Last weekend here in Winston-Salem a local flea market was raided for counterfeit merchandise. 10 people were arrested of which 4 of them were charged with a felony. One of the people arrested was cutting logos,such as John Deer,Ford,Harley Davidson,and others.He wasn't even using a disk.This man looks at a logo and incredibly reproduce it in corel 9.The law enforcement people took all his money from his pockets and his wallet,his computer, and his cutter. Does anyone know if this awesome computer artist who is struggling and has just recently gotten married be charged with this.If someone has purchased a disk with logos and sells cut vinyl to be put on their vehicles,are they setting their self up to be arrested.
Posted by Laura Butler (Member # 1830) on :
Vinyl Master Pro has built in corporate logos but has this warning first. It is someone else's artwork.
"IMPORTANT INFORMATION: The Corporate Logos listed here and in VinylMaster Pro are provided for convenience only and are Logos, trademarks, copyright and registrations of their respective owners and you are not to use these for any purpose other than those granted in writing by the legal owner of any Corporate Logos, trademarks, copyright and registrations that appear in the VinylMaster Pro program, it is the purchasers responsibility to obtain the proper permission and Future Corporation shall not be held liable for any illegal or improper use of the Logos, trademarks, copyright and registrations. Future Corporation does not endorse, condone or agree to any illegal misuse of the Corporate Logos that appear in VinylMaster Pro program, and it is the expressed intent of Future Corporation that it is the purchasers responsibility for any unauthorized use of the Logos, trademarks, copyright and registrations to be solely the purchasers responsibility."
[ December 01, 2006, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Laura Butler ]
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
Slim chance of getting nailed - but as you can see it is possible.
Doing it in a public arena like that is asking for a greater chance of getting nabbed.
No one can say it's right without the permission of the manufacturer....but my guess is that even the people that will rant and rave about the abuse of copyrighted logos have done it at one time or another themselves if they were completely honest.
It's not easy being perfect.... Posted by Bruce Bowers (Member # 892) on :
No, Bill, they aren't... to a point.
However, just because a logo is legitimately sold on a CD, it does not give someone the right to sell it nor does the fact that he reproduced it from sight. While it is a testament to his artistic skills, it does not alleviate him of any of the ramifications of his actions.
Harley-Davidson does not allow it's logo to be reproduced anywhere or any how without permission and suitable royalties being ponied up. Does anyone remember about 2-3 years ago when OCA was sued by H-D and ordered to recall all the CD's that they sold with the H-D logo on it?
The law does not take into account the veracity of someone's character when deeming if their actions are legal or not. Stealing bread because you are starving is still stealing in the eyes of the law. Yes, I realize that John Law has been known to look the other way when circumstances warranted it (Katrina aftermath comes to mind... for looting FOOD only... not shoes and big screen TV's) but it does not change the facts.
Will this arrest change the way or location thatsome people do business? Maybe around your area it might. I believe that until the law puts some teeth and consistancy into copyright enforcement, nothing much is going to change.
I have empathy for this young guy. The fact he lost all his equipment sucks. I am sure that there is more to the story. Keep us posted. I am interested in seeing how this turns out.
Posted by James Donahue (Member # 3624) on :
I've heard of a represenative of Disney going around to airbrush booths in the tourist area and making life very uncomfortable for those rendering their characters without permission.
Posted by Mike Faig (Member # 6104) on :
I remember painting several cartoon caracters on t-shirts in the '80s. Up until the time nearly every artist and shop got nailed. I feel for the guy, but I also have rent, insurance, utilities, etc.
Posted by Ricky Jackson (Member # 5082) on :
Trademarks carry "offensive rights" which mean that the owner of the trademark must actively persue the disallowance of their intellectual property or they will lost their rights to it. I used to think that Disney (notorious for going after day care centers for using Winnie the Poop) was a thug but after I learned the "why" I changed my tune. Remember when OP got the nastygram from Signs Now corp for using "Signs Here and Now"? THAT is the reason; they HAD to go after him or lose their rights to it.
That sucks bigtime for the guy just trying to eek out a living. I'm wondering how many of the jackbooted thugs have pirated software, music and other technically illegal contraban? No offence to law enforcement but this just smacks as a police state enforcement to me, not something a free country should tolerate. If the plantiffs filed a complaint, grevience or charge that's different but I seriously doubt that any charges were actually filed by any of the I.P. owners. Maybe the guy could visit city hall and make a few citizens arrests. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Posted by Dan Sawatzky (Member # 88) on :
THe fact is this guy (and all others who do it) were using property which they have no right to.
A few years ago I was building a one of a kind hotrod... a car I designed myself. I did up some artwork to give myself and others who helped me with the car an idea of what it would look like when done.
One of the folks I shared this artwork with was the guy doing the upholstery. He did a great job for me and I paid him on the spot.
A few months later I was in the neighboring town and saw a sign on a used car dealership lot. It was the primary identification for this new business. And on the sign was an exact reproduction of the artwork for my car. Whoever did the artwork had obviously traced it exactly. I stopped and politely enquired who had done the sign and the fellow gave me the name of the signmaker.
It was the fellow who did the upholstery on my car. He ripped off my design without my permission and used it to identify someone elses business. I phoned him told him the sign needed to come down immediately. He couldn't understand just why I might be upset.
In the end it really didn't matter for the car lot didn't survive but a couple of months. Just the same the fellow HAD NO RIGHT to use my artwork for ANY purpose without my permission.
