GAC05
Quit buggin' me
Carefully document everything with email and if it looks like the Feds are closing in - execute plan B:
https://www.bleachbit.org/
wayne k
guam usa
https://www.bleachbit.org/
wayne k
guam usa
Take for example an order I just finished for some golf tournament sponsor signs, should I have spent hours contacting all 24 companies to make sure the golf tournament had their permission to use their logos?
Carefully document everything with email and if it looks like the Feds are closing in - execute plan B:
https://www.bleachbit.org/
wayne k
guam usa
Not exactly an accurate analogy. Most on here aren't selling inputs, but a finished good.
I'll just pass the lawsuit onto to my suppliers.After all they provided the ink and the vinyl.
i had signs 365 do both of these..........asked them about how they handle copy written work.
they will print it....its THE OWNER/CLIENT/PERSON REQUESTING THE DESIGN.....that gets the brunt of legal consequences ...........as for the flying eyeball i know who held the copywrite.......as for the rat fink.....well, i been drawing them for years..........
:ROFLMAO: is that what Frankenstein said when they brought him a brain, heart and other stuff to make a life-sized doll.This one can be hard to tackle. If you say you want proof it's theirs, they may go somewhere else instead of digging up proof. If you don't say anything you run the risk of a lawsuit.
Best advice I would say is something along these lines.
"Due to limited resources and staffing we cannot determine copyright authenticity. Upon placing an order, you agree that you own or have permission to any and all copyrighted materials provided to us"
Now, here is another scenario. But this time things are different. A local entrepreneur asks you to print 5000 T-shirts that he is going to sell, and he wants an NFL logo put on them. He tells you he does not have permission to use the logo yet, but to go ahead and make the shirts. "Besides," he says, "it's free advertising for the team." This could be 'contributory infringement.' When you knowingly assist in an infringement it's similar to driving the getaway car in a bank robbery. You are held just as liable because you knew what was going on. Contributory infringement usually requires prior knowledge of the infringement.
An infringement lawsuit in this case might have as its goal more than just stopping the infringement. If there is a significant revenue realized by the shirt sales, the NFL may feel it worth recovering the shirt money as lost income, and there may be fines and penalties and attorney's fees tacked on that could be worth as much as the shirts (I'm speculating now).
I have heard, though that trademark infringement cases that involve counterfeit goods, like fake Rolex watches, can have penalties in the millions of dollars.
B
I am not here to investigate, I know nothing can be done to me for reproducing this as long as I have emails regarding this art, end of story.
What about "Willful Blindness"?
“[t]o be willfully blind, a person must suspect wrongdoing and deliberately and failed to investigate"
"[W]here indeed it may be enough that the defendant should have known of the direct
infringement, as it is in the law generally.... One who, knowingly, or strongly suspecting that he is involved in shady dealings, take steps to make sure that he does not acquire full or exact knowledge of the nature and extent of those dealings is held to have a criminal intent, because a deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge is all that the law requires to establish a guilty state of mind."
I assume that a person that is affiliated with a company has authority to order a sign with the company logo on it.
Ethics come into play regardless of whether or not the copyright issue is of concern. I do know one thing for certain, if there were to be a civil suit then everyone and their uncle will be named and will have to go through depositions at the very least to get out of the suit.