what do you think about this?

[whitewater]

is this infringement?

[mk162]

i am no lawyer, but it looks like it to me, and Harley isn't a company that takes that lightly

[sqslabs]

Well if it isn't, its definitely lazy design and a rip. 

Regardless, I would advise against ripping a design off any company the size of HD, whether its part of their official logo or not.  Is this something a customer gave you to print?

[Screened Gear]

Yes.

[Screened Gear]

http://www.amazon.com/Electronic-Highway-Robbery-Artists-Copyrights/dp/0201883937

This is a good book about copyright. There is some examples in there that went to court that the finished art hardly even resembled the art they "copied" and they lost.

Copying is braking the law. If you don't have written permission, designed it yourself from scratch or paid some one to design it and they gave you full rights then you can't use it.

[Frog]

Make sure that your finger is on the trigger and the safety off when you break the bad news to this guy.

[ebscreen]

Leave it to the gun nuts...


HD don't play.

[3Deep]

Is there such a thing now days as original art anymore it's just so much stuff out here now a new idea is just about impossible.  I know I'm just spouting off, but the art looks very close and HD needs all the money they can get.

Darryl

[kingscreen]

In the 80s, Harley Davidson attempted to sue tattoo shops in CA for tattooing their logo on people. They're not exactly the type of company I would roll the dice with. And to answer your question, yes it is.

[royster13]

In the 80s, Harley Davidson attempted to sue tattoo shops in CA for tattooing their logo on people. They're not exactly the type of company I would roll the dice with. And to answer your question, yes it is.

As far as I know, that is not true.... Sometime in the past HD has stated they have never sued an individual "tattoo artist".......It is only when you use "mechanical means" (computer, screen printer, etc.) to re-produce something does it become infringement.....IMO.....

[Dottonedan]

Royster, even that may not be the full story. They may have originally "tried" to sue individual artist or Tatto shops but can't actually do so.

When you (an artist) creates or even uses intellectual property for (one thing), it falls under an "artist's interpretation thing.

Think Disney and airbrushed tees or HD Tattoos.
Their was a pretty. Big story about Tiger Woods's lawyers going after a guy that made individual paintings, (each unique). They could not get him for this reason.

I, for example can do paintings of Micky Mouse and sell each one on my own. No ray lattices to Disney.
I know this as fact. It's not mass production when each is different.

Now, each one of those big names can at times be guilty of referencing someone else's art. There's is no real "fine line" between copying referencing.

In the legal world "I hear" the word " inspiration" is the "in word" to use.

You can gather reference designs "for inspiration" to create another, but you cannot use a specific design as reference only. It's one of those legal things they use to get what they want. Those gray areas.
Loved by lawyer areas.

For printing, this designs is (way too close). Way.

[JBLUE]

Email these guys. They will tell you the correct answer.

trademarkenforcement@harley-davidson.com

Let us know what they say.

[royster13]

http://trademarkblog.ca/punitive-damages-trademark-and-copyright-infringement/
http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=hdlegal

[Command-Z]

Yes, this is obvious infringement. This doesn't just resemble the source, it matches exactly.

They will lose if they fight.

And Dan's right... tattoos are considered fine art. Fine art is protected as free speech (until it's mass-produced as a product embellishment).

[Denis Kolar]

Nah........