Same goes for any artwork produced by anybody. Piracy is a crime.
-grampa dan
Posted by Stephen Deveau (Member # 1305) on :
We all use concept ideas to start our images.. and that is man's mind from day one.....
I know that we all follow through with something we see as Artwork.
But as far as using 100% of a design...then I say, "Try Me" and we will see the outcome!
[ December 01, 2006, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Stephen Deveau ]
Posted by E. Balch (Member # 3545) on :
"The law enforcement people took all his money from his pockets and his wallet,his computer, and his cutter".
Poor guy, no money, no ID, no drivers license.
He Probably will get a ticket for driving without a license. I wonder who will keep the money and his property?
Seems to me they should have issued a ticket and let a judge fine him or waited till some company sued him for infringement. Of course it is easier to steal money from this kid than chase drug dealers or other criminals that might shoot back.
ernie
Posted by Bruce Williams (Member # 691) on :
Ricky said "Trademarks carry "offensive rights" which mean that the owner of the trademark must actively persue the disallowance of their intellectual property" ---------------
Posted by Bruce Williams (Member # 691) on :
Ricky said "Trademarks carry "offensive rights" which mean that the owner of the trademark must actively persue the disallowance of their intellectual property... "---------------- Maybe that's what happened. Counterfeit consumer goods is a common topic, but most people have no concept of a "counterfeit logo." A bust like this is so uncommon, that one wonders what/who ordered it. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. On one hand we have the Noble Upholding of the Holy Corporate Logo, and on the other hand, they kick a young man out of business to do it.
Posted by Donald Miner (Member # 6472) on :
A few years back, Volkswagen cracked down on aftermarket manufacturers. They forced the removal of their emblem from the front of a VW van, used in their ads. Even independent VW service shops felt the sting. I have removed the VW logos from my vintage VW, in silent protest. And I like it better without any logos. At least I won't get accused of using their logo without their permission.
Posted by Debra Carr (Member # 6986) on :
Reading all of the above posts about stealing artwork and logos- reminds me of a visit to the sign show in Charlotte a few years back. While walking the show, we came upon a booth exhibiting sandblasted signage. This is what we specialize in, so we stopped to check it out. And just what did we find in their photo album? Yes, several photos of my work, and those of another sign artist from my area. When I asked the lady, "Did you make all of these signs?" Her reply was "yes". When I pointed to one of my signs and asked, "Did you make this school sign?" She answered, "Yes". Of course, my reaction was anger. Then I asked her did she make this other sign (belonging to the other local sign artist in my town). She answered, "Yes". I then said to her, "No, you did not because I made this one and these others and (name) made that one and also,these". Her response was, perhaps they looked similar. Well, a custom sign artists recognizes his own work! She said I would need to speak with her husband. Their excuse for this, was.... these photos had been included with the business they had recently bought. (We live 3 hours drive from them) Well, okay, maybe someone else just liked them and took a pic of them, I have done the same thing. But, for her to stand there and say, "Yes, she made it", certainly ruined my day.
Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
quote:Originally posted by E. Balch: Seems to me they should have issued a ticket and let a judge fine him or waited till some company sued him for infringement. Of course it is easier to steal money from this kid than chase drug dealers or other criminals that might shoot back.
ernie
Ernie, using that logic then the next time the police bust a meth lab they should just write a bunch of tickets but leave the meth lab open, right?
Posted by Deb Fowler (Member # 1039) on :
I know this is a little off topic but speaking of originality, a story comes from my grandmother about my Mom.
This is true, my grandmother was truly a beautifully decent person. She told me this after my mother passed away since my mother wouldn't ever reminisce about almost marrying someone else than my dad, because us kids wouldn't have ever been born.
Anyway, my grandmother told me and my brother and sisters that when my mother was in her early twenties, she dated a very nice young man. He was wonderful and my grandmother really liked him. My mother, however, told my grandmother that this young man asked her to marry him. My grandmother thought he was a very, savvy, ethical and interesting guy and asked her daughter(my Mom) why she wasn't considering it also.
My Mom, said, "Oh Mother, I can't possibly marry him. He's got a some really bizarre ideas. He is nice, Mother, but, he is not thinking clearly. See, he keeps talking about taking an entire cooked dinner and wrapping it to put in the freezer and then, he wants to put it in the oven a couple days later! Mom, he's really got some strange ideas, even though I really love everything else about him. My grandmother said to my Mother, honey, your date is at the door, now!
My grandmother answered it and said, "Oh, Mr. Stouffer, come in please, my daughter will be right down; have a seat. How are you today?"
[ December 02, 2006, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Deb Fowler ]
Posted by bruce ward (Member # 1289) on :
Heres my wonderful thoughts of the day. IF YOU DONT WANT ME TO USE YOUR DAMN ART DONT THROW IT ON A DISK AND SELL IT TO ME.
do you think I pull it up and just stare at it. what the hell is wrong with people. Ill burn my art to a disk and you can look but dont export, you can export but dont print. you can print but dont distibute
okay that was too close to the devils advocate I admit I stole that, see I did it again
Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
Debra,
"Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s work as if it were your own, whether you mean to or not. ‘Someone else’s work’ means anything that is not your own idea, even if it is presented in your own style. It includes material from books, journals or any other printed source, the work of other students or staff, information from the Internet, software programs and other electronic material, designs and ideas. It also includes the organization or structuring of any such material."
