Intellectual Property and Copyright Theft In Our Industry.

[Pat Whatley]

Never thought of that Bob. Thanks!

 

[Dice]

I just thought of something. If he removes the wrap and destroys it, does that cancel out his infringement?

No

If this were to go to court, wouldn't the damages be Nothing?

No

Care to back that up? Is that your opinion pr can you illustrate it as a fact? Do you have any facts, stories or anything to backup your opinion?

 

[royster13]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

 

[Mosh]

you are forced to rebrand your company once again

Sign guy wins again!!!!!

 

[Replicator]

I'm really surprised nobody has changed their avatar to the pile of skulls photo

 

[p7050]

I do graphics at thye flea market on weekends and have alot of people ask me to do the calvin and harley stuff I tell them no I don't do copyright items. They tell me the other guy does them at the other flea market. I tell them go down there and see him about the decals and they give me that strang look. I have freds graphics and sell alot of vinyl decals from the book. I also make my own for people that want sayings that I should get a license on but can't afford to at this time and also do racing numbers for drag cars since i drive one myself. Thanks

 

[ProWraps]

just out of curiosity, why is it an infringment for the guy that designed the wrap to reproduce it on the wrap, but its not an infringment for cptcorn to reproduce it on this website.

merely just wondering as it to me would seem like the same thing.

 

[royster13]

Maybe because "Fair Use" comes into play for editorial purposes....

 

[cptcorn]

just out of curiosity, why is it an infringment for the guy that designed the wrap to reproduce it on the wrap, but its not an infringment for cptcorn to reproduce it on this website.

Maybe because "Fair Use" comes into play for editorial purposes....

From my reading, my post possibly falls under this category. I can't say, a lawyer would have better information.

I will add this. If I were to take a photo of you in public, and someone decided to write a news story about you, I would not need a model release in order to sell a photo of you if it was being used in an editorial situation. If I was to turn around and sell it commercially just for the sake of selling it, be for advertisements, prints, etc (asside from editorial based) I would need you to sign a release.

 

[UFB Fabrication]

Sorry If this is way off topic.At our company all we do is work for other sign shops. I would guess that 90% of the designs for these signs was done from scratch. What I am surprised at is why a cleint for these jobs think its OK to just email it to another shop and ask for a quote. I have refused to quote stuff when folks just email anothers design and more often than not I call the original designer( sign company) and let them know that their customer is shopping the design. I have had some drawings we did show up as a completed job and I sued in small claims court and won.

 

[SurfaceSigns]

While this is a great thread to have on the site, I am simply amazed with the number of sign makers on this site that apparently moonlight as Lawyers. Many are very Matter-of-fact about their understanding of copyright and what is going to happen to violators. The bottom line in reality is that until it is proven in court, none of us really know what the repercussions would be. The outcome would also vary from case to case and venue to venue. Further, different countries have different laws, as well as varying views on litigation.

For my part, I just hope that the incident that tipped off this thread doesn't wipe out a guy that is just trying to make a living. Should he pay some sort of damages to the copyright holder, possibly. Hopefully cooler heads prevail.

Surely each and every one of us has broken SOME law at one point or other in our life.

 

[phototec]

Detective work

I fail to recognize your point. Please elaborate so I can better understand what you're trying to convey.

Well because you started this thread with your great detective work, and your photoshop overlay showing how part of the pile of skull's photo was used in the wrap design, I thought you might want to do some of your photoshop magic and see if this wrap used the same photo or another photo of a pile of skulls?

 

[astro8]

For my part, I just hope that the incident that tipped off this thread doesn't wipe out a guy that is just trying to make a living. Should he pay some sort of damages to the copyright holder, possibly. Hopefully cooler heads prevail.

Surely each and every one of us has broken SOME law at one point or other in our life.

I don't want to see him up for any financial loss, hardship or compensation payment whatsoever apart from the cost of replacing the wrap.

I hope he has removed the wrap by now. Copping what he did from this place was enough of a wake up call.

He made a bad decision. I hope he learned from it, bounces back and comes back here to provide some first hand experience of how you can get yourself so easily into hot water.

