Do designers need to get copyrights to their designs?

[+AtwellFamily]

I see coins being made with logos from organizations. I didn't think you were suppose to do that with permission. Am I wrong or are people just doing without regard? The ones i metion would not give permission I don't think.

 

edite for: I would give examples but don't want to put anyone on the spot.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Atwell Family

[+MattAlbertson]

I'd assume they have permission, but i'm not 100% about which you are refering to. I know the Red Cross coin does and from the thread it looks like the Freemason one is awaiting approval.

[+FluteFace]

The back of my personal has a logo from WSGA (Washington State Geocaching Association) of which I am a member. I used it with permission, and there are other groups that do the same.

[+AtwellFamily]

Did want to go here and nothing agains the people using the logos:

 

but 2 examples:

Red wing dave uses the red wing logo

http://cointracking.com/photos/crew416_edi...118Front300.jpg using the boy scout logo.

[+LadyBee4T]

How much did it cost you for the copyright to use the wings logo? How about the the cup?

 

Copyright infringement is one of the things that kept me from doing a coin earlier.

 

Actually if you look closely at the winged wheel, it isn't the same one that is trademarked by the Red Wings. It is an original work by Fractal Artist Paul DeCelle. I contacted him, and he was very pleased to give me permission to use his artwork. In exchange I am going to send him a set of coins when they're finished. So side one was easily averted.

 

As far as the Stanley Cup goes, I used an actual photograph that I had. Since nobody can place a trademark or copyright on a picture that I own, I wasn't concerned about using that image of the cup.

 

Here is Redwing Dave himself answering the question about use of the Redwing "logo" in an earlier thread when his coins first came out. What may look like a logo may not actually be.......

[+Renegade Knight]

I see coins being made with logos from organizations. I didn't think you were suppose to do that with permission. Am I wrong or are people just doing without regard? The ones i metion would not give permission I don't think.

 

edite for: I would give examples but don't want to put anyone on the spot.

 

Given you don't have an example and that you don't have anyone in mind the answer is "it depends".

 

Better information might get you a better answer.

[YemonYime]

Did want to go here and nothing agains the people using the logos:

 

but 2 examples:

Red wing dave uses the red wing logo

 

Dave purposely altered the logo on his coin to avoid such problems. Just in case. If you look closely at this side-by-side comparison, it's easier to spot how the shape of, and the fletching in the wings is different.

 

 

ETA: Besides, the real "no-no" is when someone tries to make a profit off of someone else's intellectual property or trademark. Dave's coins were never "retailed".

Edited January 14, 2007 by YemonYime

[+AtlantaGal]

ETA: Besides, the real "no-no" is when someone tries to make a profit off of someone else's intellectual property or trademark. Dave's coins were never "retailed".

 

I know with the trademarked logo I have used, personal use was ok as per the alumni association. I was told if I were to sell the item, like yime metions here, then I would be in violation.

[+MustangJoni]

Oops!

Edited January 14, 2007 by MustangJoni

[+MustangJoni]

 

ETA: Besides, the real "no-no" is when someone tries to make a profit off of someone else's intellectual property or trademark. Dave's coins were never "retailed".

 

Actually, I bought mine from The Caching Place when they first came out?

[danoshimano]

Besides, the real "no-no" is when someone tries to make a profit off of someone else's intellectual property or trademark. Dave's coins were never "retailed".

 

That is an important point in this case and is what will keep RedWing Dave safe. The alterations are irrelevant: in a court of law, all that has to be proved for copyright infringement is that the logo confuses people into thinking it is the real thing.

[+UOTrackers]

I also don't know which specific coins you are reffering to, but I can tell you that when I started working with designs copyright was a major concern for me. I asked a lot of questions to a fellow artist and my mentor. I learned alot about pictures, actual photos that is, if I've taken it, it's mine to do with what I want. For example, our coin,

 

After showing the finished product to some of our non caching friends I was told that the sign on the coin is "trademarked". How can you copyright/trademark a street sign? They were misinformed, not only was the street sign NOT trademarked, though used heavily in this city, it was my own photograph!