Personally, this strikes a very sour note to me. I was trained in art and the ABSOLUTE RULE OF RULES was that you NEVER, EVER claim someone else's work to be your own. Given the same circumstances you described, I would have certainly taken the photos...right there on the spot...of any of my work in that person's portfolio....and calling the husband.
Once you've identified the work as someone else's, for them to continue marketing themselves with those photos is both unethical and a willful form of false advertising.
As Ricky points out, it's the responsibility of the person who's work/copyrights are being misused to pursue their case and/or seek enforcement of the laws. In your case, producing the invoice for that job or getting a written statement by the client that you made the sign would pretty much settle things, but until then, there is nothing stopping them from continuing.
Protect what's yours. Rapid
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
quote:Ernie, using that logic then the next time the police bust a meth lab they should just write a bunch of tickets but leave the meth lab open, right?
I'm not sure that's apples and apple's.....your example involves a substance that causes death.
To expound a little on plagiarism/copying,etc:
I'm not discounting the fact that copying a logo is "a crime."
But, as artists/designers I say we all "borrow" ideas/techniques/things we've seen that "inspire" us from other people's work. Yet, we tell ourselves that it is ok to incorporate these effects/ideas we've seen somewhere else into our "quote/unquote" original design.
To me [although more subtle] this is technically, intellectually dishonest....and technically intellectual theft in and of itself.
Do I believe that it is wrong? I don't know... it's something that is accepted amongst the masses.
I think originality is for the most part non-existant. I think we all incorporate "borrowed" ideas from a variety of sources - put them together and call it inspiration and pat ourselves on the backs as being original and creative artisans.
What separates the truly good from the bad artist/designer/signguy is twofold:
1. Technical talent - ability to make something look technically and impressively real.
2. The ability to take all the myriad of intellectually stolen tidbits of ideas we've seen in other people's work over the years and combine them in an arrangement that is pleasing to the eye and then claim them as wholly our own....and then market ourselves as some kind of original genius.
Like paint by numbers...except you get element A from John Doe 1 and element B from Jane Doe 2.
So, technically speaking, what's the difference if we out-and-out reproduce a trademarked logo....or steal a tricky effect off someone else's sign and incorporate it into our own?
Would you consider copying a woodgrain routered effect from someone's HDU project and doing it as a background in your own theft? Probably not...but technically speaking - you've just stolen someone else's mojo.
How about all of us that have "created" our own grain frame device? We openly talk about how we circumvented having to buy the Original Grain Frame...by rigging up a copy based "loosely" on the commercially available product.
Again - we take delight in our "creation", yet technically, we copied someone else idea and hosed the creator of the Grain Frame.
Somewhere, somehow, people have walked along the fading gray edges of crossing the line and pronounced that "this definition" is what clarifies copyright infringement. Basically, the definition comes down to what made someone feel like they could sleep at night.
[ December 02, 2006, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Todd Gill ]
Posted by E. Balch (Member # 3545) on :
Copyright law extends to music. How many of you infringe? Ever sing "Happy Birthday to You" in public? You broke the law!
Time Warner owns it and actively enforces the copyright.
As for the grain frame, it is patented. Speaking as someone who has 21 issued patents, Patent law exists to make novel ideas available to the public.
When you get a patent you have the right to sue anyone selling copies of your product for a period of time, after which the patent becomes public domain.
A patent does not even give you the right to sell your patented product. eg If your patent is just an improvement on something someone else has patented, you don't get the right to manufacture your product.
Patent law allows anyone to make a copy of your invention for their own use. In fact you are obligated to teach when you disclose the novel idea of the patent.
ernie
Posted by Harris Kohen (Member # 2139) on :
usually in cases like this the merhcandise and the money are confiscated. it is a common thing to have it happen here in NJ, I have heard of convenience stores being rqaided and sports team hats, and other things including the now post 9-11 famous FDNY and NYPD hats that were counterfeited. Whats even funnier is seeing the NYFD hats in those stores, and then people actually buy them. Who is NYFD? New Years Fire Department? Coyright enforcement is more prevalent in the larger metropolitan areas.
Somehow I think that there is more to this story, if they took his machinery and his wallet. Did you get this story from the guy himself (he may be exaggerating) or second hand?
Either way, if you copy a Harley Logo and sell it for money your liable to prosecution, they are one of the biggest enforcers of the copyright laws as pertains to logo reproduction.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
well, this thread was more humerous then I expected
did they take his wallet? OF COURSE NOT!!
did Bill say they did? NO!
(well, Ernie sort of implied that was his perception... & now Harris is following that train of thought)
watch the comma's people...
quote:Originally posted by Bill Wood: The law enforcement people took all his money from his pockets and his wallet,his computer, and his cutter.
I would think "...took all his money from his pockets and his wallet..." just means they took his money! Then comma his computer, and his cutter mentions his confiscated property... but they didn't take his wallet & drivers license.
Also 2 out of 3 Bruce's made me laugh with their replies. Bruce Bowers was the reply most in line with my own thinking.
"...just because a logo is legitimately sold on a CD, it does not give someone the right to sell it" Exactly!
But another Bruce seems to think the fault lies with the logo being offered on CD. To resort to some crazy analogy's again... it should be OK to sell morphine to schoolkids on the street... because someone, somewhere has legally extracted & bottled the stuff?
On the subject of the "Noble Upholding of the Holy Corporate Logo" vs. "kick[ing] a young man out of business" ... I think copyright law, and all it's far reaching implications, carries far more benefits for us in this industry (like in Debra's case) then liabilities.
