Harley Davidson replacement graphic

[JBurton]

Without written authorization..... YES. You're the one who pushed the button, so you're the one doing the nasty.

How about someone hand lettering a harley tank imitating the original. Idk if harleys were ever hand painted, but now we are entering the realm of 'art' vs 'reproduction', am I right?

 

[BigNate]

How about someone hand lettering a harley tank imitating the original. Idk if harleys were ever hand painted, but now we are entering the realm of 'art' vs 'reproduction', am I right?

true artwork can actually be an infringement on trademarked rights - most often because it is being used in the same trade as the original - okay to use a Harley Logo hand painted on a train set since but could be a trademark infringement to paint a Harley logo onto a Kawasaki... ... most likely not copyright unless some other extenuating circumstances... (full disclaimer again, I am not a lawyer and this is an opinion, not legal advice.)

 

[WildWestDesigns]

true artwork can actually be an infringement on trademarked rights - most often because it is being used in the same trade as the original - okay to use a Harley Logo hand painted on a train set since but could be a trademark infringement to paint a Harley logo onto a Kawasaki... ... most likely not copyright unless some other extenuating circumstances... (full disclaimer again, I am not a lawyer and this is an opinion, not legal advice.)

I think one aspect that seems to be glossed over is that someone is making money off of someone else's logo (rather it's cash or barter), regardless if it could be confused from within the same trade or not, that's just another layer to it all (and it does add an aggravating layer at that). Even if the owner no longer had it available to buy from them directly, the only reason someone else wants it to begin with is that it has some type of value and the owner would want to make sure that they get their pound of flesh along with it. Even the small shops leverage the same ownership rules themselves. The more people that are willing/able to produce it, the less value that it is has. Simple supply v demand.

 

[BigNate]

I think one aspect that seems to be glossed over is that someone is making money off of someone else's logo (rather it's cash or barter), regardless if it could be confused from within the same trade or not, that's just another layer to it all (and it does add an aggravating layer at that). Even if the owner no longer had it available to buy from them directly, the only reason someone else wants it to begin with is that it has some type of value and the owner would want to make sure that they get their pound of flesh along with it. Even the small shops leverage the same ownership rules themselves. The more people that are willing/able to produce it, the less value that it is has. Simple supply v demand.

not making money, but how the moneys are made - Andy Warhol made lots of money off of Campbell's soup cans - but the money was made by selling the original art, like giant soup cans that could in no way be mis-construed as real food packages.

in theory a good illustrator could draw original images of almost any copyright protected image and not have any legal problem from the copyright (no I do not want to test this nor do I have the talent to do so...) and trademarks are different.

 

[mfatty500]

Give Barber Motorsports Park, In Birmingham Al. a call, they have their own resto shop, maybe they can point you in the right direction. It's the largest Motorcycle museum around.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

not making money, but how the moneys are made - Andy Warhol made lots of money off of Campbell's soup cans - but the money was made by selling the original art, like giant soup cans that could in no way be mis-construed as real food packages.

Andy The Appropriator: The Copyright Battles You Won’t Hear About at The Whitney’s Warhol Exhibit | The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts

journals.library.columbia.edu

 

[Notarealsignguy]

I think one aspect that seems to be glossed over is that someone is making money off of someone else's logo (rather it's cash or barter), regardless if it could be confused from within the same trade or not, that's just another layer to it all (and it does add an aggravating layer at that). Even if the owner no longer had it available to buy from them directly, the only reason someone else wants it to begin with is that it has some type of value and the owner would want to make sure that they get their pound of flesh along with it. Even the small shops leverage the same ownership rules themselves. The more people that are willing/able to produce it, the less value that it is has. Simple supply v demand.

It's not about money, it's a law that allows a company to protect its distinguishing marks from being imitated by competitors as a means to confuse the consumer into believing the brands are related or the same.
It doesn't even hold up outside of the scope of the particular product or industry. Seeing some of these nonsense trademark lawsuits like apples rounded corners is judicial laziness and a function of who has more money to fight. It's really a joke and has moved well beyond it's original intent. Maybe someday they will update these trademark and antitrust laws to fit our current world rather than staying stuck in the 1900s.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

It's not about money, it's a law that allows a company to protect its distinguishing marks from being imitated by competitors as a means to confuse the consumer into believing the brands are related or the same.

That translates into money. Some of these people's marks make no sense to their industry, yet they have value due to all the money that has been pumped into them over the years and what they have done with said product. Can flower it up all you want, but it's about protecting assets and assets are how people get money in some form.

It doesn't even hold up outside of the scope of the particular product or industry. Seeing some of these nonsense trademark lawsuits like apples rounded corners is judicial laziness and a function of who has more money to fight. It's really a joke and has moved well beyond it's original intent. Maybe someday they will update these trademark and antitrust laws to fit our current world rather than staying stuck in the 1900s.

I agree, but the problem here is that the law makes to where people have to fight or else they lose their protection. Also have the issue that the law doesn't always get applied the same way across the board here stateside. Some laws have changed twice (at least the big versions) and I would argue in some ways, not for the better. Any new law would be at the behest of the lobbyists for companies, so I doubt what comes out will be of any real value at all.

