Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
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.
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).
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.
Quote from: trebor on March 14, 2013, 10:10:14 AMMy 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.
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?
Quote from: Dottonedan on March 14, 2013, 10:47:52 AMQuote from: trebor on March 14, 2013, 10:10:14 AMMy 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.I agree with this for the most part. That is exactly where I was going with this thread......it took a while but I finally got you to the water hole.The example of the table napkin I gave has some truth. Former President Ronald Reagan's step daughter, I believe her name was Patsey Davis? , actually sat in a room with the Eagles while they were writing the song "Witchy Woman". She later claimed to own some portion of that work and won a decision saying she was......my understanding is that she continues to receive some type of compensation to this day....So now we take it to the Nike thing. Did Phillip Knight realize that while using the swoosh, that Ms. Davidson may have been compensated for art work rendered, but that he did NOT have a release of the concept and was the gift later on accompanied by release of the concept as well as the art. Just a theory.
We have discussed a couple of situations that are of a large scale. While everyone may not agree, it seems as if DTD and I have agreed that there are rights for concept and creation in certain circumstances and that they do not always walk hand in hand.I am now going to put out a situation of a smaller scale that may be possible for some of us smaller printers.Abnormal High School was built 15 years ago. Until this season, they had never even won a football game, let alone had any success in the state football playoffs. By week three of the ten week season it appeared this season would be different. The local sports boosters have decided to start designing "State Championship" shirts, for surely this will finally be their year.The first trip to ABC Screenprint the President of the booster club sets down with the artist and a sketch he had drawn with the bosster VP the previous evening. Pretty simple....put Abnormal, vertically arched on top and a clipart football in the center, and the words Stae Champions below.Abnormal High continues to win the next two weeks and are now 5-0. Their closest game has been a 52-12 win. They are going to win it all! The President and the VP go back in to meet with the artist at ABC Screenprint. The design is pretty good but it is a bit generic. Can they add some motion lines to the football and the state of Texas in the background?Two more wins and they are 7-0. Both recent wins were by more than 50 points. President comes back to ABC and mentions that they need to put the school mascot on the design and she found out that the state association for Texas will require their logo be on the Championship shirt as theyactually own the game and they will want royalties for their logo. Just 8%. Plus a $500 registration fee by the printer. Abnormal continues to win and enters the state playoffs. Just before the Championship Game the artist at ABC Screenprint get's a brilliant idea and caslls the boosters. Let's add a saying to the shirt......"It's Great to be Abnormal".Abnormal High School sweeps through the playoffs and wins the State Championship. ABC Prints up 3000 shirts overnight for the boosters for the welcome home ceremony the next day down at the school. It's great, the shirts sell out in about 45 minutes and there are many more folks that want them. The fan base for Abnormal High School has swollen and is estimated at 20,000 people. Enetr XYZ Screenprint, another local printer in Abnormal. They tell the President of the boosters that they will produce the same shirts for $3 less per shirt. Multiply that by another 17,000 shirts and that would be an extra $50 k in the boosters treasury. The President says of course, we may never have another opportunity to turn this kind of money. XYZ Screenprint has even said they would register themselves with the State association for $500 if necessary.ABC Screenprint is not happy, obviously. Now what? Who owns what, why and when?
So you guys all agree.....Even though Booster Pres and VP did the original sketch.Lettering is done using licensed fonts.Clipart was used for the football portion of the design.Changes were done at the Booster Club request and direction.School mascot is probably owned by school but not likely.Texas association logo does not belong ABCIt seems to me the only thing that ABC could claim ownership of would be the saying, "It's Great to be Abnormal"Does not the concept of this design belong to the Booster Club as they directed every aspect of it.I would think that if XYZ owned the licensing to the clipart football and the fonts that were used, they should be able to duplicate the shirt without risk......minus the saying "It's Great to be Abnormal"Huh?
Quote from: trebor on March 14, 2013, 12:44:44 PMSo you guys all agree.....Even though Booster Pres and VP did the original sketch.Lettering is done using licensed fonts.Clipart was used for the football portion of the design.Changes were done at the Booster Club request and direction.School mascot is probably owned by school but not likely.Texas association logo does not belong ABCIt seems to me the only thing that ABC could claim ownership of would be the saying, "It's Great to be Abnormal"Does not the concept of this design belong to the Booster Club as they directed every aspect of it.I would think that if XYZ owned the licensing to the clipart football and the fonts that were used, they should be able to duplicate the shirt without risk......minus the saying "It's Great to be Abnormal"Huh?Even if you don't own the tools, what you make from them is yours. Even if the design as a whole can't be used again by ABC because the parts are licensed, the design as a whole is theirs and no one else can use it. THat booster can take his napkin sketch to ten different artists and get ten different concepts. That's why art is protected and ideas aren't.Having said that, well, simple, generic designs are hard to protect... but since it's generic, why can't XYZ do their own take on it, instead of the exact same treatment ABC used? In my mind, any question about it means don't do it.