Rant Is it unreasonable to turn these projects down?

[bannertime]

You know how it is, we get a walk in that will want something that's a potential copyright infringement, or some type of infringement we may not be aware of. So we generally avoid any of it. Especially since it's mostly one off jobs that I don't want to mess with anyway.

A lady has been trying to get us to put the name of a popular band on the back of her car. Just the name in plain letters. I told her no. Partly because I didn't want to mess with it, but also don't want other people trying to get us to push the boundaries of what is okay and not okay. She was referred by someone that I'm not familiar with, and I don't want people coming here thinking that we'll do this kind of stuff. She's frustrated because she "doesn't want the logo," but just the word. Then walks out mumbling something like "why would anyone get anything here then." lol. Ah, thanks, now I don't feel bad telling you no. This lady wanted to put another organization's name on her vehicle because she's a "fan" and that doesn't really fit in line with our policy.

We have this unwritten policy that we don't do work for people unless it's for the organization they are representing. i.e. A store manager purchasing promotional materials for their store, an individual purchasing a birthday banner, a church member getting signs for Easter.

We came up with this policy after a person wanted us to basically help a smear campaign against a roof repair company. I personally understood what she was doing, the company had clearly scammed a lot of people and had their name in a few news articles. Went back and forth on whether we'd make the signs (that she'd pretty much use to stand out in front of the guys house and protest with). Had the company's and owners name on them. We ended up not doing them and agreed to the policy above.

Does anyone else have a policy like this?

 

[Gino]

Yeah, it's called a Louisville Slugger 38.

Just ain't worth arguing with people. Just tell them, you're too busy and make your price ridiculously high.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I don't do any of that at all. It's taken me too long to build this up and more then likely it would come back to bite me.

I don't care if it's even not for profit, if it's just doing it "for a friend" with nothing being exchanged. Won't touch it.

My policy is actually a little bit more stringent then yours. I won't do it for a business unless I have permission from corporate to do it (if this applies to the situation). Usually there are contracts in place already and the individual store has to get permission from corporate to use someone else. Because if they don't have permission to do it, they can't absolve you from any wrongdoing either. Permission has got to come from someone that can legally give me permission to do it.

 

[2B]

we do not a written policy, the standing order is if unless you would post a picture to social media with you standing next to XXXX product, pass on said order.

the one that comes to mind most vivid, several years ago a guy came in wanting a photo collage banner made.
upon examining the photo, got confirmation to the MAJOR creepy vibe when he walked in.
he had an entire flash drive loaded with images of Hannah Montana.
we passed on the order request.

 

[equippaint]

Tell them you don't have the right machine to do what they want, they won't know. Then appear helpful by suggesting your favorite competitor as a better option. That's what we do with people that bring over small items to sandblast and we don't want to fool with em, our blaster is too big it will destroy it. They're happy and I'm happy.

 

[bannertime]

My policy is actually a little bit more stringent then yours. I won't do it for a business unless I have permission from corporate to do it (if this applies to the situation).

We have this customer that was in our top three for income. The customer is a regional manager for a retail store and was purchasing tons of stuff for all the store in her region. Corporate eventually told her to stop because one store got in trouble with the city. That city allowed like one banner a year or something. We kept doing it for the other stores and created other products for the ones that couldn't do the banners anymore. Her region was beating sales goals and doing much better than the rest. Corporate came and told her to stop completely because it was "attracting the wrong people." So, she stopped. Then her sales started going down. She started purchasing again to boost sales back up and using different cards and being somewhat secretive about it. We found out she was using her personal cards and we haven't really done anything for them since. The company in general is now on the brink of bankruptcy and the only region that was doing well was being told to stop what they were doing. Their managers are fleeing to other retailers and they seem much happier and say they are making more money anyway.

Some of those managers have ordered stuff at their new employer and have gone through corporate to get it approved. Wasn't too difficult, but I'm okay with trusting marketing or store managers. Our only requirement on that is to have their marketing departments provide the logos directly to us. One in instance the marketing department ended up creating the artwork for the campaign and we produced it. That was pretty cool. At that level, I guess it's dependent on the situation, but as long as they are employed by the company we'll most likely produce it.