 

[sjm]

People use Google Images as their photo source every day. Half the stuff you see on wraps on this site can be rounded up if you do an image search long enough. It's become almost commonplace for me to get artwork from clients with Corbis or istockphoto watermarks on them or poorly photoshopped out.

While you're at it ask how many people have commercial rights to all of their fonts? If you look at the EULA on lots of free fonts they're free for personal use but cost for commercial use.

It's just going to become a bigger and bigger problem. The idea of Copyright law and intellectual property are laughed at by most people and not even considered stealing. I know PREACHERS who don't think anything about using Limewire to download music. Stealing something physical people can understand, stealing something digital is beyond most people's grasp.

Fonst can be converted to outlines ... that has been looked after.

What exactly does a royalty free image mean. At what point is it, no longer royalty free?

 

[Fred Weiss]

Fonst can be converted to outlines ... that has been looked after.

What exactly does a royalty free image mean. At what point is it, no longer royalty free?

Royalty free is a highly misunderstood term. It refers to a license to intellectual property which, once purchased, is free from any obligation on the part of the licensee to pay any additional royalties or other fees for permitted uses contained in the license.

For example, you might purchase a license to a clipart image that allows you to use it for most purposes but prohibits you from using it as the main focal point of an item for resale such as a T-shirt. To obtain that additional right, you might have to pay an additional royalty thus the additional licensing is not royalty free.

 

[sjm]

Royalty free is a highly misunderstood term. It refers to a license to intellectual property which, once purchased, is free from any obligation on the part of the licensee to pay any additional royalties or other fees for permitted uses contained in the license.

For example, you might purchase a license to a clipart image that allows you to use it for most purposes but prohibits you from using it as the main focal point of an item for resale such as a T-shirt. To obtain that additional right, you might have to pay an additional royalty thus the additional licensing is not royalty free.

Or it allows you to print qty x of that image and above that limit you have to pay a small premium. The question to my mind is do you pay the small fee up front for unlimited use or do you take the risk?

 

[Kentucky Wraps]

I'm not defending this guy, but doesn't he have a provision under fair use to create new unique works of art.

You are thinking of making "derivative works" taking originals and changing them. Only the original artist has the right to make derivatives from original art. You could do a "Transformative" peice out of someone elses but just changing the color or slapping an image over it isn't enough to constitute that.

 

[ionsigns]

Question: I studied this back in '80...isn't fair use a non-monetary educational or news purpose? Fair use is intended to benefit a group via education, per se. Whereas "trading on" - copyright or trademark - is where even if there is currently no money exchanged, use of the image is used to promote future financial gain.

 

[RobbyMac]

Possibly thinking of derivative works much like printer plates back in the day. If a work was sent to the printer, and the printer created plates to complete/print the job. Those plates were owned by the printer, and they could do as they see fit with them. They are different works because of the artistic process and skill used to photograph, color correct, and create the plates. Funny, all this skill required to create an exact copy of another work of art, makes it a separate and distinct piece of art.
Artists found ways to limit use of the plates in their contracts...
I don't think this applies to this situation...

Fair use is generally pretty clear. Educational, informative, etc... just because it isn't being sold doesn't make it legit. I wouldn't want my work being given away free on t-shirts promoting the nazi party.

Further.. copyright law pretty clearly states that you can't get any financial retribution unless you've filed the work with the u.s. copyright office. Simply stamping a copyright on your work doesn't get you any money if someone uses your work. It merely allows you to stop someone from continuing to use your work.

I'm no expert... Just part freelance artist.

 

[bob]

...
Further.. copyright law pretty clearly states that you can't get any financial retribution unless you've filed the work with the u.s. copyright office. Simply stamping a copyright on your work doesn't get you any money if someone uses your work. It merely allows you to stop someone from continuing to use your work.

I'm no expert... Just part freelance artist.

You can't get punitive damages without actually filing. You can, however, recover actual damages without filing anything with the copyright office, or without even putting a copyright notice on the work. All you have to do is establish that you created it post 1989.

You're correct in one thing, an expert you're not.