I also think, while "ignorance is no defense" when it comes to law... some "innocent" mistakes are more deserving of sympathy... but for someone to decide to go into business based solely on selling copyright-protected logos... I have little sympathy if this guy actually was ignorant of the illegality of his actions. Plus I would never believe that anyway.
And Todd... talk about apples & not apples...
apples: selling pure plagerism vs. not apples: creating something (a sign)from inspirations witnessed in life (production techniques)...
or,
apples: selling pure plagerism vs. not apples: not selling, but simply making & using a tool based on seeing that tool for sale
[ December 02, 2006, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Doug Allan ]
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
quote:apples: selling pure plagerism vs. not apples: not selling, but simply making & using a tool based on seeing that tool for sale
See how people convince themselves that "borrowing" an idea they see someone else use is somehow not the "pure" form of theft?
So Doug...I have to ask, what's the difference between looking over someone's original "tool" and then purposefully copying it for your own use so you don't have to pay retail for it - - or looking over the logo sign hanging above your shop and copying it entirely but simply placing their name where Island Signs would have appeared?
I've copied and made my own "Grain Frame"....so I'm guilty....but has always given me a kind of icky feeling to have done so.
Like everything in life....people adjust their moral compass to the point where it just weighs heavier on the side that allows them to psychologically accept it without remorse.
{ooooooh....I can tell this is going to be a really good, therapeutic debate
Shades of gray.
Posted by Steve Trumbo (Member # 5962) on :
Here is a copy & paste of the article, but it does'nt say anything about decals or logos. How did you find out about the men selling decals?
4 arrested in investigation of fake goods at flea market
Winston-Salem police arrested four people Saturday and gave misdemeanor citations to six more as part of an investigation into the sale of counterfeit shoes, CDs and clothes at Cook's Flea Market on North Patterson Avenue.
Police said they seized $1,404 in cash and fake items whose real counterparts are valued at about $79,545.
Among the items seized were 290 pairs of jeans and more than 1,100 CDs and DVDs. All 10 people cited or arrested had tables at the flea market, police said.
The four people arrested were charged with felonies and released on $10,000 unsecured bonds.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
OK Todd, lets take this Apples:Not Apples thing a little further...
let's say we start to include Oranges!
Not only is the orange NOT an apple.. but also, it IS an Orange!
So, in the case of my above post which you are questioning, the Apple is "selling pure plagerism" (which I think everyone here agrees is illegal)
...Now, what is "not an Apple"? Lots of things are "not an apple" ...hence, for clarification purposes, we now have the introduction of an "Orange"
So, in the case of my above post which you are questioning, What is the Orange?
..well, your post seems to imply that you determined that the Orange I am writing about is: "that "borrowing" an idea... is somehow not the "pure" form of theft"
In reality, a "apples & Oranges" argument only implies that my "Orange" differs from my "Apple" which again was something that "I think everyone here agrees is illegal"
..so Todd, am I saying making your grainfraim (oops.. I meant Grain Frame) is NOT illegal?
NO... I don't claim to know enough to make that statement... (although, the words of someone with 21 times more experience then you or I do not escape me)
quote:Originally posted by E. Balch: As for the grain frame, it is patented. Speaking as someone who has 21 issued patents...
...Patent law allows anyone to make a copy of your invention for their own use.
What I am saying is I don't consider that form of copying, borrowing, or plagerizing to be something that "everyone here agrees is illegal" ...it may be illegal, but if someone got arrested, had their money confiscated, & there grain frame tools confiscated... I would have more sympathy.
in summary
apples: unsympathetically, un excusably black and white vs. not apples: excusable shade of grey
[ December 02, 2006, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Doug Allan ]
Posted by Jason Davie (Member # 2172) on :
If I mix 3 kinds of peanutbutter together and put it in my own container can I sell it and not get into trouble?
Posted by Bill Wood (Member # 6543) on :
Steve, One of the 4 men involved is a personal friend of mine and actually came here this week to use our vinyl machine to complete a job for a mortgage company. The lady set up in front of him at the Flea Mkt. was the one who called the law enforcement in but she didn't intend for them to get him ... just the other 3 who were selling things they shouldn't ... counterfeit CD's, Jeans and Shoes. She actually came up to my friend and apologized to him last Sunday after it happened on Saturday. I personally think it's wrong to mass-produce any logos to acquire large profits without paying the proper royalties to the manufacturer. It's like I quoted in the very beginning of this post ... the man arrested was producing these vinly logos to be placed on the back rear window of pickup trucks. I suppose everyone who wants to purchase a vinyl-cut logo to be placed on their vehicles is going to have to get written permission. So...I guess the point is ... why buy anymore CD's with corporate logos if you're just going to get in trouble for using them.
Posted by Debra Carr (Member # 6986) on :
Ray, Actually, I did remove the photo's from her album. However, my husband said, the pictures didn't belong to me. I returned them and told her I could prove they were mine or she could call the owners for proof herself. I also told her not to claim them again, and we left. On another occasion, we were looking on the web at other local sign companies. A sign shop 5 miles from our home, had some of our signs on his site. I called our attorney. His advice was to ask them to cease and desist. I made a phone call to the owner. They were removed.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bill Wood: So...I guess the point is ... why buy anymore CD's with corporate logos if you're just going to get in trouble for using them.