 

I was also informed that for instances of another peice of artwork, as long as it is changed 75% OR hand drawn by myself, it's fine. Think about it, do you know how many people re-create Mona Lisa? Belive me, they sell their art as well! It's tribute, not copyright infringement.

 

Now I wont say that there isn't any instances where copyrights may have been over looked, it's a diffivcult thing to understand. Also an example, you go looking for something on the net to base your coin on, and you find a really cool image on a "freeware" or "shareware" site...it get's a little difficult to figure out if you can or can't use it.

 

Lastly, there's a great site called, Standford Copyrights & Fair Use, when I'm not sure about something I go back and check in there! I'm still learning after all!

[+GA Cacher]

I see coins being made with logos from organizations. I didn't think you were suppose to do that with permission. Am I wrong or are people just doing without regard? The ones i metion would not give permission I don't think.

 

edite for: I would give examples but don't want to put anyone on the spot.

 

For the record, i had all permissions for the Breast Cancer Coin. I

FYI I was asked by TPTB to provide said permisions prior to making the coin.

Exceprts:

"Dear Tom:

 

The Greater Atlanta Affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Inc. (“Komen”) is honored that Those Coin Guys has chosen Komen as the beneficiary of its “Breast Cancer Awareness Ribbon Coin” to support the fight against breast cancer. We are pleased that you share our commitment to the advancement of breast cancer research, education, screening and treatment, and we are proud to have the opportunity to partner with you.

 

This letter will serve to confirm and memorialize our understanding of the terms and conditions of the Event (the “Agreement”).

Event. Those Coin Guys will produce and sale a special Breast Cancer Awareness Ribbon Coin. The coins will be sold for $8 each. Those Coin Guys agree to donate one hundred percent (100%) of the coin sales, minus the cost to produce the coins, to the Greater Atlanta Affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.

Operations and Costs. The parties acknowledge and agree that, except as specifically provided herein to the contrary, Those Coin Guys will be solely responsible for all operational aspects of the Event including, but not limited to, the safe and lawful conduct of the Event and ensuring that the Event is conducted in a professional manner befitting the parties' respective outstanding public images. Those Coin Guys shall be solely responsible for all costs and expenses associated with the Event.

Licensed Marks. Komen is a licensee of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Inc. (the “Foundation”) and is authorized, and hereby does, grant Those Coin Guys a limited, non-exclusive license to use the Greater Atlanta Affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation name. Those Coin Guys shall be prohibited from transferring, sublicensing or assigning its rights to use the Licensed Marks, all of which shall remain the exclusive property of Komen. Those Coin Guys will present to Komen for its approval, prior to printing, distribution, publication, display, or use, any and all promotional materials"

 

Best of luck

[+AtwellFamily]

I received a request for a GeoTag that included an image similar to:

 

 

I looked and see a number of images out there on the web like it. How can you tell if it is copyrighted? I would say the overall image in some form would belong to Warner Bros. or Looney Tunes but not sure.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Atwell Family

[CinemaBoxers]

Its copyrighted - the main issues would come if the buyer was caught reselling the design. Otherwise, as a trade item its in 'fuzzy' territory!

[+Let's Look Over Thayer]

I received a request for a GeoTag that included an image similar to:

 

 

I looked and see a number of images out there on the web like it. How can you tell if it is copyrighted? I would say the overall image in some form would belong to Warner Bros. or Looney Tunes but not sure.

If the image is anything close to a trademarked and/or copyrighted image, there is the potential to receive a cease and desist letter from the holder the trademark or copyright. Whether or not that letter has teeth could be up to a court to decide...

[+PengoFamily]

Tough call but the Tasmanian Devil is a licenced product of Warner Bros. Perhaps you can find more information here.

 

http://www2.warnerbros.com/main/company_in...age=wb_homepage

 

edited because I cannot type.....

Edited July 20, 2007 by PengoFamily

[+AtwellFamily]

I don't like fuzzy, I sent the following back to the customer:

 

Sorry but I would request you use some other Taz Devil that is not a licensed product. You could check and see if you can use the image at the following:

 

Copyright Agent

Warner Bros. Online Inc.

