-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Intellectual Property and Copyright Theft In Our Industry.
- Thread starter cptcorn
- Start date
artbot
New Member
food for thought on this subject compared to other industries and the rest of the world.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tedtalksdirector?blend=1&ob=4#p/search/6/zL2FOrx41N0
http://www.youtube.com/user/tedtalksdirector?blend=1&ob=4#p/search/6/zL2FOrx41N0
Brad Knight
New Member
I know this thread is a bit old, but I’d like to point out a couple thing… first of all, yes – the OP (Original Perpetrator) did indeed commit a blatant copyright theft – BUT – in taking THAT guy’s picture of the wrap… the OP (Original Poster) also violated the Original Perp’s copyright by posting the pics… and if he wanted to he could demand that his pictures of his wrap – illegal as it is – must be taken down.
Chances are that he wouldn’t get very far – and I wouldn’t want to fight that fight if I were him, but the POINT is that he still owns the copyright to the original pictures – whether or not they can be used against him in a court of law is another issue.
The other thing – and I see this issue come up whenever copyright is discussed (and I don’t think it’s discussed enough personally) – people almost always confuse the issues of copyright and trademark. They really are different issues and have different laws.
This issue here is clearly a copyright issue – but most of the time this is brought up, when talking about Harley Davidson shields, or Disney characters – we’re not really talking about copyright – we’re talking trademarks.
Copyright – only refers to original works. So, if I were to create an original Mickey Mouse cartoon – I would be free and clear of any copyright violations… of course, I would be in violation of Disney’s trademark. As far as that goes – Disney would accuse me of trademark violation of I drew a mouse.
You cannot hold a copyright on words or ideas… but you can trademark words (and patent ideas for that matter). You can even be held liable if you even dilute someone else’s trademark – for instance;
I noticed iSign in this thread – now, the name, the photo – all of that is free and clear of any copyright issues because it was clearly created by Doug (I believe), but on first impression, it was clear that the name and pic was an attempt at using the popularity of Apple’s iPhone, iPod, iPad, iTunes… and the pic had a striking resemblance to Steve Jobs. Now, as said – CLEARLY not a copyright issue – but it COULD be a trademark violation because it dilutes the Apple trademark.
Now – to muck it up even more – the picture of the van – because that is a copyright issue – the owner of the copyright could exercise his rights 10 years from now, BUT the peeing Calvin brought up earlier in the thread – that isn’t a copyright issue (so long as you create your own and don’t just copy and paste) – but the original Calvin and Hobbes artist has probably lost the trademark protection on his product because he hasn’t protected it. No matter how many times copyright is violated and no matter how ubiquitous the copyrighted work becomes – the owner never loses the copyright. You can lose trademark protection though if you don’t protect it. Coke runs that risk – because the word ‘Coke’ has almost become synonymous with any fizzy carbonated drink – they have to ACTIVELY protect their trademark.
Anyways – my goal is to highlight a little bit of the difference between copyright and trademark. I could throw patent law in there too, but that would really muck things up.
Thanks…
Brad
Chances are that he wouldn’t get very far – and I wouldn’t want to fight that fight if I were him, but the POINT is that he still owns the copyright to the original pictures – whether or not they can be used against him in a court of law is another issue.
The other thing – and I see this issue come up whenever copyright is discussed (and I don’t think it’s discussed enough personally) – people almost always confuse the issues of copyright and trademark. They really are different issues and have different laws.
This issue here is clearly a copyright issue – but most of the time this is brought up, when talking about Harley Davidson shields, or Disney characters – we’re not really talking about copyright – we’re talking trademarks.
Copyright – only refers to original works. So, if I were to create an original Mickey Mouse cartoon – I would be free and clear of any copyright violations… of course, I would be in violation of Disney’s trademark. As far as that goes – Disney would accuse me of trademark violation of I drew a mouse.
You cannot hold a copyright on words or ideas… but you can trademark words (and patent ideas for that matter). You can even be held liable if you even dilute someone else’s trademark – for instance;
I noticed iSign in this thread – now, the name, the photo – all of that is free and clear of any copyright issues because it was clearly created by Doug (I believe), but on first impression, it was clear that the name and pic was an attempt at using the popularity of Apple’s iPhone, iPod, iPad, iTunes… and the pic had a striking resemblance to Steve Jobs. Now, as said – CLEARLY not a copyright issue – but it COULD be a trademark violation because it dilutes the Apple trademark.
Now – to muck it up even more – the picture of the van – because that is a copyright issue – the owner of the copyright could exercise his rights 10 years from now, BUT the peeing Calvin brought up earlier in the thread – that isn’t a copyright issue (so long as you create your own and don’t just copy and paste) – but the original Calvin and Hobbes artist has probably lost the trademark protection on his product because he hasn’t protected it. No matter how many times copyright is violated and no matter how ubiquitous the copyrighted work becomes – the owner never loses the copyright. You can lose trademark protection though if you don’t protect it. Coke runs that risk – because the word ‘Coke’ has almost become synonymous with any fizzy carbonated drink – they have to ACTIVELY protect their trademark.
Anyways – my goal is to highlight a little bit of the difference between copyright and trademark. I could throw patent law in there too, but that would really muck things up.