If you have been doing this for several years, I would be surprised if you have not seen how frequently you will be asked by authorized corporate entities to use their own logo, & then end up having hours of your own time, or weeks of delay waiting for their own people to spend hours of time trying to locate "whatever the hell vector artwork is" ...so, there will be times when you can use the logo for a 100% legal application... but owning the CD may pay for itself in time saved when the client can't seem to produce the correct artwork.
Also, not to imply to Todd, or anyone, that I consider myself the most law abiding citizen (as most who have read my posts over the years know well)... but if one person wants a custom vehicle graphics job & the project includes a customized version of the auto manufacturer's logo... this may be just as illegal as your friend's situation... but it is thousands of times less likely to incur prosecution.
My mom would say don't do it if it's illegal, but I say weigh the risk. If the risk is low, I'm not above cutting some Yamaha lettering in signgold because I'm doing a $500 graphics job for a client & he wants the name reproduced in a fasion that fits better into the new look I will create for him. Those logo CD's could come in handy for that as well.
[ December 03, 2006, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: Doug Allan ]
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
quote:If I mix 3 kinds of peanutbutter together and put it in my own container can I sell it and not get into trouble?
- - Good one!
Doug - I think apples and oranges are too distinctly different in comparing these scenarios.
I'd call them Oranges and Tangerines....
But my point is that ideas and images whether utilized in whole or part are in effect making money off someone else's ingenuity, creativity, etc in place of generating the mojo from within.
It's kind of like needing a new set of tires but not being willing to totally work for it to buy the set yourself.
Instead, the person "borrows" the spare tires from four of his friends cars - and gets to where he needs to go without excerting as much effort as he otherwise would.
Yet, his friends look at his car and have an uneasy feeling that something about the car looks very familiar. Maybe they can't quite put their finger on it...but it's unsettling.
Oh...I do it myself too - quite frequently...I just think it's an interesting twist of the concept of using logos, copyrighted images, etc that most people (including me) have found a way to justify and gloss over....a nitpicky technicality.
This would be a good debate for an ethics class.
Just don't compare apples, oranges, and bananas - I'm not too fond of bananas...hehehe.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
quote:Originally posted by Todd Gill: This would be a good debate for an ethics class.
...well not if you chicken out & won't debate
the thread was about someone getting arrested!
I agree that the meth lab was a stretch as far as analogies go.... but so was your grain frame IMO
...and now you're "borrowing" tires from your friends?
come on dude... go mold some tires with a bootleg Firestone logo to sell at the swap meet if you don't want to start introducing any new fruits!
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
quote:Originally posted by Steve Trumbo: Among the items seized were 290 pairs of jeans and more than 1,100 CDs and DVDs. All 10 people cited or arrested had tables at the flea market, police said.
The puzzle is starting to come together. Far from being an bunch of unsuspecting noobs cutting a few logos on a plotter at a flea market, these guys were enthusiastic bootleggers. I found it hard to believe the law would come down so hard, given what information we had at the beginning of this thread. Now it's not surprising.
Posted by Tony Ray Mattingly (Member # 469) on :
quote:Originally posted by E. Balch: "The law enforcement people took all his money from his pockets and his wallet,his computer, and his cutter".
Poor guy, no money, no ID, no drivers license.
He Probably will get a ticket for driving without a license. I wonder who will keep the money and his property?
Seems to me they should have issued a ticket and let a judge fine him or waited till some company sued him for infringement. Of course it is easier to steal money from this kid than chase drug dealers or other criminals that might shoot back.
ernie
I think you are making conclusions when you only have one side of the story from a third person. Do I know what I am talking about? Yes, I do with over 19 years of law enforcement experience. This is speculation, but I would say the sign guy was at the wrong place at the wrong time. My guess is he got caught up in a sweep for counterfeit items that we all see at flea markets such as fake purses, watches, jewlery etc. It would have been difficult to arrest the others and take no action on him. Unfortunately IF the story is as we have heard, I would say unless Law enforcement officials come up with a "victim" he will be OK once everything is said and done. He will be OK and get his equipment and money back.I do not believe he would have the target of the sweep. By the way it is called seizing evidence, not stealing.
Posted by Alicia B. Jennings (Member # 1272) on :
But would it considered illegal if the guy did the work for "Donations"? I hope that he is able to afford a good lawyer so he could get his equipment back. A really good lawyer might even turn it around to sue the companies that sold him the CDs and equipment. Kinda like suing the cigarette companies for giving people cancer or McDonald's for serving hot coffee..
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
even if someone gives copyright protected artwork away for free, the owner of the artwork could consider the recipients of the free artwork, as lost opportunities for a sale.
Posted by Jon Jantz (Member # 6137) on :
Russ, I don't guess you've been to a flea market in the last few years... for them to only bust 10 people selling fake merchandise must mean it was just a little po-dunk flea market. They'd bust a lot more people than that at our flea markets around here if they wanted...
And it sounds like to me this guy was just set up at the flea market selling windshield and window decals, the same ones any sign shop that cuts vinyl vehicle graphics gets asked for 100 times a week. I doubt he was in cahoots with all the people selling fake sunglasses, watches and cds.
I don't cut most of these, telling my customers I'm not licensed to do them... but I'll admit, I've cut a Calvin peeing, Dale Earnhardt 3's for race cars, and a Dodge Ram/Chevy/Ford logo for a back window a few times.
I'd like to know which shops here have not cut something that was trademarked at some point. I bet there wouldn't be one, even if you won't admit it... if you've cut a Chevy logo to go on a Chevy racecar, you've broken the law. If you've cut new Camaro lettering to go on a freshly repainted car, you've broken the law.
