Art Work ownership

[trebor]

I broached this subject yesterday in the shoutbox and was surprised that no response came. It may have had to do with the time of day as it was later in the day.

When discussing art and ownership many think it is a simple subject. I do not. I believe it is very complicated.

So here is a hypothetical question....if someone draws a sketch on a piece of paper and says this is what I want, who owns it then?

[dave58]

Touchy question...depending on your point of view and how you charge for artwork.

In my opinion, if you charge for artwork....or include it in your all inclusive printing charges....you have been paid to do the artwork...you have been compensated.
 If someone bought it (paid for it), they should own it.......they also bought the shirts and paid for the printing didn't they?

That being said....that does not mean you are under obligation to supply or distribute the design for free. Generally the customer already has a copy, via jpeg for approval...so it could be said you have already supplied that.

If they want the file in different vector formats, charge for that service.

[Dottonedan]

This is always a great subject to talk about because it always impacts us all one way or another and most know so very little about it.


First, the facts. You can find all of the "real" support data here.
US Government Copyrights website.
http://www.copyright.gov/

United States Patent and Trademark Office
http://www.uspto.gov/



Comments:
The person that sketched/doodled, penciled,inked the idea on a piece of paper owns just that, the sketched/doodled, penciled,inked piece of paper.

As Fog says, "don't shoot the messenger". I'm only telling you what the rules are. What you really do and believe is up to you to do as you see fit.


The person (creator) of the sketched/doodled, penciled,inked paper owns that paper.  Hold on now, cuz here is where it gets confusing. He/she owns that paper.  Not the finished art (unless they themselves create that finished art. Copyright laws say the "the creator of the art" owns that art.  I always use Disney as an example, only because people feel if you can hold Disney to the wall, it's concrete info.


Lets say that I have a meeting with Disney and at that meeting, The Disney rep sketches out a tee shirt idea. They own that...but it's not worth much (as it's not the final product) but they do own THAT sketch...but the person/company that takes the idea to final usable art owns it.  If I sketched out the idea (at that meeting on a napkin, (I won that sketch). The Physical napkin sketch only.  Same for Disney. They only own that napkin.


Once I go back to my art room and take the idea to final, I now own THAT part. I own The final art, since I am the creator of that final art.


Here is where it gets tricky.  I can't do anything with it...other than get compensated by Disney...since THEY own the copyrights for that character and anything to do with Disney. I can't sell it (as is) to other theme parks (as it's Disney's characters and info. (This happens all the time with Disney), Artist draw up art...and Disney can't own it unless they purchase (in writing) explaining that I am giving up all ownership (usage rights) known as FULL AND COMPLETE rights of it from me...but they CAN prevent YOU from profiting on it if they don't need it.


So, your customer doodles out an idea on paper. He gives that to you...and you create usable final art. (you own that).  It don't matter if they paid X amount of money for you to complete it to final. For that service (technically), they are paying you a labor service fee. Not an art ownership fee.


Now, you can say who gives a rats patootie about art ownership... you want to print tee shirt so you can hand over the art to them for the $40.00 you may have charged. That, as far as business goes for art, is not a good choice...but happens every day. EVERY DAY.  So much so, that most think THIS is the norm and as such must be the way to go.  Most who don't concern themselves with the details of art creation rights, like people who simply use art as a tool to the end product don't see much value in it.  Those who make a living (on art) and creating art) know the impact it can have on them. It's lost revenue to hand it over for $40.00




As a screen print shop. either you or your (full time, government recognized) artist employee can create art...and YOU, the business owns full and complete rights, since that artist is a  (full time, government recognized) employee of your Co.


The only time a creator loses the usage rights is IF he/she sells (on paper in writing< and lays out the details of what they are selling.


What you charge for art and how much you give away is completely up to you, but "technically", just because someone pays you a fee for art services in your shop does not mean they now own rights to it.  Artist and Agencies use art on other products and for other tee shirt orders all the time (because they own it) and can do so. Screen printers do this all the time also. You know, the order you did a few years ago on a tee shirt and a new customer come sin and wants a Flag on his shirt...and you put a design together using that old art of a flag. You can do that.  The only time you can't (is when your customer paid "specifically" for full and complete rights of ownership for THAT old flag art. When they require to go this far, (on paper) it's because the art is so unique that they want it for themselves and to represent a part of them and they are familiar with the art ownership laws.


If for any time, you simply charged an art charge and did not spell out (art ownership rights being sold for full and complete rights) as most all shops do not...or you did not define the limitations of the use of that art on paper....then technically, you still own all of the art that ever left your shop...that YOU or your  (full time, government recognized) artist/employee created.


Thats what makes art WORTH something. The fact that you can make residual income later down the road. IT can have a long life of being re-used and builds up an artist stash of stock art to make designs faster.


People often use this idea, "If they paid for it" then it's theirs".


To put it is simple terms, technically, If I paid for a Hammer that has some unique features (as seen on the home network channel) for instance, and I paid for it at the hardware store or off that network channel, Do I really own the rights to use that hammer design?  no, of course not.  When someone you see on "The shark tank" develops a great idea and I purchase that item (insert tee shirt), Do I own the item to put it on other products?  no.