Thanks…
Brad
Kentucky Wraps
Kentucky Wraps
The fact that "each and every one of us has broken SOME law at one point or other in our life" does not legitimize people to continue breaking laws now does it render laws we have broken acceptable. That's the very attitude that makes way for people to ignore laws altogether. Next thing you know...intellectual property won't mean anything and nobody will have financial interest in producing. Give me your gallery of work...so that I can benefit from it. I'll use your designs you spend time on...and put my name on them. I won't even thank you for creating it for me to capitalize on.
Read up on the "law of universalization" in Ethics.
Hey...it's ok to throw my cigarette butt out the window. I shouldn't be fined $500 for it. Well what if EVERYBODY did it....the story changes then. You don't get to make moral exceptions just because.
Kentucky Wraps
Kentucky Wraps
NOPE. If his wrapped vehicle is in public, and you take a photo of it, you can post that photo for editorial purposes. Nobody was making money off the photo of the wrapped vehicle. If you are in public...you may be photographed. The "Press" do this everyday. If they are reporting facts about something that can be viewed occurring in public, there is no infringement.
Brad Knight
New Member
You're right, but - unless I'm mistaken - the picture of the van was taken and originally posted by the Original Perp. It wasn't taken by the Original Poster. It doesn't matter where the van was or anything else - the intellectual property is owned by the person who took the photo (or many cases the business that is paying for the picture to be taken... but that gets ever more muddy)
Anyways, the point is that cptcorn is using Steve's photo - Steve owns the rights to the picture - unless cptcorn actually took the picture - which I don't believe is the case.
I'd like to add, it doesn't matter if it is for profit, not for profit, public or private - or even for editorial purpose - Steve still owns the copyright.
NOW - if you really want a hard core mental exercise (I just throw this in for 'fun') - pull up the first post in this thread on your computer. Take a screen capture and paste it into your favorite photo editing software. The original photographer would still own the rights to the picture of the pile of sculls, Steve would still own the rights to his picture of the van, and Signs101 would still own the rights to the rendition of the website, but I would own the rights to the overall image because it would my picture of my computer screen...
... and if I were to use that picture in one of my works, we would all have a heckova time sorting out the rights in a court of law, and my guess would be that the one with the highest paid lawyer would win.
THAT is why copyrights in the digital age is such a pain...
Brad Knight
New Member
Oh, and if I were to take a screen shot -I'd also be violating MS's trademark because they have their logo as the start button...
... it could give you a royal headache (I hope Bayer doesn't have a trademark on the word headache)
... it could give you a royal headache (I hope Bayer doesn't have a trademark on the word headache)
TyrantDesigner
Art! Hot and fresh.
Isn't the whole IDEA of this thread ... pay for the art you use, or make your own?
Trying to argue and justify one use over another is a waste of time ... I will waste mine with a cup of coffee and a notebook to put my ideas rather than waste it on try to convince someone otherwise.
Cheers.
Trying to argue and justify one use over another is a waste of time ... I will waste mine with a cup of coffee and a notebook to put my ideas rather than waste it on try to convince someone otherwise.
Cheers.
Kentucky Wraps
Kentucky Wraps
Gotta love it.. . most of the time.
cptcorn
adad
This would more than likely not be a copyright violation because in my belief it would fall under the fair use part of the law.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
and
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
DrCAS
New Member
Trying to argue and justify one use over another is a waste of time ... I will waste mine with a cup of coffee and a notebook to put my ideas rather than waste it on try to convince someone otherwise.
Cheers.
I totally concur! I will take mine black, thank you!
.
maverickextreme
New Member
Theft of Intellectual Property and Art Files
Has anyone experienced the theft of digital art files from a former employee that were taken to another competitive shop? If so I would like to learn more about your experience - ie: How did you learn of the problem? Did you take them to court?
Has anyone experienced the theft of digital art files from a former employee that were taken to another competitive shop? If so I would like to learn more about your experience - ie: How did you learn of the problem? Did you take them to court?
DrunknMonk
New Member
good tread people, so what would happen if you designed a wrap, produced the wrapped vehicle, then later on the customer had another wrap shop do the same design on another vehicle is that first design copyrighted to you, so then they can't use the same design ? and if so do you do anything about it ?
wouldn't this be considered "transformative work" since he was only using part of the photograph to creating complete new artwork.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transformative.html
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transformative.html
derekw13029
New Member
Super old thread, but I'll throw in my two cents as a "millennial."
We don't give a second thought to copyright laws or intellectual property because frankly they don't apply in the digital world.
All the a priori laws established on copyright (as it pertains to original art) is based on the invisible hand of the "free" market. Supply and demand. If Bob has 5 apples, and John takes 2, there are only 3 apples left.
But that *doesn't apply to digital information that can be copied indefinitely without any loss of the original data.*
I'm not condoning anyone stealing, but I'm just trying to give a reason as to why people are so flippant about these laws.
Should someone be compensated for their work? Yes.
Should people be able to patent ideas and words? No.
Our intellectual property laws are broken. The proof of this is how little people even pay attention to them.
We don't give a second thought to copyright laws or intellectual property because frankly they don't apply in the digital world.
All the a priori laws established on copyright (as it pertains to original art) is based on the invisible hand of the "free" market. Supply and demand. If Bob has 5 apples, and John takes 2, there are only 3 apples left.
But that *doesn't apply to digital information that can be copied indefinitely without any loss of the original data.*
I'm not condoning anyone stealing, but I'm just trying to give a reason as to why people are so flippant about these laws.
Should someone be compensated for their work? Yes.
Should people be able to patent ideas and words? No.
Our intellectual property laws are broken. The proof of this is how little people even pay attention to them.
