Art Work ownership

[trebor]

So XYZ can duplicate the shirt if they do NOT use the Abnormal slogan?

[ScreenFoo]

Wow.  Just wow.

I realize lots of people skim these threads... but really.

[Dottonedan]

So XYZ can duplicate the shirt if they do NOT use the Abnormal slogan?

I would say, unless ABC has taken steps (better hurry) to register that slogan, it's up for grabs. As I read below, even the slogan...can't actually be "copyright protected" but it can be protected under "trade MarK'.



Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.

Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.

[nobrainsd]

A napkin sketch is a tangible manifestation of an idea and elements of the napkin sketch would absolutely be copyrighted at the time of creation. If there was a novel arrangement of elements or a basic design element that was later incorporated into a derivative design that derivative design (possibly a finished piece) would not be legal to use without permission, sale or license from the original design creator. It all depends on whether or not the final design incorporates copyrightable elements of the original sketch. That is where the law is very fuzzy. What constitutes infringement? If you have the money and the lawyers it is possible to expand your rights past a point of common sense. There is no absolute line between referencing an idea and copying. A judge or a jury would be the final arbiters. Anyone taking their rights seriously would do more to strengthen their case rather than rely on an undated napkin sketch! But under the federal law the copyright is in effect when the design takes physical form. Companies go at it over trade dress (color schemes) and all sorts obscure design elements. Where a logo falls on a shoe could be contested (regardless of the logo used). Even legitimate parody is often contested. That's why everyone watches out for the big players like Mc Donalds and Harley Davidson.

It is true that an original copyright holder does not have a claim on derivative works you might create, but your commercial use of that derivative design is limited to what you can work out with the original copyright holder.

The slogan mentioned if not referenced as a trademark or service mark. So as long as the arrangement of type wasn't novel and the type itself wasn't the same in a new design (basic copyright protection) the slogan itself is not protected at all.

In reality the rights that Dan is referring to should always be negotiated up front. That is often not the case in our industry. Court precedents currently do not favor the relenquishment of the artists rights without a clear agreement. But most of the public really don't understand that. So there is a disconnect between the current legal climate and what the public chooses to do. So why not be clear about the "ownership" of a design from the start?

I'm a lot more comfortable with copyrights and trademarks since I picked up a few books from Nolo Press. Helped me trademark my business name by myself too!

[trebor]

Wow.  Just wow.

I realize lots of people skim these threads... but really.

If this is directed at me, you really have no idea what this thread is about. It was merely to spur conversation about the complexities of artwork, ownership and use.

Thanks to those that participated. I found it very interesting.

[ScreenFoo]

Wow.  Just wow.

I realize lots of people skim these threads... but really.

If this is directed at me, you really have no idea what this thread is about. It was merely to spur conversation about the complexities of artwork, ownership and use.

Thanks to those that participated. I found it very interesting.

You can theorize what I do or don't understand as you please, but Dan answered the question you asked in the post before your question.  As I mentioned in the FIRST post I made, I think it's a wonderful subject that most in this business don't know enough about, or don't know anything about. 

I was just thinking, wouldn't it be great if people would pay attention to the answers before asking questions that have already been answered? 
I apologize for the tone, but I am still amazed.

[trebor]

And that folks is why I don't participate more.

[Dottonedan]

No worries team mates.     We all can get a little "different" at times. Each one of us.  I can remember myself a few times posting up a "theoretical" question. Proposing a question just for the educational purpose of it. In fact I used to do it quite a bit...and not everyone understood or got my drift that I was merrily posing a question for conversation or education and not so much to get my own answers for myself.


I learned to be more careful with doing that as people (all people) do not think alike and some may think of me as as Ass for posting such a question. Then, that stigma gets carried around (cuz most often, I never realize they think this way of me....or it has fallen off my shoulders...but they still carry it around. Then, people talk and one guy says to another...That Dot-Tone is an Ass when you really get to know him.  LOL. Then THAT guy thinks. Hey, that Dot-Tone's got a reputation of being a real jerk...and here I am, looking around wondering where everyone went.    but good thing I've got ADD cuz I forget about all that and move on.     So if anyones mad at me...I don't even know it.    So let it go.  Come to think of it, if we ALL had ADD I don't think anyone would be mad at anyone or ever remember for more than a few days.


This truly was a good thread and shall remain so in my heart ")

[ZooCity]

Man, ya'll know how to over think something.  Good topic that is important for printers to be up to speed on. 

IP law is complicated. IP ethics even more so.  You need to have strong knowledge of and stance on both to work with graphics. 

We include "basic layout, design and fine looking digtial mocks" with our print orders.  (rolled into pricing, in case anyone was wondering, averages about a half to one hour's work, including pre-press often since I'm always streamlining my art to pre-press) I bill art at $35/hour beyond that.  If you have me draft art for you as my company, it's yours and I provide a logo kit at the end.  Even if I do it pro-bono, it goes on the invoice, discounted, logo kit provided.  If I made you art you will always hear me say "this art is yours to do with as you please and your responsibility to protect and maintain the IP rights, if necessary".  I will agree with Brandt that witholding art, essentially paid for by the client in your pricing or in some cases gifted to them as a loss leader, is unscrupulous  and say it's also a stupid, senseless business move.... There are some shades of grey in matters such as internally generated clip art.  I do this- squirreling away banks of vectors and illustration elements that I make in the process but are not used in a final design for use later on another and sometimes multiple ones, though I avoid re-using where possible.  So there may be visual similarities or identical elements in two pieces I've drafted for clients.  That's something to address I suppose.