4000 Warner Blvd.

Bldg. 505

Burbank, CA 91505

 

Tel: 818 977 0018

Fax: 818 977 5523

Email: legal@wb.com

 

I hate to turn away business but this seems to be a straight forward copyright issue.

 

mike

Edited July 20, 2007 by Atwell Family

[CinemaBoxers]

That was probably a smart move, Mike. What customers sometimes don't realize is that while their use of a copyrighted image/likeness is mostly harmless, the producer/minter is liable.

 

I'm sure your respect for an image copyright holder won't count against you as a person!

 

~J

[+Eartha]

Well handled.

[+Renegade Knight]

For the past umteen years the non commercial use of trademarked items has been allowble where they don't impact the profits of the company with the trademarked item. Fair use is also allowed. Parody for example. What would Weird Al's career be like if he couldn't parody songs...

 

This about it. Everthing we use is copyrighted, patented and trademarked. Films would have to pay liscencing to various people just to dress them, put makup on them, and let them drive a car on screen.

 

Where I've approached pro's who do this stuff for a much better living than relative newbie geocachers who are into the business, they were happy once I explained exactly what a trade item was in geocaching. The fuzzy stopped for them.

 

The moment I sold a geocoin for profit the rules change and it's now just as non fuzzy that I can't do that under the law.

 

Lastly, if you tweak Tazz (10% was a number another cacher looked up who I'd trust as a source but verify if my butt was on the line) a bit, it's no longer Tazz and new art with a new copyright.

[+Renegade Knight]

Just to point out.

 

The image you posted to ask the question is also a fair use.

 

Thanks to the DCMA fair use doesn't go as far as it used too. Thank you congress.

[+Kealia]

You could give him my haircut and loincloth.

 

Would that count as a 10% change?

 

Everybody loves a comb-over.

[+Dr. Whoever]

I have dealt with this before and you MUST get authorization from Warner Brothers to use any of their images....even if they didn't draw it. In the earlier post you have the contact information. Be prepared to wait a bit of time for a response and also prepare for a rejection.

[+9Key]

Anyone know how to go about contacting Fox for a copyright release? I've Googled the heck out of it can can't find anything useful. I have a friend that wants to do something Simpsons related and we want to get it cleared with them before proceeding.

[+AtwellFamily]

Anyone know how to go about contacting Fox for a copyright release? I've Googled the heck out of it can can't find anything useful. I have a friend that wants to do something Simpsons related and we want to get it cleared with them before proceeding.

 

I think this is what you need:

Copyright Infringement

 

If you believe that any material contained in this Site infringes your copyright, you should notify FOX of your copyright infringement claim in accordance with the following procedure.

 

FOX will process notices of alleged infringement which it receives and will take appropriate action as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other applicable intellectual property laws. The DMCA requires that notifications of claimed copyright infringement should be sent to this Site's Designated Agent who is:

 

Ms. Minna Taylor

Fox Broadcasting Company

Telephone: (310) 369-7018

Fax: (310) 369-1369

Email: dmca@fox.com

 

To be effective, the notification must be in writing and contain the following information (DMCA, 17 U.S.C. §512©(3)):

 

Physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed;

Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site;

Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material;

Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted;

A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

 

 

found at http://www.fox.com/corporate/terms.htm

[YemonYime]

Everybody loves a comb-over.

 

Hula Bum may beg to differ in about 25 15 5 years.

[+MustangJoni]

Its copyrighted - the main issues would come if the buyer was caught reselling the design. Otherwise, as a trade item its in 'fuzzy' territory!

 

This is a question:

 

The BuyerA has it minted and uses it as a trade item. So he doesn't sell it. But he used "Acme Coin Company" created it and they sold it to the BuyerA. So Acme Coin Company is the one who sold it, so they would be the ones in trouble, right?

[+AtwellFamily]

Its copyrighted - the main issues would come if the buyer was caught reselling the design. Otherwise, as a trade item its in 'fuzzy' territory!

 

This is a question:

 

The BuyerA has it minted and uses it as a trade item. So he doesn't sell it. But he used "Acme Coin Company" created it and they sold it to the BuyerA. So Acme Coin Company is the one who sold it, so they would be the ones in trouble, right?