Now, you can give your ideas and art ownership away all you want for $40.00 or $100.00 er whatever, but when doing so, ...if you "really" want to give up ownership of that, then put it in writing so that the customer "Really does" owns full rights.  It's a legal process.

[blue moon]

great question!

I think art falls under intellectual property rather than physical object. From what I understand, person creating the art is the owner. So in your case, if the customer drew something and actually created the art they own it. One could differentiate here between a sketch that needs to be colored or cleaned up (your customer owns it) and a diagram with some notes on what they want done (you own the copyright).
In other words, if they gave you art, they own it. If they gave you instructions on what they want and you create it, you own it.

DISCLAIMER: this is just my interpretation of the situation based strictly on a gut reaction!

pierre

[trebor]

My next question then becomes.....If I am a bus boy in a restuarant and I pick up a napkin with some words on it. I like the words so I write music and turn it into a song. BTW, the two men at the table I bussed was Don Henley and Glenn Fry. Who owns the song?

[dave58]

Is this an issue because we don't want the customer taking the art to another printer after we have done all the artwork?
If so, then like I said previously....charge for the service of supplying the art in different formats.

Other than the competition issue.....is it not the same as commissioning a painter to do a portrait?....they are paid and then you own the painting they supplied to you...like the completed/finished shirts......the painter can not then claim ownership of the painting they completed......the artist has been compensated for his labor (creation).

I never have art ownership come up as an issue.....just playing devils advocate or trying to work through the issue.

[trebor]

Here is another.....Mr Knight, the CEO of Nike has a brilliant idea. I am going to create a brand of shoe. I want the logo to look like this, and he sketches the "swoosh" on paper. A freelance artist then gives him a finished and clean swoosh. Who owns the "Swoosh"?


I realize Mr. Knight at Nike is very smart and would have his paperwork in line. But let's say he did not for the sake of argument.

[trebor]

Is this an issue because we don't want the customer taking the art to another printer after we have done all the artwork?
If so, then like I said previously....charge for the service of supplying the art in different formats.

Other than the competition issue.....is it not the same as commissioning a painter to do a portrait?....they are paid and then you own the painting they supplied to you...like the completed/finished shirts......the painter can not then claim ownership of the painting they completed......the artist has been compensated for his labor (creation).

I never have art ownership come up as an issue.....just playing devils advocate or trying to work through the issue.

@Dave.....this is all only hypothetical. I am merely trying to make people understand it is a very complicated issue and not as simple and clearcut as one might think. For a long time, I felt a certain way about this and have over time adjusted my thinking.

[trebor]

This is always a great subject to talk about because it always impacts us all one way or another and most know so very little about it.


First, the facts. You can find all of the "real" support data here.
US Government Copyrights website.
http://www.copyright.gov/

United States Patent and Trademark Office
http://www.uspto.gov/



Comments:
The person that sketched/doodled, penciled,inked the idea on a piece of paper owns just that, the sketched/doodled, penciled,inked piece of paper.

As Fog says, "don't shoot the messenger". I'm only telling you what the rules are. What you really do and believe is up to you to do as you see fit.


The person (creator) of the sketched/doodled, penciled,inked paper owns that paper.  Hold on now, cuz here is where it gets confusing. He/she owns that paper.  Not the finished art (unless they themselves create that finished art. Copyright laws say the "the creator of the art" owns that art.  I always use Disney as an example, only because people feel if you can hold Disney to the wall, it's concrete info.


Lets say that I have a meeting with Disney and at that meeting, The Disney rep sketches out tee shirt idea. They own that...but it's not worth much (as it's not the final product) but they do own THAT sketch...but the person/company that takes the idea to final usable art owns it.

got to get back. busy.

How could they own the art? They don't even own the concept.
In the example of the busboy, he would not own the lyrics of his song just because he took them to a finished product, would he?

[Zelko-4-EVA]

Here is another.....Mr Knight, the CEO of Nike has a brilliant idea. I am going to create a brand of shoe. I want the logo to look like this, and he sketches the "swoosh" on paper. A freelance artist then gives him a finished and clean swoosh. Who owns the "Swoosh"?


I realize Mr. Knight at Nike is very smart and would have his paperwork in line. But let's say he did not for the sake of argument.

copy and paste from Wikipedia:

The Nike "Swoosh'" is a corporate trademark created in 1971 by Carolyn Davidson, while she was a graphic design student at Portland State University. She met Phil Knight while he was teaching accounting classes and she started doing some freelance work for his company, Blue Ribbon Sports (BRS).
For seven years after its founding in 1964, BRS imported Onitsuka Tiger brand running shoes. In 1971, BRS decided to launch its own brand, which would first appear on a soccer cleat called the Nike, manufactured in Mexico. Knight approached Davidson for design ideas for this new brand, and she agreed to provide them. Over the ensuing weeks, she created at least a half-dozen marks and gathered them together to present to Knight, Bob Woodell and Jeff Johnson (two BRS executives) at the company's home office, at the time located in Tigard, Oregon.
They ultimately selected the mark now known globally as the Swoosh. "I don't love it," Knight told her, "but I think it will grow on me." Davidson submitted a bill for US$35 for her work.[3] In September 1983, Knight gave Davidson a golden Swoosh ring with an embedded diamond, and an envelope filled with an undisclosed amount of Nike stock to express his gratitude.[4]
In June 1972, the first running shoes bearing the Swoosh were introduced at the U.S. Track and Field Olympic Trials in Eugene, Oregon. Until 1995, the official corporate logo for Nike featured the name Nike in Futura Bold, all-cap font, cradled within the Swoosh. In 1995, Nike began using the stand-alone Swoosh as its corporate logo, and continues to use it that way today.

