... where was oldgoat on these countless other occasions to debate it over the years ?? This kinda stuff is always coming up for discussion, debates, arguments or some reasonable fact simile.

Well, where the heck are ya ?? :Welcome:
​

 

[Techman]

All you guys can look to Shepard Fairey's recent attempts to avoid JAIL time for his copyright infringement in his attempt to redraw AP's photo of O's image into a poster. It gives every one a good way to see what happens when one redefines copyright law to suit his or her needs.

 

[oldgoatroper]

My next complaint is.... where was oldgoat on these countless other occasions to debate it over the years ?? This kinda stuff is always coming up for discussion, debates, arguments or some reasonable fact simile.

Well, where the heck are ya ?? :Welcome:
​

OK, Gino, I will respond to this. Where was I? I was there reading every word. But I have never had the heart to wade into the fray because I know that overcoming the levels of misinformation and misconception would be a long, drawn-out and daunting task that I don't have the time for to fully address. I even regret starting in with this thread as I can't afford the time this is stealing away from my real work.

But, now that I've started, I won't abandon it -- I just can't say when I'll have the time that I would like to devote to this.

The level of misconception in the industry is rampant and cannot be countered with just a few paragraphs. I was mistaken in thinking that I could "shed some light" on some issues with a few examples. I was definitely wrong about that.

What this topic needs is a full grounding in -- as I said earlier -- explicit definitions of what constitutes what a "work" is, what a "copy" is, and so on... as they relate to copyright law, not necessarily how they relate to everyday casual language usage.

Sorry, lunch is over -- gotta work...

 

[Gino]

Well oldgoat.... could it possibly be that we have different laws on the books as to yours up there ?? I know it should be an international kinda thing, but one never knows.

 

[CES020]

Maybe we should collectively donate to a fund that hires a copyright lawyer to explain it all properly, answering questions from us for a period of time. Maybe $5 each, shouldn't take too long to get enough for one of them to be willing to spend a couple hours fending questions.

Just a thought.

 

[oldgoatroper]

Well oldgoat.... could it possibly be that we have different laws on the books as to yours up there ?? I know it should be an international kinda thing, but one never knows.

As far as I've been told, and this has been borne out in the extensive reading I've done on this, the copy (and trademark) laws in Canada and the U.S. are almost identical. There are minor differences, but the basic tenants, definitions and implementations are in harmony across the borders. And I'm going out on a limb, here, but I think I picked up somewhere that Great Britain's copyright and trademark laws are near identical, as well.

 

[Pat Whatley]

well, thanks all. I'm still not sure I have a correct answer...

You think you're actually gonna get it from this thread? :ROFLMAO:

 

[WCSign]

All you guys can look to Shepard Fairey's recent attempts to avoid JAIL time for his copyright infringement in his attempt to redraw AP's photo of O's image into a poster. It gives every one a good way to see what happens when one redefines copyright law to suit his or her needs.

Yup


Next I agree with tyrant, design your own (which looks nice fyi), sell the cops the logo as their property.. screw the embroidery place for being scumbags.

what are they gonna do, sue the cops?? Sue you? all you have to say is that the PD commisioned you to recreate this logo.



---------------

off but kinda on topic.. does anyone here actually own a trademark or copyright??? LOL

 

[SignProPlus-Chip]

WRONG WRONG WRONG, a thousand times WRONG!!!!!!

Oldgoatroper, I say this as tactfully as I can. You have no concept of how Copyright or Trademark work whatsoever. You don't even seem to understand the difference between the two. Your advice here is not only woefully inaccurate, but could be dangerous should anyone else take your misinformation as factual. Please familiarize yourself with actual facts about the laws surrounding this subject and not hearsay from the internet.

I would highly advise unless you are well versed in aspects of Copyright and or Trademark usage and law, that you not continue to spread blatant erroneous information such as this. It only serves to misinform people and leave them under a false impression that stealing somebody's intellectual property is OK.

While I am by no means a supreme authority on the matter, I spent years working alongside other artists and attorneys in regard to Copyright and Trademark issues. I have also successfully litigated (representing myself) to protect my own work in the past.

Let's be extremely clear on matters of copyright from the get go. The second you create a work in any type of fixed media, a copyright exists. The proper thing to do to ultimate protect your Copyright is to register it. Some people may suggest mailing yourself a copy of your work and leaving it sealed as a "poor man's copyright". Let it be known that this is a myth, and the poor man's copyright has never held up in a court of law, anywhere, ever. Just spend the $30 (or whatever it is now) and register it properly.

While it is true that an idea or concept can not be copyrighted, one that idea, as previously mentioned is in a fixed and tangible form, it is protected. So if this police shield has already been created, in a fixed form, as we see it has been you can not create a derivative work based upon it without express permission of the rights holder. Some people would have you believe if the design differs 10%, or 15% that it constitutes enough change to not infringe on the original design. This is a fallacy. There is no magic number, or percentage that makes this process OK. It still infringes on the original design.

As such, just as a work is protected the moment it is created...the moment you create an unauthorized copy or derivative work, it is infringing. It doesn't matter if your making money off of it or not, it is still an infringement, and it is at the discretion of the Copyright holder to follow through with any type of enforcement or litigation in regard to it.

From someone better versed on the subject that puts the legalese into layman's terms, visit Brad Templeton's page here: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

and Here: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html - on this page you will also find his links to the copyright pages of various countries.

Copyright protects the work, not the idea or concept. So, you can recreate the artwork from scratch to look as close as you like as long as you do not use -- in any way -- the actual file/printout that came from the other vendor.

Example: If I shoot a photo of a scene and you shoot a near-as-makes-no-difference photo of the identical scene, we each hold a copyright on our own works that will prevent others from benefiting financially from copying either your photo or my photo but will not prevent a third person from shooting their own photo of the same identical scene and using it.

Another example:

I make a "logo" with a red square with a black diagonal line running upper left to lower right and a white diagonal line running upper right to lower left.

Another party would be infringing my copyright on the work I did if the result of my work (JPG/PDF or whatever) was used in deriving production files without an agreed upon compensation.

If, however, the third party recreates (meaning from scratch) a "logo" with with the same attributes as the "logo" I created, then they are not infringing my copyright because they are not benefitting by using my work.

The design might be the same, but the only way one can protect a design is through the trademark process.

 

[GAC05]

So, this file attached, completely created from scratch, based upon what the customer gave me as a "sketch", is sufficiently legal to print?
(it did take 20 whole minutes...)

Looks good to me, I think you better hurry up and print.
Apple may have trademarked that badge shape for their iphone 5........


wayne k
guam usa