 

[bannertime]

Tell them you don't have the right machine to do what they want, they won't know. Then appear helpful by suggesting your favorite competitor as a better option. That's what we do with people that bring over small items to sandblast and we don't want to fool with em, our blaster is too big it will destroy it. They're happy and I'm happy.

I don't send people to competitors because any time someone says a competitor sent them to me, I straight up tell them that the other company was trying to ditch them. I'm pretty honest about why we won't or can't do an order. If any of my trusted vendors or local friendly shops can't do it, then I also say I'm not sure of anyone in the area that can.

 

[equippaint]

I don't send people to competitors because any time someone says a competitor sent them to me, I straight up tell them that the other company was trying to ditch them. I'm pretty honest about why we won't or can't do an order. If any of my trusted vendors or local friendly shops can't do it, then I also say I'm not sure of anyone in the area that can.

You're right, I was kidding about that part but I do tell people we aren't able to do small work because of our machines (which is BS). Then there's no ill will. They think that the name dropping should negate all policies and wait times so you run the risk of politely arguing for 30 mins and getting a bad online review over your stated policy.

 

[Jim with Hedgehog Signs]

We have had many requesting g copywrite infringement, my favorite is the 20% different or we are allowed to use it but do not have proper docs proving it. A friend of mine was sued by a large motorcycle company and beat him out of 15,000.00. That is what sits in my mind and we won't print or produce it. We save the image on desktop and use the photo check on Google to see if it matches anything copyrighted before we print it. It will save you time and a law suite. Well worth it!

 

[bannertime]

We save the image on desktop and use the photo check on Google to see if it matches anything copyrighted before we print it. It will save you time and a law suite. Well worth it!

I almost always do. Had a guy that wanted a life size cut out of a deceased band member. It was done by a friend for the band. This was a situation that we debated on because it was likely to be seen by a bunch of people that could cause trouble. Real weird situation that we initially said no way and then okay, and then no again. Eventually we agreed after they met our requirements and had permission from the family/estate. It was supposed to be a photo taken by the band photographer. We get the photo and it comes back to Getty Images and is under a different name than the photographer.

We've had a tussle with Getty before and luckily came out unscathed. Was a scary situation and while we knew we were right, could we prove it. So as soon as I saw that, I canceled, again. Finally got an image with clean exif and no links to Getty or anywhere else. So, that's probably the last time I'll do anything like that either. Amendment 4(b) No reproductions of a deceased persons likeness or image except in official memorial or honorary projects. Official being defined as authorized by the deceased's family or estate management.

 

[TimToad]

The harmless, non-commercial reproduction of a customer's favorite sports team logo that they slap on their own car is one thing. Somebody coming in and wanting 500 of them because they intend to make cornhole boards and sell them is different.

We used to be badgered by our local anti-abortion zealot about doing large posters with graphic images of aborted fetuses and such. I tried to be as polite and disarming as possible, but it was just too controversial for us to want to be associated with. He has been arrested for physically harassing women and currently has a restraining order against him within 1,000 feet of our high school because of his behavior towards female students.

He wouldn't take no for an answer and we thought we'd need to call the police. He accused of us of being in league with the baby killers, etc.. and we just told him that we weren't taking a position, we just didn't want to view the images or expect an employee to have to handle or process them.

 

[Texas_Signmaker]

I tell them we're a commercial sign manufacture and that item can be made for pennies on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Customized-V...+vinyl+decal&qid=1556674881&s=gateway&sr=8-10

 

[fresh]

My friend brought up a point a few months ago about discrimination. Like, if someone comes in with a political issue that you don't agree with, are you allowed to turn down the work? If you're a baker and you refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because they are gay and can be sued for it (an lose,) then who is to say we can turn down work for issues other than copyright?

I've done signs for people and issues I didn't agree with. But I charged a lot and didn't necessarily put much effort in. As for copyright stuff, so much stuff is okay to reproduce if you aren't intending to resell. its a sticky and complicated issue and I don't blanket say no to everything. ..

 

[binki]

We just flat out tell them we won't do it and why. Now please leave.

 

[ikarasu]

We turn down copyright stuff all the time. We wouldn't turn down the job you listed... As I don't feel it'd fall into copyright, but I doubt they'd pay the shop minimum for the decal anyways.

