Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
So XYZ can duplicate the shirt if they do NOT use the Abnormal slogan?
Wow. Just wow.I realize lots of people skim these threads... but really.
Quote from: ScreenFoo on March 14, 2013, 02:35:08 PMWow. 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.
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!
Geez.....and I was told that Dan had covered it all..................................