I have a question

[heppnerguy]

I know that selling a logo for a company, like say, Nike, made as a scrolling item, is called an infringement of there copyright. I believe I am correct with this statement, and like a Disney character, the same thing is true, again, as I understand things. That being said, why is it Ok to make pattern of cars and that is acceptable to use. It seems to be kind of same type of thing to me. can anyone answer me this?

 

Dick

heppnerguy

[DWSUDEKUM]

That depends upon the company Dick.  The pictures of the cars used as a pattern are to them good advertisement however the logo is trademarked, it has a certain color scheme and look.  This is what they are known by and any changes can adversely affect them, this is why they are so vigilant on how it is used.  The cars look however is really public domain until and unless one were to make one and call it their own and using the trademarked name then they would be in violation.  Think of all the aftermarket add ons for the various cars out there.  People take pictures of these cars all the time but as long as they do not use these pictures to advertize that they made the total car they are allowed to with no copyright or trademark infringement.  That is my understanding of this anyway.

[heppnerguy]

So what about coloring books that use the different DISNEY characters. Do you think all the color books have purchased the rights to draw and produce these from Disney? I am just curious it is obviously a confusing situation for many. How does one distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not? You can find youtube items on how to draw, say Mickey Mouse or Popeye, are these ok?

 

Dick

heppnerguy

[LarryEA]

Dick, you're going to need the counsel of 'The Queen of Hearts, Cheshire Cat, March Hare or the Mad Hatter' 

for your answers.

[WayneMahler]

All this copyright stuff can have your head swimming for sure. Coloring books and printable coloring pages from the internet seem to be acceptable as a form of art activity for the children. Disney is huge on this as well as other making the likeness of the images. Cars are seemingly treated the same way. Most of the scrolling stuff don't show the protected logos . I think the biggest thing is when someone claims credit for the design of the logo as part of the art. The other part is mass production, scrolling pieces for friends, family etc. I feel it is safe. I do it, a lot for our local sports teams and never had an issue, but I don't mass produce them for sale. Really I think on low volume nothing will be an issue. Just don't post patterns as I believe this could get ugly fast for anyone.

[DWSUDEKUM]

So what about coloring books that use the different DISNEY characters. Do you think all the color books have purchased the rights to draw and produce these from Disney? I am just curious it is obviously a confusing situation for many. How does one distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not? You can find youtube items on how to draw, say Mickey Mouse or Popeye, are these ok?

 

Dick

heppnerguy

If in doubt Dick do not use it... it really is that simple.  Generally most companies will allow you to make something from their brands for personal use only, the trouble generally starts when you attempt to sell something and are making a profit from it with out paying them their share if the profits.  Most things like coloring books have agreements with companies like Disney and have license to print the images of copyrighted characters.  There are alway a few that do not, however they seldom last long.

 

DW

[Lucky2]

So what about coloring books that use the different DISNEY characters. Do you think all the color books have purchased the rights to draw and produce these from Disney? I am just curious it is obviously a confusing situation for many. How does one distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not? You can find youtube items on how to draw, say Mickey Mouse or Popeye, are these ok?

 

Dick

heppnerguy

Yes Dick, they probably have purchased the rights from Disney. And just because they had permission to print the images, doesn't mean they have the right to give another entity the right to use the image for anything other than to paint it. I know this from personal experience, and it's not a nice experience to go through. It wasn't anything I had done, but, my daughter was a minor so I was considered responsible for her actions. Thankfully, it was a company that had a heart and they let us go with a warning. Legally, I'm not allowed to mention the companies name, they say that doing so could negatively affect the company. If anyone, I thought that Disney might be one to worry about, but she didn't do much Disney work. It cost me a few bucks in legal fees , but, not near what it could have cost me. Since then I've been very cautious about what I cut. My lawyer informed me, that now that I've been issued a warning for this, I'm open to more in penilties than someone who has not been issued a warning. 

Len 

[zimmerstutzen]

years ago, I represented a man that had connections with a leather clothing manufacturing concern.  He wanted to sell leather NFL team jackets to the public.  I contacted the NFL main Licensing office.  We had to submit a sample of each proposed team logo jacket for approval and then the was a licensing fee of $1,500 and then an additional percentage fee for total sales.    Each company has different prices and procedures.  Then there is also something called "fair use"   It is the use of a service mark or copyrighted material that requires no permission.  Such as satire, ridicule, or otherwise criticizing or making comedy of a thing.  As best I can recall from my intellectual property law class, 40 years ago, the rules for fair use can be even more confusing.  For instance changing the words of a song to make fun of the original song is protected as fair use. (And a copyright attaches to the new words)    There comes a point where copyright and trademark law merges.  For instance the Stiffel lamp company sought both trademark and copyright protection for it's lamp designs.  If a company made knock offs, Stiffel would sue under both laws for infringement.   Their position was cutting edge 40 years ago.  Don't know if that still holds.    

 

If I want to use a a rusted Chevy emblem on a Bumper sticker that says" This is Ford Country.  On a quiet night you can hear a Chevy rust" that would be fair use.     

 

If you design/make a satirical characature of a Disney figure, that would be fair use.  If you copied a Mad Magazine satirical Disney figure, you probably violate the Mad Magazine copyright, but they did not violate the Disney copyright.  

 

Trying to figure out who or what agency at a company to talk to about using a design/figure/picture can be very confusing.  Big companies like Disney and the NFL,  have their own licensing offices.  Some farm licensing out to other companies.  Some just don't deal with it.  Some will refer you to their advertising agency, because the agency personnel actually designed the item under contract.  

[heppnerguy]

thank you everyone for your responses. I appreciate it. I will just have to be careful and not put up things that might be in question, for sale. I can not imagine anyone going after me for one of two sales of a Mickey Mouse wood piece, but whatever money I might make from it, is certainly not worth a lawyers fees and a fine.  I appreciate your responses on this.  I still think it is a little silly for this to have to be a problem for a couple of little woodworkers trying to pay for their materials. 

 

Dick

heppnerguy