I dealt with a production company before and they had a clause that said the artwork given to them was the responsibility of the perswon who presented it. Somthing like that, so they didn't have to worry about taking any resonsibility for the copyright issues.

[+nielsenc]

I suggest those who are wondering, esp people making money on this, consult their lawyers on what they should and shouldnt do.

 

Going on what people here in the forums say is just going to put you on the wrong path.

[+MustangJoni]

Its copyrighted - the main issues would come if the buyer was caught reselling the design. Otherwise, as a trade item its in 'fuzzy' territory!

 

This is a question:

 

The BuyerA has it minted and uses it as a trade item. So he doesn't sell it. But he used "Acme Coin Company" created it and they sold it to the BuyerA. So Acme Coin Company is the one who sold it, so they would be the ones in trouble, right?

I dealt with a production company before and they had a clause that said the artwork given to them was the responsibility of the perswon who presented it. Somthing like that, so they didn't have to worry about taking any resonsibility for the copyright issues.

That is the reason why I asked. I've seen that clause on several of the websites, but I wonder if saying that you aren't responsible really means you aren't held accountable at all.

[+fehrgo]

That is the reason why I asked. I've seen that clause on several of the websites, but I wonder if saying that you aren't responsible really means you aren't held accountable at all.

 

Lawyers can and often will go after anything when there is money involved, so I wouldn't really count on it.

[+nielsenc]

That is the reason why I asked. I've seen that clause on several of the websites, but I wonder if saying that you aren't responsible really means you aren't held accountable at all.

 

Lawyers can and often will go after anything when there is money involved, so I wouldn't really count on it.

 

That is why I suggest talking to one .

[CinemaBoxers]

A good rule of thumb (barring a lawyer consult) would be this:

 

"If you question the use of an image as copyright infringment, don't use it!"

 

If it's questionable, pass on it - that's the safest route.

 

~J

[+MustangJoni]

That is the reason why I asked. I've seen that clause on several of the websites, but I wonder if saying that you aren't responsible really means you aren't held accountable at all.

 

Lawyers can and often will go after anything when there is money involved, so I wouldn't really count on it.

 

That is why I suggest talking to one .

 

I would never take what is said on this forum as the gospel on copyright. But I also don't actually have a lawyer. I think using common sense and asking permission is the way to go. I would rather mint original art than have to bother with that.

 

I actually had to take a class on copyright when I worked for Kodak. It pertained to those machines that copy prints, and who was liable when someone copied a studio print. It wasn't the customer who printed it who was fined. It was the owner or leasor of the machine. The American Photographer's Association sued Kmart in the Colorado area and was able to get $2 million in fines from Kmart.

 

In this case, APA sent people to the stores and printed the copyrighted photos. They made sure that the photos they printed were clearly marked as copyrighted. They then asked for assistance using the machines and made sure that the clerks saw the prints. They were printed with no questions asked.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

I would never take what is said on this forum as the gospel on copyright. But I also don't actually have a lawyer. I think using common sense and asking permission is the way to go. I would rather mint original art than have to bother with that.

 

I actually had to take a class on copyright when I worked for Kodak. It pertained to those machines that copy prints, and who was liable when someone copied a studio print. It wasn't the customer who printed it who was fined. It was the owner or leasor of the machine. The American Photographer's Association sued Kmart in the Colorado area and was able to get $2 million in fines from Kmart.

 

In this case, APA sent people to the stores and printed the copyrighted photos. They made sure that the photos they printed were clearly marked as copyrighted. They then asked for assistance using the machines and made sure that the clerks saw the prints. They were printed with no questions asked.

 

I would have a problem with this. First of all, it could be considered entrapment. Second, the people sent by the APA clearly had authorization to copy the pictures (Even though K-Mart had no way of knowing this), therefore K-Mart should be off the hook.

[+MustangJoni]

I would never take what is said on this forum as the gospel on copyright. But I also don't actually have a lawyer. I think using common sense and asking permission is the way to go. I would rather mint original art than have to bother with that.

 

I actually had to take a class on copyright when I worked for Kodak. It pertained to those machines that copy prints, and who was liable when someone copied a studio print. It wasn't the customer who printed it who was fined. It was the owner or leasor of the machine. The American Photographer's Association sued Kmart in the Colorado area and was able to get $2 million in fines from Kmart.