I don't think the intent of the law is bad, I do think the application of said intent is the issue. If it does change, I highly doubt it would be for the better. There can be good ideas, but a good idea can go south depending on how it is implemented. Given that I think 70-75% of congress is up there in age, I doubt that they are up on the impact of the latest tech on copyright and other IP.

 

[Gino]

How 'bout trying this conversation from a different direction ??

These people have paid a lotta money into their products, image and whatnot. Do you think they want any ol' sh!thead trying to copy their image and what they're known for ?? They hafta have it one way or another. Either they care and across the board it's a no-no..... or they don't give a crap, but as long as they paid for it..... it's theirs, not anyone else.

I worked at a shop where one of the guys was painting logos on a buncha signs for a customer. The logo was quaker state and the logo back then was green and white. Well, he was using green & white but he reversed the colors and the boss flipped out and then he said..... I thought it looked better this way.

That's why there are rules. Because of idiots like that and it still carries over to today with people only wanting authorized duplication of their logos by qualified people..... not some lug-head who thinks it looks nicer his/her way.

 

[Notarealsignguy]

I'm just saying what the law is and it's intention. It's being used and taken advantage of in an anticompetitive way by many large companies to get around things that can't be patented. This should be more concerning than some dipshit replicating a decal for another dipshits restoration. I'm 99% sure that this sort of situation is actually protected within the law anyways but it goes back to the deep pockets thing.
Besides, I can guarantee whoever this person talked to at Harley was not in any position to know what they would legally do let alone threaten legal action for a hypothetical situation.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I'm just saying what the law is and it's intention. It's being used and taken advantage of in an anticompetitive way by many large companies to get around things that can't be patented. This should be more concerning than some dipshit replicating a decal for another dipshits restoration.

Good ideas are ruined by poor applications. I agree that the applications of said law are poor in some instances, but until some peon gets it into case law, not much one can do. The only hope that some would have is with public outcry and that has happened a time or two, but that's really about it.

I do think any new law has a much greater chance of actually being far worse as well (have seen that with similar more recent laws at that) for abuse. Especially when the tech is there that it's much easier for people to get away with less skill compared to when these laws first came out.

 

[Notarealsignguy]

On another note, if Harley cares so much about this and their customers, why don't they have their vendor makes this decal for the customer? It's a pretty obnoxious stance to say we don't make this part anymore and neither can you but if you do, we will drain you through the courts.
Giving these guys too much power through broad law interpretation is a problem. It's similar to the right to repair snowball that's happening.

 

[Notarealsignguy]

Good ideas are ruined by poor applications. I agree that the applications of said law are poor in some instances, but until some peon gets it into case law, not much one can do. The only hope that some would have is with public outcry and that has happened a time or two, but that's really about it.

I do think any new law has a much greater chance of actually being far worse as well (have seen that with similar more recent laws at that) for abuse. Especially when the tech is there that it's much easier for people to get away with less skill compared to when these laws first came out.

Wouldn't you agree in principal that companies are stretching a law with good original intentions into a way to force consumers to become dependent on said company for the life of ownership? Look at epson, HP and Roland with service lockout. It's a historical issue that the government is always behind the curve on. OBD2 standards on vehicles is one example of a rule made to protect consumers after auto makers developed proprietary interfaces for auto diagnosis. It was out of hand and it continues on. Look at our printers now. The EU is way ahead of the USA in this arena, they don't allow this stuff.

 

[Gino]

 

[Geneva Olson]

I think one aspect that seems to be glossed over is that someone is making money off of someone else's logo (rather it's cash or barter), regardless if it could be confused from within the same trade or not, that's just another layer to it all (and it does add an aggravating layer at that). Even if the owner no longer had it available to buy from them directly, the only reason someone else wants it to begin with is that it has some type of value and the owner would want to make sure that they get their pound of flesh along with it. Even the small shops leverage the same ownership rules themselves. The more people that are willing/able to produce it, the less value that it is has. Simple supply v demand.

are you saying that a sign shop would charge more for a Harley Davidson decal than a generic decal?

 

[Bobby H]

but...how are they going to find out?

Web searches via Google Images is helping get trademark offenders busted. Now these big companies can even use software bots to automatically sniff across the Internet doing image-based searches and compiling hits for possible violations.

Visibility on the Internet is how a couple of companies here in my town got busted for trademark infringement. One company made custom kitchen and bathroom counter tops, "Hard Rock Surfaces." Well, they blatantly copied the Hard Rock Hotel logo and merely changed the "hotel" lettering to "surfaces." It didn't take long for the Seminole Tribe (owners of the brand) to find out.

And the thing to keep in mind, is quite a few companies own other companies. So while one may avoid Company A, but play it a little loose with Company B, may want to consider that it is possible that Company A also owns Company B. Especially nowadays with a lot of consolidations going on (at a scary rate I might add, at least to me).

