Do designers need to get copyrights to their designs?

24.7k · July 25, 2007

... proper authorization could be obtained for only $10,000 ...

I met an artist who did projects using federal money. That was about his price and about what he would charge to do a geocoin run. He didn't even see how it could be done for less than that, let alone what I was telling hime we could do coins for. He wished us luck. His art actually is being used on the Friends of Caching 1 (with the permission of the Greenway who commissioned the art).

The fuzzy spot that remains for caching is the legal issues about non commercial use of copyrighted art (and I guess quotes) for signature items. Like I said, I did approach a company and got their blessing with them having looked at the issue and my use for a cartoon character even more well known than Taz.

Edited July 25, 2007 by Renegade Knight

2k · January 16, 2008

The question has come up in another thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=182126

Regarding these two coins and the back of each:

It was my understanding that what tokencollector said was the facts:

...The scout law is a set of words and the fleur du leis (sp?) is just an image. But the particular arrangement of them on the back of the existing scout coin is owned by either the designer or minter depending on their contract. Use of the identical design without obtaining a license is theft, period. (Copyright infringement is the more technical term)

When do the components of a design become a design and therefore the property of the designer or artist?

Do I have to get my designs copyright protected to protect my right to my artwork/design?

I realize the design elements could all be used on another coin in a different or even similar way but to flat out duplicate the design, is that not just theft?

1.3k · January 16, 2008

I think 2 people could come up with the same idea/design esp if there are public available objects to use as a design.

January 16, 2008

I found this site

That implies that intellectual property is copyrighted once it is created.

1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."

This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.

While not a legal source, it does reflect other copyright positions I've read at other sites.

Basically, once a design, photo, song, etc. is created, it is automatically copyrighted. There are ways to register the copyright but are not required; they just make enforcement easier.

9.8k · January 16, 2008

Joe has it correct above. In a case like this, first use is the owner of said design. Again, it depends on if the elements are public domain or not. However given that the placement and wording are identical, if that is truely a unique design, then the original artwork (based on time of first use) has been copied.

January 16, 2008

What you are failing to realize is neither one of you is the copyright holder. The words and image together are bound by the copyright of the Boy Scouts. Neither one of you are the originators and therefore you both infringing on the Boy Scouts copyright. An argument could be made for the public domain, but that would entitle both of you to use.

January 16, 2008

What you are failing to realize is neither one of you is the copyright holder.

What Big_John says is true...

http://www.bsalicensing.org/trademarklisting.htm

Please note that in 1916, in order to protect the proprietary marks of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the U.S. Congress granted the BSA a federal charter (36 USC § 21 et. seq.), which gives the BSA "the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words and phrases [the BSA] adopts."

In effect, almost any logo or symbol that reasonably relates to the Boy Scouts of America or its program is protected.

2k · January 16, 2008

What you are failing to realize is neither one of you is the copyright holder. The words and image together are bound by the copyright of the Boy Scouts. Neither one of you are the originators and therefore you both infringing on the Boy Scouts copyright. An argument could be made for the public domain, but that would entitle both of you to use.

You are correct on the rights to the Scout Oath. But the product I designed has been licensed and approved by BSA.

Would this not be like any other design. I don't own the rights to the elements of the design but once I create the design that is my property?

Like was stated above?

January 16, 2008

Would this not be like any other design. I don't own the rights to the elements of the design but once I create the design that is my property?

Like was stated above?

That sounds right. The question now is what can be done about it?

Maybe it's time to talk to a real lawyer rather than a collection of geocachers.

January 16, 2008

Would this not be like any other design. I don't own the rights to the elements of the design but once I create the design that is my property?

Like was stated above?

Yes and no.

Yes you have copyright in the design as a whole.

No, it is not enforcable by yourself unless you have an exclusive liscense since the copyright that you would be enforcing is otherwise not yours to enforce;

A) the scout motto is the property of the scouts and is theirs to enforce. As a licensee you can only ask them to enforce it on your behalf or to joinly take action with yourself.