 

In this case, APA sent people to the stores and printed the copyrighted photos. They made sure that the photos they printed were clearly marked as copyrighted. They then asked for assistance using the machines and made sure that the clerks saw the prints. They were printed with no questions asked.

 

I would have a problem with this. First of all, it could be considered entrapment. Second, the people sent by the APA clearly had authorization to copy the pictures (Even though K-Mart had no way of knowing this), therefore K-Mart should be off the hook.

 

That isn't what the judge and jury thought. There is a lot more legal mumbo jumbo to it, but that is just a summary.

[SEXYGEOER]

I would say it is a copyrighted image, for sure. You said it since it was brought out by warner bros. it is there image....and copyright

[+Renegade Knight]

...That isn't what the judge and jury thought. There is a lot more legal mumbo jumbo to it, but that is just a summary.

 

That is complete crap. (Not what you said, thats' real, just that it existed to begin with).

 

The key problem is that the system has become skewed so that the people responsible for policing copyright infringement are not the companies with the copyrights. Instead it's anyone who deals withcopyrighted material in virtually any form. Worse if the Photocopier owner doesn't comply they get fined for the misdeeds of others.

 

As an aside, it's ironic they were fined for undercover agents working for the companies who in fact actually had the authority and authorization to make the copies there were making. What a freaking crock.

 

This is akin to holding a library responsible for any plagiarism in it's books and periodicals.

[+MustangJoni]

Protecting someone's rights to something they created is not crap! I did not mean to start any controversy, but if I create an image, and someone else uses it for a profit, they may as well take that money out of my wallet. It is stealing.

 

Okay, I think the thing that I didn't explain is that the store's take on a responsibility when they lease the equipment. One of the responsibilities is training their employees to identify copyrighted material. There are forms that need to be filled out when you copy a print that is copyrighted. The copyright holder can give you authorization to copy the photo. I've seen the cruise lines do that often.

 

I've worked with photographers for years. When these photo machines came out they lost alot of their enlargement business. Some actually went under. And major companies profited from that. Not just Kmart. I worked in Texas, and it never failed to amaze me when I would work on these machines, and look through the history and see school pictures copied, Wedding photos, etc, and see that their was no copy right release on file. Apparently if the customer yells loud enough, the store will do it. It is sad. It is stealing. I have 5 or 6 friends who do wedding photos. Stuff like this takes food right off their table.

 

These stores are responsible. The only reason they got sued is because of the flagrant violations. Not one or two little things.

[+joefrog]

Just an FYI, that "changing an image 10%" is bunk. If it's still even remotely identifiable as the original art, then it's still the original artist's work.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

Just an FYI, that "changing an image 10%" is bunk. If it's still even remotely identifiable as the original art, then it's still the original artist's work.

 

That's right Joefrog, the actual amount that has been cited to me by artists and professors for years is 70%. The point was made that new art must contain less than 30% of original art in content or composition. The point made before is valid and I'd reinforce it.... If you think there might be even a chance that's it's infringement then it probably is.

[+J10fly]

Same here....70% is what i have heard for years now myself.

 

Jayman11

[+joefrog]

Like my new avatar design?

 

[+Renegade Knight]

Just an FYI, that "changing an image 10%" is bunk. If it's still even remotely identifiable as the original art, then it's still the original artist's work.

 

That's right Joefrog, the actual amount that has been cited to me by artists and professors for years is 70%. The point was made that new art must contain less than 30% of original art in content or composition. The point made before is valid and I'd reinforce it.... If you think there might be even a chance that's it's infringement then it probably is.

 

I'm going to cry bunk on the cries of bunk. The Groundspeak logo is not the windows logo yet I can "remotely identify the orginal windows logo" 70% seems to be a better number in gross terms but it's also fuzzy as heck on what that means when it comes to content or compostion. If I draw a apple ...it's going to resemble many, many copyrighted apples that have already been drawn. There are only so many variations of an apple. Of course if the OP had received an apple instead of Taz I doubt the question would have been posed.