I'm not gonna sit here and say sitting at a flea market selling John Deere decals is the smartest thing in the world to do.... but I SURE don't think it's worthy of losing money and equipment over. They should have given him a warning, shut him down and told him not to come back selling those items.
When John Deere sells tractors for $150,000 a pop, how is some dude selling about ten 5 dollars decals on a Saturday gonna hurt them? They should be glad for all the advertisement they get and PAY him to cut those decals for people... if there was someone at every flea market selling my business name to go on thousands of vehicles... I'd be happy about it.
Oh, yeah... and I've made several Ruger and Browning logos for police officers in our area... guess they should have arrested me and confiscated them... then they wouldn't have had to pay for them.
[ December 03, 2006, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: Jon Jantz ]
Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
Jason, You can mix 3 brands and sell it as your own. They are the ingredients, not the end product. Just don't market it with their logos without getting permissions first.
While you guys debate the foundations of reinventing fruit salad...
Signs have ingridients as well. Design, materials use and installation. Combining them CAN result in an original product.
That's the rub on this topic. It's not so much about the end result as the list of ingredients. Using copyrighted is why this this guy got busted. Using Debra's work to promote themselves is why the other companies were in the wrong.
There's a fine line between inspiration and theft. Rapid
[ December 03, 2006, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Ray Rheaume ]
Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
Okay, so there's some "MAGIC" number about how many times you can break the law making bootleg decals. Can somebody explain what that number is?
Jon, large companies don't look at it as a lost revenue thing and they certainly don't see it as "FREE ADVERTISING" Corporations spend a fortune creating brand identity, researching exactly how and where they want their brand displayed to create an image. Anything outside that is hurting the image they are trying to make and is also you (or whoever) stealing from that investment in that image. That's why its illegal.
How come everybody loves to throw out that "FREE ADVERTISING" line when it comes to giving away somebody else's property...but let some redneck show up in your shop telling you he'll give you "FREE ADVERTISING" on his racecar for a discount and all hell breaks loose.
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
My point was, there is usually more to a story, and the outcome is easier to understand as more of the story becomes available. It's easy to get worked up over something when limited facts are available. Fiction writers use this technique all the time to create suspense.
I had a hard time believing someone would get charged with a felony for making a few logos on a plotter, unless they had been warned previously to stop doing it. On the other hand, trafficing in bootlegged music and movies is to go up against industries that are very interested in protecting their copyrighted material. While still hard to believe, I can at least understand cops showing up for that. I can also imagine someone saying, "Well, if you're gonna bust us for the movies, why not bust that vinyl guy? He is copying stuff too."
[ December 03, 2006, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Russ McMullin ]
Posted by Sam Radoff (Member # 4972) on :
WHY ARE ALL THESE BIG COMPANYS GOING AFTRE ARTISTS?
this happened to me ----one of the BIG 3 took some of my art and used it for a lot things ---when I found out and contacted them they said #$&%@#%^*
the rules go to guys with the most lawyers
YOSEMITE SAM
PS any lawyers out there want to take my case on a %
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
This is what I'm talking about. Sam, it's hard to be sympathetic to your situation when you don't provide any evidence to support it. Until more facts are given, it's just another sensational claim.
Posted by Ricky Jackson (Member # 5082) on :
I'm placing you ALL under arrest for practicing law without a license!! ...and I'm gonna tell too. Now, everybody freeze! Now, get down! no, not that kind of getting down; stop the dancing! On the floor! Hands behind your back! I'm also charging about half of you with plagarism for using someelses original saying as your own personal tagline. Now you Canadians come on down and surrender yourselves peacefully - and bring me a box of Cubans when you come. And next time I see the same picstripe lines on your panels that I've seen a million times... you're gonna pay bigtime for that.
I hope I at least make a little bit of a point here, not just the humor.
[ December 03, 2006, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Ricky Jackson ]
Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
Well I got dibs on Red Helvetica Bold.
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
Pat, would it be wrong if I copied your layout, but used Red Ariel Bold instead? LOL
Posted by Dana Stanley (Member # 6786) on :
Here's my 2 cents. If you make a John Deer logo for a John Deer dealer your ok. If you make a logo for a John Deer owner you broke the law. The dealer is authorized by the manufacturer. Of course the manufacturer my want dealers to by there graphics from authorized suppliers as I'm sure Harley Davidson does. So the only one making money on there name is them. As far as what is fare well they worked hard to build there name what the he-- gives you the right to profit from it. I wouldn't feel bad about copying your art for my own use, but to sell it would put a knot in my gut. I am ok with copying tools for my own use and I'm quite sure its legal too. This guy must have known he was wrong, and the lady who turned them in should be ashamed for thinking one crook is somehow better than the other. I would say as artists we should all defend the copy right. But that is my opinion. I cant say what other artists should do. I defend the copy right of all and applaud law enforcement for a job well done. Of cource if it were a civil matter only, as it should be then they would be out of line. That is I think the government has too many laws (but I don't want to get political).
Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
That's it Russ, my lawyers will be in touch. (and I don't know anything about any attempts at copying your scratchboard work)
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
Looks like my people will be talking to your people. Posted by Gene Golden (Member # 3934) on :
I kinda feel that if you are reproducing a Harley or Deere logo for a customer to put on his windshield, it should be allowed. Harley is getting free advertising from someone who feels passionate enough to sport their logo on their car or toolbox or their body tattoo for that matter.