The scroll with the tracking number on is generic to all/most coins as is the 'trackable at...' wording. As such it appears devoid of protectable copyright.

3.3k · January 16, 2008

You could accept the fact that someone made a coin look nearly identical as a charity fundraiser for an organization that you clearly support (scouts), and drop the soapbox. :huh:

2k · January 16, 2008

Would this not be like any other design. I don't own the rights to the elements of the design but once I create the design that is my property?

Like was stated above?

Yes and no.

Yes you have copyright in the design as a whole.

No, it is not enforcable by yourself unless you have an exclusive liscense since the copyright that you would be enforcing is otherwise not yours to enforce;

A) the scout motto is the property of the scouts and is theirs to enforce. As a licensee you can only ask them to enforce it on your behalf or to joinly take action with yourself.

The scroll with the tracking number on is generic to all/most coins as is the 'trackable at...' wording. As such it appears devoid of protectable copyright.

So if the Scout law was not one of the elements and it was just a poem or words then this would be a copy of my work and I would then have copyrights in the informal since, seeing as I haven't copyrighted any of my work.

January 16, 2008

So if the Scout law was not one of the elements and it was just a poem or words then this would be a copy of my work and I would then have copyrights in the informal since, seeing as I haven't copyrighted any of my work.

Yes.

Also, here in the UK there is no need/requirement to formally copyright something for copyright to subsist - not sure about the USA

As long as you can prove that you created the work first (such as sales reciepts for coins you have issued) and that it has been copied you would be home and dry.

As regards the scout motto, you should contact them to see if they have issued another license to another coin designer/manufacturer and if not point out that they have an obligation towards yourself as a licensee to priotect their copyright and to enforce your rights to make use of it.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Von-Horst

24.7k · January 16, 2008

...You are correct on the rights to the Scout Oath. But the product I designed has been licensed and approved by BSA.

Would this not be like any other design. I don't own the rights to the elements of the design but once I create the design that is my property?

Like was stated above?

In general all your own original work is copyrighted automatically. This is pretty much automatic without other arrangements. If I had you flesh out an idea. I'm going to retain the copyright. If I forget to make that clear and we both claim it it the law favors you as the artist though it would have also gave me a copyright on the sketches that I gave you...so that's a fuzzy line so far as I can tell.

The general custom of most coin companies that I have talked to is that they don't claim the copyright. That's yours. They own the die and they have the right to work with your art to make the coin. They like repeat customers.

There are glaring exceptions. The BSA and Olympics being two. Anything with 5 Rings is the Olympics regardless of if it looks like their logo or something else.

24.7k · January 16, 2008

...So if the Scout law was not one of the elements and it was just a poem or words then this would be a copy of my work and I would then have copyrights in the informal since, seeing as I haven't copyrighted any of my work.

Your original work. Yes. Similar work. Maybe not. How many copyrighted variations of a bald eagle are there in this country?

1.5k · January 16, 2008

Whether it's legal or not is not as much of an issue as integrity here, it seems tacky to me that nobody asked. I'm sure if the 2nd coin maker had asked, the 1st would have said "go for it" being that it's for a good cause. Maybe I'm wrong, but a little courtesy could have gone a long way.

3.1k · January 16, 2008

Really this issue should be let go. The fund raiser is for the troop. No vendor or artist/designer should be so petty.

If you would look carefully at the 2 coins while very similar they are NOT identical. The font is different, the shape is different and the arrangement of the words is different. So where is the copyright infringement in that?

Did Troop 333 see the C&P/Atwell coin before their design before they designed this coin? Perhaps. Did they copy it identically? Nope. If they troop was inspired by the Atwell design then yes they should have asked to use some of the design elements. They stand by the fact that the design is a coincidence and that is certainly possible. Look at the things in the past, same coins coming out around the same times.

3.6k · January 16, 2008

Seems to me a simple apology would go a long way to diffusing this situation. But no.... it has to escalate. Now that's really showing the young scouts what character and integrity is all about.