What's missing in this conversation is the on the ground reality of how IP infringements and issues are resolved.  Copyright is wildly different from trademark and I see both used interchangeably in this thread.  They are very different.  I've never filed a copyright on anything, not worth it in my line of work to do it.  If something is so hot, or so tied to my operation, that I know other entities are likely to create imitational product derived from it, confusing theirs with my own, I trademark it and enforce it to the best of my financial ability.  Copyright, again, is a little different but in both cases you, the owner of the IP are paying to enforce and it's very rare to receive damages.  In fact, it's very rare for any infringement disputes to reach a courtroom.  The costs are monumental. 

Just wanted to chime in here with another windy post on this thread.  I've developed, registered and now sold trademarks successfully and it's amazing how the reality of IP handling differs from our typical perceptions. 

[ZooCity]

A napkin sketch is a tangible manifestation of an idea and elements of the napkin sketch would absolutely be copyrighted at the time of creation. If there was a novel arrangement of elements or a basic design element that was later incorporated into a derivative design that derivative design (possibly a finished piece) would not be legal to use without permission, sale or license from the original design creator. It all depends on whether or not the final design incorporates copyrightable elements of the original sketch. That is where the law is very fuzzy. What constitutes infringement? If you have the money and the lawyers it is possible to expand your rights past a point of common sense. There is no absolute line between referencing an idea and copying. A judge or a jury would be the final arbiters. Anyone taking their rights seriously would do more to strengthen their case rather than rely on an undated napkin sketch! But under the federal law the copyright is in effect when the design takes physical form. Companies go at it over trade dress (color schemes) and all sorts obscure design elements. Where a logo falls on a shoe could be contested (regardless of the logo used). Even legitimate parody is often contested. That's why everyone watches out for the big players like Mc Donalds and Harley Davidson.

It is true that an original copyright holder does not have a claim on derivative works you might create, but your commercial use of that derivative design is limited to what you can work out with the original copyright holder.

The slogan mentioned if not referenced as a trademark or service mark. So as long as the arrangement of type wasn't novel and the type itself wasn't the same in a new design (basic copyright protection) the slogan itself is not protected at all.

In reality the rights that Dan is referring to should always be negotiated up front. That is often not the case in our industry. Court precedents currently do not favor the relenquishment of the artists rights without a clear agreement. But most of the public really don't understand that. So there is a disconnect between the current legal climate and what the public chooses to do. So why not be clear about the "ownership" of a design from the start?

I'm a lot more comfortable with copyrights and trademarks since I picked up a few books from Nolo Press. Helped me trademark my business name by myself too!

Ha! Speaking of skimming threads, I missed this one.  This is pretty much right on.  You see the big boys enforcing left and right because they have that size budget for their IP dept.  I actually think that's how some of their lawyers get so carried away with some of the attempts you see at enforcing against "infringements" that clearly are not going to be confused with the mark holder's products and services.  That "eat more kale" v. "eat more chicken" one was one of the dumbest I've ever seen and lead to another point.  Trademarks are file by class of products.  Nike, for instance has no rights over a towing service in Greece named Nike Towing (Nike is, after all, simply a the greek goddess of victory) unless they have Nike as a service mark in that class.  Why Chick-fil-a thinks some hippie selling home printed T shirts that say "eat more kale" is confusing consumers as to whose products are whose is beyond me.  I've never bought a T shirt and mistook it for a fast food sandwich.

[trebor]

Geez.....and I was told that Dan had covered it all..................................

[Dottonedan]

Geez.....and I was told that Dan had covered it all..................................

I have been accused of overkill in my post...on many occasions. Guilty as charged.

[Command-Z]

Covered it all? This thread's only 3 pages long.

You can do as you please at your shop, but according to the law, the creator owns copyright unless otherwise specified in writing. The best practice is to transfer ownership... just write it out and charge accordingly. (Nobody values what they don't have to pay for.)

This is how the graphics arts industry works. All other fields of publishing do it this way. Not doing it is just like saying we are not on par with the rest of the graphics industry, we don't value what we do, hell, we do it just because it's fun. After all, look at all the shops that use.... CorelDRAW. 

These laws were put in place to protect creatives and they do help fight plagiarism... to help prevent people from making money on work they didn't do.

It works for everybody else in the graphics world. But not screen printers I guess. 

[trebor]

Let's be clear.
1. I started this thread to generate a discussion about art work.

2. I continued to ask questions that may have seemed to be answered for the sake of continueing the discussion.

3. Screen Foo busts my chops about asking questions that were already answered.

4. This is not about my shop or anyone else's. It was a hypothetical situation.

5. In the past, I have hired a copyright, patent, trademark law firm to protect my rights and trust me, they made it very clear about       what the laws were and how courts applied them in different cases. I have a pretty good understanding of this subject.

6. The fact is it is written out very seldom in the screenprinting industry as many do not understand it or they don't care to understand it.

7. You are correct that three pages don't begin to cover it. Hundreds of pages don't cover it. And while written statements are helpful when it comes to protecting the "creator" it certainly guarantees nothing in court. Ultimately the judge will decide who the creator is.....

[tonypep]

To lighten up the subject for Fridays sake check out Threadless. They blatantly rip off Marvel (Spiderman) and dozen of others