If you put their logo on a motorcycle and then try to sell it as a Harley, then you should be dealt with severely. Even trying to sell an item as a Harley or Deere "brand" item, be it a key chain or a hat, is wrong.
But, if all you are doing is making a "backslanted #3" for a fan of a deceased NASCAR racer, I consider it a "fair use" of a logo.
Posted by James Donahue (Member # 3624) on :
It might even be possible that if 'the law' didn't arrest the guy, their case could be weakened, as in the other people, with the jeans and stuff, would claim "selective enforcement". I've heard of a guy being left alone by the zoning enforcement division (sign police) on the same grounds.
It's not accurate to say we've all used logos illegally, at least in the last 17 years. Granted, there was a big turning point in my life when I became a Christian, but since then, I don't recall doing it. There was the time I made a cartoon character on a sign for a store that actually sold those products. I went inside and examined the product. Probably should've called, but when I went through that with the Gulf Oil Corp, what a hassle. I did finally get permission to use their logo on an illustration of an old time gas station.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
I was rather surprised to learn that even when the local Harley Davidson shop paid me to do signs & trucks with their logo (provided by them) that even this is illegal.
But I did it & I'd do it again! (and I'm a Christian too... but we're not talking about that)
Posted by James Donahue (Member # 3624) on :
Doug, the reference to being a Christian was more of a chronological point, but man, that business with the Harley shop! You gotta be kidding! (I know you're not) What's that like? There's got to be an analogy somewhere, something like a rich woman abandoning her children to become orphans.
Granted, maybe all they needed was permission. Cut! Drama over.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
yeah, I know... just funnin' with the line we walk
but I was very recently reading a post that was convincingly stating that EVEN for an authorized shop... I am not authorized to prepare decals for sale to supply that shop... THEY must contact their higher ups for the decals, or at least for permission.
I felt suddenly uninformed & assumed that I may be in the minority around here on that point... so I figured I'd mention it & see if it would be refuted, verified, or otherwise discussed untill reaching one or both of those logical conclusions.
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
this is an intersting enough topic to break my rule about not posting here...
A case from my own experience... in 1994 I was commissioned to letter a number of semi-trailers. The lettering included a cartoon by a well-known local artist, which was very specific to the client's business. After working on about half of these trailers, one day I got a call from an attorney, who in a rather bullying tone told me that I owed the cartoonist a royalty for use of a copyrighted image! My reply was that as the image had been provided by the client, my assumption was that the client owned the image and had the right to reproduce it on his vehicles. The attorney told me very emphatically that this was NOT the case, that I owed his client (the catoonist) thousands of dollars in royalties.
Sound fishy? As soon as I got off the phone I called my customer and left a message about what had happened. I also called MY lawyer - a former customer who was very well connected in the Rhode Island legal establishment - and told him the story.
Well, apparently the manure hit the propellor after that. Over the next few days I got letters and/or phone calls from the cartoonist, from my customer, and from my lawyer. Turned out the lawyer who had called me was the former attorney for the cartoonist, a shady character who had a reputation for shaking people down for money by threatening lawsuits. It turned out that the cartoonist had been commissioned for the cartoon by my customer, but that the right to reproduce it had not been put into writing. The upshot was that I was assured that I did NOT owe royalties for using the cartoon, and that the agreement to reproduce the cartoon was then formalized between the cartoonist and the customer. As for the attorney who called and threatened me, apparently this incident caused the State Legal Ethics Board to open an investigation (instigated in part by my attorney) and eventually he was disbarred.
12 years later, the customer's business is bigger than ever, my attorney became a judge and is now Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, and I still see some of those trailers with that cartoon out on the road from time to time.
Posted by Mark Stokes (Member # 5351) on :
why then are the people who sell these vector images to us don't get in trouble. I agree with gene if some one wants a sticker of there favourite brand why not its another form of advertising for them.
Posted by Dan Streicher (Member # 4515) on :
regarding harley davidson here is what i know from my own experience.
we did signs for a new franchise shop the owner was a customer of mine from other businesses that he owned and he contracted with my company to do his signs. we did them with art supplied by the franchise owner to the franchise owner's specifications.
after the project was completed we received notification from HD that we were in violation for reproducing their logo and images without authorization, i told them that i was under the impression that we were authorized to do so as we had permission from the franchisee, we were told that that was not the case and that HD requires authorization from the corporation...i told them that we did not do anything illegal (and i still hold that position and would never want to go to court against HD) they informed us that they had a packet containing specifications, color samples, vinyl film approved colors and the numbers for each brand of film etc. and a release that must be signed saying that you will not use their images in any of your advertising website brochures etc....blah blah blah
the job was inspected and found to meet their specifications and we were told how to procede in the future (and we did so on subsequent projects for them) i believe that the way this came to their attention is that executives were present at the opening of this location as we had a bucket truck on location doing last minute work before opening i am not certain just my guess. i do not think there would be a problem doing pop work banners for them but i do not know or rather i do not think you would get "caught by the corporate powers that be" as i still believe we did nothing in violation of the law as the work was for a harley davidson franchisee, however, i do understand their position as for brand recognition there can be no deviation and we all know that there are companies out there that may be capable of selling a job but incapable of meeting the specifications set forth by a company so strict in useage of their images.
so if you are contacted to do signage for a new harley davidson dealership make sure that either the franchisee or you contact HD and get their release form and specifications so that you do not get the same nastygram that i received....