 

Given the fuzzy nature of even 70%, an apple, Taz, and that there are allowed non commercial uses of logos and the like, I don't think we have a working answer in this thread that we can use.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

Like my new avatar design?

 

 

[+fox-and-the-hound]

Just an FYI, that "changing an image 10%" is bunk. If it's still even remotely identifiable as the original art, then it's still the original artist's work.

 

That's right Joefrog, the actual amount that has been cited to me by artists and professors for years is 70%. The point was made that new art must contain less than 30% of original art in content or composition. The point made before is valid and I'd reinforce it.... If you think there might be even a chance that's it's infringement then it probably is.

 

I'm going to cry bunk on the cries of bunk. The Groundspeak logo is not the windows logo yet I can "remotely identify the orginal windows logo" 70% seems to be a better number in gross terms but it's also fuzzy as heck on what that means when it comes to content or compostion. If I draw a apple ...it's going to resemble many, many copyrighted apples that have already been drawn. There are only so many variations of an apple. Of course if the OP had received an apple instead of Taz I doubt the question would have been posed.

 

Given the fuzzy nature of even 70%, an apple, Taz, and that there are allowed non commercial uses of logos and the like, I don't think we have a working answer in this thread that we can use.

 

I think the best way to check might be the simplest. Show your design to 10 people. If even 3 or 4 recognize that your Taz looks like the WB Taz then you're definitely in trouble.

[+Renegade Knight]

Protecting someone's rights to something they created is not crap! I did not mean to start any controversy, but if I create an image, and someone else uses it for a profit, they may as well take that money out of my wallet. It is stealing.

 

Okay, I think the thing that I didn't explain is that the store's take on a responsibility when they lease the equipment. One of the responsibilities is training their employees to identify copyrighted material. There are forms that need to be filled out when you copy a print that is copyrighted. The copyright holder can give you authorization to copy the photo. I've seen the cruise lines do that often.

 

I've worked with photographers for years. When these photo machines came out they lost alot of their enlargement business. Some actually went under. And major companies profited from that. Not just Kmart. I worked in Texas, and it never failed to amaze me when I would work on these machines, and look through the history and see school pictures copied, Wedding photos, etc, and see that their was no copy right release on file. Apparently if the customer yells loud enough, the store will do it. It is sad. It is stealing. I have 5 or 6 friends who do wedding photos. Stuff like this takes food right off their table.

 

These stores are responsible. The only reason they got sued is because of the flagrant violations. Not one or two little things.

 

Per the DCMA it's all copyrighted material unless you take the time to relase it to the public domain or it's been long enough to pass into the public domean. Nobody no matter how well trained can possibly keep up with 6 billion people all of whom have copyrights on the materal they generate. Not to mention the media companies and other professionals who specialize in generating content. That's why it's bunk.

 

It's far easier to spot fair use than track other peoples copyrights.

 

Longer rant below:

======================

First, there is nothing wrong with trying to protect your own copyright. You created it, you deserve to enjoy the results.

 

Second. If you choose to protect the rights of another by protecting their copyright, that’s fair and noble.

 

However, what is complete and utter crap is for a copyright holder to be able to force you to protect their copyright and worse still hold you liable if you don’t. It’s also crap to force others to pay for your copyright protection schemes. It’s more crap still to block legitimate uses of equipment because someone may pirate something so now your own wedding DVD can’t be viewed on your HDTV because your HDMI cable thinks it’s pirated and downgraged the video to where you look like a blob. Or your TIVO doesn’t get along with your HDTV and so legitimate content shows up as “Sorry we can’t play this it’s pirated material”. CRAP.

 

More CRAP: When the content media companies expect others to enforce their copyright they are focused on single goals. Watch for Disney Characters, Don’t let someone copy my Scholastic book. They are not looking for or watching someone printing off and copying vast quantities of say, this forums posts. Which are all copyrighted by their owners. I truly doubt those media companies are checking their latest movie ideas against the sea of smaller copyright holder ideas even though that’s what they are asking everyone else to do. One sided CRAP. Even if it wasn’t one sided crap, does any one business have the ability to enforce the copyrights automatically generated by the 6 billion people on this planet let alone the media companies? No. It’s flat out not reasonable.