We once had a guy who imported vehicles from Japan into Canada. He sent us some labels and asked us to reproduce them - they were quality check / import labels... Official government seals. We told him were not touching the job..... But he assured us it was perfectly legal, he always has it done by other shops. And customs never said anything to him.

We refused to do it for him - he wasn't happy, but it is what it is.

I think the copyright laws are dumb. We shouldn't even have to ask whether cutting a bands name out of vinyl is acceptable or not. I hope one day it changes.... Look at music, you can buy a blanket license to play whatever song you want on the radio, and pay each time you do.

Imagine a world where if a kid wants spiderman in his room, you can pay a couple bucks and print it. Avengers? No problem. Hopefully one day we get there.

Speaking of copyright - would you guys reproduce a professional photo, such as wedding or school photos? Technically that's copyright theft... Even reproducing your own wedding photos or reprinting them from digital / negatives is copyright theft.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I think the copyright laws are dumb.

Following the law isn't the same as agreeing with it.

However, if one arbitrarily decides that this law isn't worth following, who is to say someone else is wrong when they decide to not follow another law? Laws only really work, when there is "faith" behind them in that they are worth being followed.

Speaking of copyright - would you guys reproduce a professional photo, such as wedding or school photos? Technically that's copyright theft... Even reproducing your own wedding photos or reprinting them from digital / negatives is copyright theft.

Don't touch that either, except from those that I know who took the photos (have many, many photography friends, so well aware of this, although, reproduction is usually granted in the license, just not access to RAW files or they ability to edit them (even resize them, but can print "as is", at least that's what's granted in the license that my friends use for their customers)).

Also, my mom did a digital painting of one of her friends dogs (their animals were their "kids" as they never had any) and they went to I think Kinkos to have it printed and Kinkos called mom to make sure that permission was given to do so (mom did sign her work and there was metadata all over the file, so it wasn't like her friends just up and said so and so did it and Kinkos was just going through the motions of believe that).

 

[ikarasu]

I don't agree you should follow every law just because it's a law. Some countries the law says a woman needs to fully cover their head, or that they're not allowed to drive...

Heck, even in USA there's a law that allows 12 year Olds to get married.

The rich rule the country and set the laws. If people didn't break them/protest against them, nothing would ever change.

Now I'm not saying copyright laws should just be broken. I'm just saying follow the law to a T isn't as black and white as it may seem.

Look at the 90s... Digital files just came out and Napster came along. Downloading mp3s wasn't legal... Even having an mp3 of your own music was illegal. Hundreds of people for sued... The music industry didn't want their cash cow cds to go away, and didn't want to innovate. Hundreds of lawsuits later and services like spotify and apple music came out. They realized they needed to get with the times - the music industry should have made their own streaming sites... But no.

Same with netflix. Back when netflix came out to allow streaming.... They were sued many times saying they weren't authorized to stream content. They had to buy 50 dvds of each movie to get 50 streams going... They fell into the Grey area, but they were still the target of the movie studios.

Sometimes it takes a bit of defiance to Kickstart the law into changing. Again... I'm not saying we should go plaster every building in marvel characters, or risk our businesses to hope for change. Just that I try to follow my own morale compass when it comes to laws.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

The rich rule the country and set the laws. If people didn't break them/protest against them, nothing would ever change.

I don't disagree with this (which is why I find it ironic when some people want to legislate some things that vilify the same group that needs to pass the law (and to actually thing that there is a difference between one side or the other), but I digress), however, be aware that in the process of trying to spear head that change, some people do suffer the consequences of doing things illegally (regardless if one thinks that it should be illegal or not).

Look at the 90s... Digital files just came out and Napster came along. Downloading mp3s wasn't legal... Even having an mp3 of your own music was illegal. Hundreds of people for sued...

Yep, I think Napster came out a year after DMCA and that's where it started, but before that MP3 weren't illegal. MP3 came out in '93 I think. Law hadn't consider what to do with them at that point. Even if you consider the WIPO issues, which was around '96? MP3 weren't illegal from the get go.

Now that's here in the states, don't know about it up north with y'all.

