Anyone have this dump truck?

[Frog]

So, In Canada do the consumers also get your imaged $50 Newman screen? After all, they paid for it, right? whether it was rolled into the total or individualized.

[Chadwick]

No.
Don't you all talk a bunch of craziness.

Things work up here about the same as south of the 49th.
Up here, we just sue less, and are generally more laid back.
I'm thinking it's due to the fact that the cockroaches ( lawyers? ) don't like the climate as much.

I could be wrong.

[Coyote71]

Just saw this conversation. Damn Gerry, you started a heated conversation here. Let me guess, Clay Miranda, right?

[Prosperi-Tees]

Just saw this conversation. Damn Gerry, you started a heated conversation here. Let me guess, Clay Miranda, right?

Lol great guess! It would be an awesome guess if you were not local!!!  The order still has not materialized though.

[Coyote71]

Ok. Last guess. Rock and Sand. Did some work for both those guys recentley. On trucks not shirts

[Prosperi-Tees]

Lol it was Clay. I think they are waiting for spring to order short sleeves since the long sleeves were more expensive they than they anticipated.

[Coyote71]

I know everybody in the truck world around here. They spend millions on trucks but won't spend much for tees. Go figure

[Prosperi-Tees]

Well I cant blame em to much. They want pocket tees. Have you seen the prices lately on shirts with pockets?

[Coyote71]

Too much thats for sure. We take for granted having 2 large warehouses here for shirts. If we shopped around and had them shipped in, could probably get a lot better pricing

[Prosperi-Tees]

Yeah that is very true, I probably should look at Sanmar or TSC.

[Coyote71]

check your pm

[Inkworks]

We operate a little differently up here in the frozen North. If the customer paid anything specified as "art" or "film" then they own it and have a legal right to access it. In the case of a charge for "film" they can [/color]come in and get the film, take it anywhere else and have it used there. Of course in the case of "art" they usually end up with a low-res. .jpg thumbnail, and not the original vector or photoshop file.

I'm going to sound like a butt head. Maybe I am. I just in a rush and can't take time to spill this out prettier.

So far, until proven otherwise, I will remain thinking that Canada is at the leas "similar" to the way we do it and the way most others if not all do it "technically speaking".  I don't know what your laws are, but I can give you common sense and common sense says your statement is more of a "practice' than a law. Very similar to how it's often practiced here (for many new or inexperienced) shops or even those that it does not yet effect greatly.  Heck, some here in the US don't know the laws and make them up as they go. I suspect that your stance and understanding of your laws thus far, "don't really effect you greatly, thus not concerned and continue with your normal practice of giving the art and./or films away. Technically speaking, when they pay a screen charge, they would be able to get the screens also. Small shops don't care about copyrights.  I am assuming much here. I know. But the chances of me being right way heavily in my corner.

Before I even look into your laws and confirm one way or another, we see a discrepancy.  You say the law says that if one pays a fee specified as ART of FILMS, then they own it, yet if they come to get art, they "usually get a jpg thumbnail and NOT the original usable art?  That signifies two different results from a payment of ART or FILMS. Just pointing it out for clarification.

I don't mean to sound like I'm against "you" or what your saying, I'm more so looking for the most accurate answer to what was said and it don't smell right so far. LOL.  I hope your game to really looking into it. If I'm dead wrong, then I'll take my lumps honorably.

I'm game.

I should spell it out a little clearer.

When your invoice states that you sold someone "film" they are entitled to that film they bought if the want it.
When your invoice states that you sold someone "art" they are entitled to that art, of course the format that you give it to them, or presumably, another shop, is somewhat up to you. Should push come to shove, yes you probably owe them the art in a usable format, but I've never seen it go that far or to court.

If a customer wants "their" art from our shop, they get it in the native format. More times than I care to mention I've ended up with crappy low-res. .jpgs from the competition when art comes my way. I'm not sure the thinking behind this as all it does is piss the customer off even more, but thems the breaks. We usually end up doing a re-draw/re-sep. for free or for a really reduced rate and earn even more points with the new-to-us customer.

If I give you a bill saying I sold you "film" and then you want to take possession of that film, don't you think you have a legal right to the film you bought?

Frog: As far as the $50 Newman goes, no we don't keep the images, and I think if push came to shove it would be easy enough to demonstrate to a court that screens are re-used and a "screen charge" refers to the coating, imaging, blocking out/taping up and subsequent reclaiming....although I know of a shop or two that actually warehoused screens and didn't reclaim them for most jobs.

Back when I was doing graphic screenprinting of overlays and membrane switches, a customers tooling (film and dies for die-cutting) could easily be thousands of dollars, and there were times when jobs went to the competition and the tooling was pulled as it had been itemized on an invoice payed by the customer.

Of course a shop can get all around this very easily by not itemizing "art" or "film" on the bill of sale, and lump it into "set-up" or "screen charge" or even just into the unit price of the shirt.

99% of the time our invoices do not itemize "art" or "film" but just a lump "set-up" per colour. That way we don't have to worry about it, but frankly if they want the art to their shirts, they get it, cause that's just the right thing to do.

Cheers,
jon

[Command-Z]

It bears repeating again, because the basic point is often missed....

Simply put, NOBODY EVER BUYS ART. You buy the RIGHTS TO USE art.

You buy art only when you buy a painting from a gallery, or you have an artist on staff employed full time or in a work-for-hire agreement.

When you "buy art" from a freelancer, or when you buy a clip art package, you are purchasing rights to use the art, not the actual art, unless it is agreed to in writing. Without a written transfer of rights, the artist still owns it.

No stuff, no material, nothing tangible, just the right to use it.

[Inkworks]

Isn't that essentially what we're discussing? the right to use it, at your shop, at some other shop, as a desktop background, for business cards, for skywriting, tattoo etc...

Billys bakery comes in and asks for a logo to be designed and 6 shirts printed up, you charge $50 for the "art" $20 for the film and $15/shirt. Two months later Billy's brother opens a shop and Billy comes in wanting his film and "art" waving his invoice showing he paid for it.

From my shop he walks out with a good copy of the file and the film, I wouldn't have much to back me up should I want to deny him those two things.

Different down there? Sorry Billy, you only bought the right to use that logo and film in my shop? You're S.O.L. even though you have a paid invoice.

I'm not talking denial of use of that clipart component of his logo for others, that's a whole other ball of wax.

I'm curious now too, and I'm sure should company Lawyers get ahold of the straight forward logic they could screw it up so tight that nobody could make sense of anything.

[Frog]

the bottom of the invoice I use when I create original art for the job