Posted by David Harding (Member # 108) on :
Is it any surprise that brandsoftheworld.com operates out of Russia?
Posted by Frank Sanborn (Member # 6772) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Harding: Is it any surprise that brandsoftheworld.com operates out of Russia?
I wondered about that...I keep waiting for it to disappear.
I had an interesting experience with copyrited images with Daimler-Chrysler a few years ago. I had restored a Jeep that I own and had reproduced the "Renegade" graphics on it. I had several people express an interest in restoration decals for Jeeps, and at the time, no one was licensed to do repros, so I persued it with Chrysler. I got a packet of information with licensing applications, specifications, etc.
A good friend of mine was working at Chrysler at the time and gave me the name of the guy that was in charge of their restoration parts program. I gave him a call to discuss what I was thinking of doing and to ask him a few questions. He was very friendly and helpful and was encouraging me to proceed, as they were looking for someone to get started on licensed restoration decals for Jeep.
I told him that I had already made a set of '76 Renegade graphics for my own personal Jeep, and he said, "Oh....well we'll need to get our royalty check from you soon, or you'll have to remove them."
"HUH!?!" I started to plead my case, saying that since I didn't get paid for them...I made them for MY own Jeep...blah, blah, blah. As my blood pressure went up he started laughing, told me to calm down, and explained that by the letter of the law, it was illegal for me to reproduce ANY copyrited image without permission, for ANY reason. BUT, would they persue me for it? No... If I made some up for a few friends, would they come after me for that? Probably not...
But, if I started making them up in quantities, and advertised them etc., then they would issue a cease and desist order and then try to work with me to get licensed. Bottom line was, if their copyrited image was being sold, they wanted their cut.
I didn't end up going any further with the licensing due to their (at the time) rigid specifications and red tape. There are now at least two companies that are licensed to make these. And my original "bootlegs" are still on my Jeep.
Posted by David Harding (Member # 108) on :
A year and a half ago, a Cadillac dealer wanted us to paint the new logo on a huge awning they were having installed. I contacted Cadillac to get approved vector files and they told me the local dealer "had the resources" to optain it for me. The dealer was clueless about obtaining that, although they managed to get a hundred feet of awning material delivered to our shop. I ended up buying a membership in an outfit that was a merchant here for a while that had the logo in vector form and I downloaded it from them.
The dealer had neglected to check with the city to see if they could do the graphics and their permit wasn't approved once they applied for it. The lettering never got done, however, they did pay me well for all of my time on the job.
Posted by Jon Jantz (Member # 6137) on :
I wonder: Why weren't the cops at Atlantic City at the USSC show arresting vendors? I noticed this weekend that every ..and I mean EVERY.. one of the printer vendors were printing copyrighted material and handing them out.
For example, in the Gerber booth, they were printing Jimmy Buffet Margaritaville restaurant signs, Harley Davidson, and various other logos on the Solara UV machine, and then cutting them out on the router... people were waiting in line for the HD and Margaritaville signs...
In almost every major booth, there were printed/routed/cut/channel letter signs from Pizza Hut, McD's, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and all kinds of others being given away as samples...
The advertising and attention they were getting from giving away these copyrighted items are worth a lot more than the $5-10 dude was making for his decals, in my opinion...
Again, not saying he's right for doing it, just that it's something we all deal with and I hate to see him lose his equipment over it...
(((Can you imagine the cops showing up at that show and confiscating all the printers and routers out of some of the largest booths!!)))
Posted by Ricky Jackson (Member # 5082) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Jantz: (((Can you imagine the cops showing up at that show and confiscating all the printers and routers out of some of the largest booths!!)))
OK, on one hand we have a poor working guy just struggling to make a living; he probably doesn't have the slightest clue that he was violating copyright laws. He gets bent over and driven to Pittsburg. On the other hand there are the big companies, swarming with PNiG corporate types who probably know copyright law backwards and forwards; they protect their OWN brands, right? They are printing and passing out HD and Margaritaville "merchandise" as fast as the newest and fastest machines can pump it out. They go from show to show doing it. Methinks there is a deceased Ethiopian in the lumberyard.
Posted by Bruce Williams (Member # 691) on :
Since when is it a signpainter's responsibility to chase down copyright and petition the Guardians for the Proper Display and Adoration of the Holy Logo? That's the client's job. If he's a Harley dealer, then HE deals with Harley; I don't. I agree with Cam, who said
"My reply was that as the image had been provided by the client, my assumption was that the client owned the image and had the right to reproduce it on his vehicles."
...And if he doesn't own the cartoon, then that will be HIS problem with the cartoonist, not Cam's. It might occur to me to ask "BTW, you DO have the Rights to this little mud-pie, yes?" Or it may not. When a man owns a new Dodge and wants a vinyl Ram on it, I'm not going to beg Daimler-Chrylser for their Indulgence to help their client advertise for them. If they really don't like it, I guess they can take back the truck and give the customer a refund, but that's their business. If I wanted into that kind of business, I guess I'd be a lawyer.
There are probably some differences in the foregoing and the original post. Originally, the guy was actively soliciting work that may violate copyright. Several people have asked 'How was he to know?' That's a fair question, in this era and aura of Branding.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Rolling On The Floor]](graemlins/rolf.gif)
well, this thread was more humerous then I expected ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[For Your Information]](graemlins/fyi.gif)
did Bill say they did? NO!