Now I'm not saying copyright laws should just be broken. I'm just saying follow the law to a T isn't as black and white as it may seem.

What I'm trying to figure out is which ones are "acceptable" to break and which ones aren't? One portion of the law might be acceptable to you to break, but not the the next person, which criteria should be used to say who is in the "right"? Because I think you'll get varying different results depending on how you talk to (and I'm not talking about the different results that you would get talking to someone like you would find on here and a huge corporation, that different would more then likely be very different and predictably so, but that's not what I'm talking about).

And probably get a different response from the same person over the same issue depending on which side of said issue that they were on.

Some of the same things that we bitch about big corporations use, we use.

If you are going to want to strip them away from the big corporations, going to need to strip it away from us as well.

Here is a little irony, this designs etc are only valuable to us to use, because of these restrictions (which is what they are trying to do), if they are lifted, guess what, it's a race to the bottom and the customer will go with whomever will do it cheaper since everyone can do it.

Just that I try to follow my own morale compass when it comes to laws.

I think that would get a lot of different varying results if the biggest criteria as to if a law is a good law or not is based on moral compass (huge variation there among people). Now, everyone has the right to make their own choices and deal with the consequences of said choice, I would just caution not to be surprised if it was a bad consequence when striving for change. I just prefer not to get bit by those consequences personally.

 

[ikarasu]

I do think everyone's opinion is different. That's why even when I disagree with someone's view on it... I don't get defensive, or say they're wrong, just try to state my views.

I see it as I see religion. I hesitate to bring this up because It seems everyone on here is diehard religious.... But look at the Bible. Sex before marriage is bad, cussing is bad.... Disobeying parents whether they're asking you to do something wrong or not is bad... Lots of stuff I don't believe God would condemn you to hell for.

Treat people as you'd like to be treated. The above instance for example - if a customer loves my work and wants to cut my companies name and put it on their truck so they can advertise for me, I'd be happy. Now if someone wants to throw my name.on their truck in a way that can be mistaken as it's a company vehicle.... That's different.

I'm a firm believer if no one gets hurt, even proffit wise... No harm no foul.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I do think everyone's opinion is different. That's why even when I disagree with someone's view on it... I don't get defensive, or say they're wrong, just try to state my views.

State "your" views, evidence supporting them, keep an open mind and discuss. Perfectly logical. Unfortunately, "open mind" doesn't always apply (speaking in general terms here, not directly at any one specifically in the thread).

I see it as I see religion. I hesitate to bring this up because It seems everyone on here is diehard religious.... But look at the Bible. Sex before marriage is bad, cussing is bad.... Disobeying parents whether they're asking you to do something wrong or not is bad... Lots of stuff I don't believe God would condemn you to hell for.

There is a lot of things that are, let's just say questionable, with how people interpret organized religion. I've lived in 2 spots in the Bible Belt my entire life, whoa, some things just don't make sense logically with what people are expounding (quite a bit actually, but I digress).

I'm not one of the diehards, or even one of the sometimes. I believe that they are examples of how to treat others in there to where it does have value in that regard, but otherwise, I have a problem with it logically.

Treat people as you'd like to be treated. The above instance for example - if a customer loves my work and wants to cut my companies name and put it on their truck so they can advertise for me, I'd be happy. Now if someone wants to throw my name.on their truck in a way that can be mistaken as it's a company vehicle.... That's different.

What about if it's thrown on there in such a way that it makes like you are affiliated with something that you wouldn't want to be?

And that goes hand in hand with why we have the laws that we do.

Lots of people see that as "free advertising", while it could be the context of what's going on and what interpretations that could be extracted from that context. What might be alright/cool/no harm no foul to one person, may not be to the person whose IP that is. But that's me.

I'm a firm believer if no one gets hurt, even proffit wise... No harm no foul.

It's the definition of "hurt" is where things seem to go adrift. What "pain" is too much that it qualifies as "hurt". "You" might see it differently then someone else, who is correct?

Talk about a grey area, there is even a big grey area within the topic of some rules are alright to break while others are not. At least in my mind. Who is correct in that interpretation and who isn't (which is part of the problem that I have with how some things are interpreted with regard to the second quote that I have from you in this post)?