[tonypep]

I think it is important to distinguish "art" from film or disk for emb. Also it can make a difference if there were charges for services. No answers just opinions. I've seen it handled differently everywhere. Some companies have disclaimers on ownerships on the written orders

[GraphicDisorder]

Some people "include" art which I find is where a lot of shops that "include" art actually do that so they can basically hold the customer hostage and not give them the art that they "include".  (not all shops, not even saying any of you do it, just saying I see it daily).

IMO you can't claim to include it and then still withhold it, seems wrong.  Unless its disclosed as such. 

[Dottonedan]

My next question then becomes.....If I am a bus boy in a restuarant and I pick up a napkin with some words on it. I like the words so I write music and turn it into a song. BTW, the two men at the table I bussed was Don Henley and Glenn Fry. Who owns the song?

You, (the buss boy) owns THAT song you created....but you can't do anything with it unless you compensate the person who laid it out on the napkin. You are both owners so to speak and both should reap the benefits. Google the Disney Sports complex law suit. Started just like this. Disney ran with it...and the guy who drew up the napkin sketched idea at the dinner table kept that napkin. Disney later developed the Sports complex...and the guy began his law suit...and past away before seeing ti to fruition. His family then continued the law suit and won about 7 years back....sort of won....non declassed agreement. They got something and I' sure it was huge. I don't think that Disney "technically lost, but they did pay. Something that huge, they don't give up without a major fight...so you can assume that their is strength to someone sketching out an idea on paper that needs compensated for it in some manor.


In the case of a tee shirt idea (as it pertains to us), the compensation comes from an exchange of services for the end product.


I always say, ...you charge for making screens and they don't take home the screen right?  Unless you spell that out in your order form that they can take home the screen they paid for. Still, even at that, you don't get to own (the screens design) and manufacturer your own screens exactly like that. Think Newman.

[trebor]

Here is another.....Mr Knight, the CEO of Nike has a brilliant idea. I am going to create a brand of shoe. I want the logo to look like this, and he sketches the "swoosh" on paper. A freelance artist then gives him a finished and clean swoosh. Who owns the "Swoosh"?


I realize Mr. Knight at Nike is very smart and would have his paperwork in line. But let's say he did not for the sake of argument.

copy and paste from Wikipedia:

The Nike "Swoosh'" is a corporate trademark created in 1971 by Carolyn Davidson, while she was a graphic design student at Portland State University. She met Phil Knight while he was teaching accounting classes and she started doing some freelance work for his company, Blue Ribbon Sports (BRS).
For seven years after its founding in 1964, BRS imported Onitsuka Tiger brand running shoes. In 1971, BRS decided to launch its own brand, which would first appear on a soccer cleat called the Nike, manufactured in Mexico. Knight approached Davidson for design ideas for this new brand, and she agreed to provide them. Over the ensuing weeks, she created at least a half-dozen marks and gathered them together to present to Knight, Bob Woodell and Jeff Johnson (two BRS executives) at the company's home office, at the time located in Tigard, Oregon.
They ultimately selected the mark now known globally as the Swoosh. "I don't love it," Knight told her, "but I think it will grow on me." Davidson submitted a bill for US$35 for her work.[3] In September 1983, Knight gave Davidson a golden Swoosh ring with an embedded diamond, and an envelope filled with an undisclosed amount of Nike stock to express his gratitude.[4]
In June 1972, the first running shoes bearing the Swoosh were introduced at the U.S. Track and Field Olympic Trials in Eugene, Oregon. Until 1995, the official corporate logo for Nike featured the name Nike in Futura Bold, all-cap font, cradled within the Swoosh. In 1995, Nike began using the stand-alone Swoosh as its corporate logo, and continues to use it that way today.

So in the case of the real Nike story, Ms Davidson was both the creator (idea) and the artist. But what if she wasn't? Who would own it? Phillip Knight was more than genorous when he added financila compensation to Ms. Davidson's portfolio.

[ScreenFoo]

First of all, I'm amazed that no one has mentioned the phrase "work for hire".

If someone just pays for art, it doesn't mean much.  If they pay for art and in some sort of writing get a receipt implying they were buying all rights to the art, it will be up to the court who owns it.

I find this to be a rather interesting subject, considering how many hundreds or thousands of designers and illustrators have created art that companies *think* is theirs, but likely isn't...