 

Yet More CRAP. Because everything is copyrighted the Terms of Use of most places, and a heck of a lot of agreements force you to give up your rights. This is increasingly common. This site now makes money from google adds, they derive some of this from the forums where WE all make the posts. I have 18000+ copyrighted posts that just to use the forums I have lost my rights to. No revenue for me for all my typing effort. Students write papers for school that are now copyrighted. Those are often checked against an internet database to check for plagiarism. Then those papers are added to the database without asking the student. Schools are claming they obtain the rights to those papers. One student is protesting using their copyright…I’m not sure they will win. If you copyright your financial information by writing it all down before it’s ever reported to the credit agencies could you sue them under the DCMA for your share of the funds? I doubt yo ucould win (the big boys have special legal protection, even if it's your copyright), but I’d love to see someone try.

 

More CRAP. There are groups who claim to represent all artists. They end up getting power under the law. For example there is one group that collects all the royalties for music played on the air and online. Since they don’t represent the independents but they do represent all musicians under the law how do the independents get their cut? They don’t. CRAP.

 

Check out this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

I generate a lot of content. Some of it could end up covered by one of these types of tax. Will I ever see a dime? No. You also generate content, but won’t see a dime. CRAP. CRAP. CRAP. Oh and once you pay that tax which compensates people for their content you get ZERO right to any content. Just the privilege of having paid a tax for nothing.

 

If we are going to have copyright protections they should mean something for everyone, not just the big players. Fair use should be defined a heck of a lot better. I’d like to see that someone who got Taz tattooed on their butt can sleep better at night knowing that they won’t be sued if they ever sit on a photocopier.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think the best way to check might be the simplest. Show your design to 10 people. If even 3 or 4 recognize that your Taz looks like the WB Taz then you're definitely in trouble.

 

That's not to shabby of an idea but it's still fuzzy. For one thing Parody is allowable with fully recognizable characers. Then non commercial use is valid use in a lot of cases. I'm sure Joe Camel is tatood on many a person. Signature items generally are non commercial. Historically, this is an allowable use. I've even done the leg work on a coin using one of the most widely available images in the world and they ran it up the approval chain and said "ok we weren't sure but given yoru use (signature item) we can do that. The deal fell through for other reasons. There are for profit coins that should not test the waters.

 

The parts that apply to signature items are not well known by cachers yet. I've done the legwork to get something approved but could not tell you why it's allowed because I'm not the poker chip maker who looked into the matter.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+fox-and-the-hound]

...I think the best way to check might be the simplest. Show your design to 10 people. If even 3 or 4 recognize that your Taz looks like the WB Taz then you're definitely in trouble.

 

That's not to shabby of an idea but it's still fuzzy. For one thing Parody is allowable with fully recognizable characers. Then non commercial use is valid use in a lot of cases. I'm sure Joe Camel is tatood on many a person. Signature items generally are non commercial. Historically, this is an allowable use. I've even done the leg work on a coin using one of the most widely available images in the world and they ran it up the approval chain and said "ok we weren't sure but given yoru use (signature item) we can do that. The deal fell through for other reasons. There are for profit coins that should not test the waters.

 

The parts that apply to signature items are not well known by cachers yet. I've done the legwork to get something approved but could not tell you why it's allowed because I'm not the poker chip maker who looked into the matter.

 

You're right that it's fuzzy in a lot of areas. The reality is that unless the OP's tag is sold there is not going to be a repercussion. That doesn't change the fact that they're wondering if this is someone else's artwork and the answer is yes. Pretty much everyone understands when they look at it who the character is. Would they get in trouble? Probably a long shot. However, I was asked to use something found on the web as part of a coin design last year. Luckily, I realized it was art owned by a working artist and contacted them to explain what we wanted to do. They turned out to have an active agency looking for any unauthorized use of their art and proper authorization could be obtained for only $10,000 It turned out their work had already been stolen a number of times and they had won their litigation against some of those previous thefts. My long-winded point being: Just because you might get away with it doesn't mean you will and the repercussions could be very expensive. Worse yet, that may reflect badly on geocachers in general.