Adding in another scary layer, so many Private Equity companies are now involved in these chains of ownership. Private Equity companies will jump on any opportunity to sue the hell out of someone for an easy pay day.

I think one aspect that seems to be glossed over is that someone is making money off of someone else's logo (rather it's cash or barter), regardless if it could be confused from within the same trade or not, that's just another layer to it all (and it does add an aggravating layer at that).

Some use of corporate trademarks can be protected under "fair comment," if the use is editorial in nature. If someone is using another company's logo to sell a product and do so without any authorization then it's going to be a problem. Disney and Harley-Davidson are both famous for being very aggressive at going after violators. But most of those violators are illegally selling merchandize using Disney or Harley-Davidson intellectual property. Both Disney and Harley-Davidson make a lot of money selling their own merchandize. It's only natural for them to want to protect their own business interests.

 

[Geneva Olson]

Web searches via Google Images is helping get trademark offenders busted. Now these big companies can even use software bots to automatically sniff across the Internet doing image-based searches and compiling hits for possible violations.

Visibility on the Internet is how a couple of companies here in my town got busted for trademark infringement. One company made custom kitchen and bathroom counter tops, "Hard Rock Surfaces." Well, they blatantly copied the Hard Rock Hotel logo and merely changed the "hotel" lettering to "surfaces." It didn't take long for the Seminole Tribe (owners of the brand) to find out.

How many customers come to you asking for you to print a decal (or several) for them to resell? Most of the customers I have who want the trademarked decals are asking to replace the old one that is gone that they can no longer get from the company themselves, or they are using it for a special occassion. (Someone asked for a decal to put on a cremation urn).

That's quite a different scenario than using the hard rock logo to sell another brand.

 

[Bobby H]

That's quite a different scenario than using the hard rock logo to sell another brand.

No, it's not really all that different of a scenario. If you're selling a decal of a big company logo to a random customer you're the one selling the logo merchandise.

Our shop has people coming in from time to time wanting a Harley Davidson logo graphic to stick on something. Or they want some professional sports team logo or Oklahoma University logo, etc. BTW, some of these big colleges (such as OU in particular) are very protective of their IP too.

Unless these off-the-street customers are affiliated with those big companies in some way we don't mess with it. I've created Harley Davidson signs and other graphics for Harley-Davidson dealerships. I'm not going to mess with those logos for people who have no relation to the company, other than maybe owning that kind of motorcycle. Even if I'm in the clear legally speaking doing graphics for someone's personal vehicle or motorcycle is often a giant waste of time. They want to see a s***-ton of revisions and don't want to pay anything for the work. We prefer doing vehicle graphics for business owners.

****

Here's a funny promo relating to trademark infringement:

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Wouldn't you agree in principal that companies are stretching a law with good original intentions into a way to force consumers to become dependent on said company for the life of ownership? Look at epson, HP and Roland with service lockout. It's a historical issue that the government is always behind the curve on. OBD2 standards on vehicles is one example of a rule made to protect consumers after auto makers developed proprietary interfaces for auto diagnosis. It was out of hand and it continues on. Look at our printers now. The EU is way ahead of the USA in this arena, they don't allow this stuff.

Oh absolutely. And they still get extensions on protections that they shouldn't get. Although, to be honest, it appears different for me, if there is an IP still within a smaller company or family versus a faceless corporation. Not really a valid reason, just something seems different to me on that level. Of course, I do have IP out there as well, so I can go either way on some applications.

The EU has some better things (a lot of stuff I don't agree with), when it comes to some things in tech. I doubt that it will come here or if it does, it'll be watered down to not have any teeth. Part of the reason that ours is behind the curve, look at the makeup of congress, some of them started when MS still had a Unix like OS (and I remember those days).

are you saying that a sign shop would charge more for a Harley Davidson decal than a generic decal?

I wouldn't know if they would or not. That would be speculation on my part. But it doesn't matter if they would sell it for more or not. It's still up to the owner to have or not have something on the market. They own the property after all. At least how things are now. Doesn't matter if it's just one or a thousand, if the person that you are doing it for is reselling them or not.

Adding in another scary layer, so many Private Equity companies are now involved in these chains of ownership. Private Equity companies will jump on any opportunity to sue the hell out of someone for an easy pay day.

Oh yea and you have some of those firms that buy up older companies to suck blood from a stone and you have the ones that buy up newer companies as well.

 

[BigNate]

Andy The Appropriator: The Copyright Battles You Won’t Hear About at The Whitney’s Warhol Exhibit | The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts

journals.library.columbia.edu

agreed... my reference was more about the giant soup cans like are on the CSU Ft Collins campus... But it also sounds like he had already run into trouble from soup cans in other media and markets... especially using someone else's exact artwork and just printing in different colors has been iffy at best, and Warhol used this technique in spades....

as to moneys, the law is pretty lenient if things are for personal use and/or no moneys are involved at all.... you have the right (at least in some countries...) to the freedom of expression - However, as soon as expression turns into making money off of someone else's intellectual rights, well then there is tort involved as you took moneys that they could have charged.