January 16, 2008

I tend to believe the new coins back design was basically copied. My reasoning for this is not only the nearly identical layout but also coloring of the fleur du leis which is non standard.

Team Sand Dollar

24.7k · January 16, 2008

I tend to believe the new coins back design was basically copied. My reasoning for this is not only the nearly identical layout but also coloring of the fleur du leis which is non standard.

Team Sand Dollar

Copied, maybe so, especially the symbol as you note. But pretty much a non issue in this case. The words, the track at, the fleur du leis are all either geocoin standards or boy scout standards. There isn't enough orginal material that doesn't already belong to either the "public domain" in geocoins or others for someone to make a case.

January 16, 2008

A moderator stepped in and flexed its noodly appendages before I could drop this in the Boyscout coin thread. The moderator referred to a non-existant (yet?) thread on copyright. I thought I’d step out on a limb and kick it off.

The gist of the other thread is that a group made a coin to sell. One side of that coin was a very close derivative of a commercially available coin and the original designer cried foul. The originally designer appears perturbed by the incident. A common thread in some of the responses was [my paraphrase] get over it. Personally, I would be upset if someone stole my design. And have been upset when someone used one of my photography for commercial purposes (It wasn’t worth raising a stink over in my case, so I let it go.) Copyright / trademark infringement can be serious and, in my opinion, ought to be avoided. My next comment in that thread would have been:

What’s really sad here is the lack of understanding of / respect for copyright. It doesn’t matter who did it or what organization is involved. Accidentally, unknowingly, or intentionally a copyrighted design was used without license. Whether or not one thinks the design is special, it is protected by law. Use of the design without permission is illegal. (The minor changes in the coin described in this thread do not make its design unique)

Furthermore, an organization’s trademarks are also used, apparently without permission. Association with the organization is not an excuse. If I applied my employer’s trademark to my own product, I would be unemployed at best and much poorer at worst.

Even if the copyright owner would have freely given permission initially, that does not mean that he should shut up and go away. The seller of the coin is profiting from by the sale of a design that does (in part) not belong to them. The copyright owner deserves to be compensated.

To this point, I have named no names on purpose. The principles involved hold regardless of the design owner and the design user.

Specific to what has been presented in this thread, I think that Mike has been quite reasonable. It would be within his rights to demand that sale of the coins be ceased immediately, that the remaining coins be destroyed, and that he receive significant compensation for each coin that had been sold (compensation could vastly exceed the sales price of the coin). Cross the wrong copyright / trademark owner and you may get that or worse.

Simply asking nominal compensation for use of his property is hardly extortion.

I’m not qualified to speak for the national BSA, but I do know that they require that all companies producing trademarked items obtain a license. For example, individual troops may not product t-shirts containing trademarked images or words at a local silk screening company unless the company is licensed by the BSA. For a brief period last year, there was only ONE company authorized to produce t-shirts and patches. That has since changed. IF the broker / minter was not licensed by the BSA, they could also be in trouble.

24.7k · January 16, 2008

...What’s really sad here is the lack of understanding of / respect for copyright. It doesn’t matter who did it or what organization is involved....I’m not qualified to speak for the national BSA, but I do know that they require that all companies producing trademarked items obtain a license...

Lets keep this simple.

If the BSA authorized both coins what's the problem? The BSA has special congressional rules that are going to walk all over standard copyright laws. If my understanding is correct. I know it's correct in the case of the Olympic 5 rings symbol and all variations of 5 rings. I saw the Olympic committee win against a trading card game and that game's symbol did not at all resemble the Olympic rings.

2.2k · January 16, 2008

Merged topics and bumped so the OP of the new thread (that was merged into this one) has visibility into this thread.

Thanks.

2k · January 17, 2008

The copyright thread by Tokencollector linkie is broken, so I end up back here...

1) a 'Fair Resolution' would have been "Neat coin, Good Luck with it" - not looking for cash settlement.

2) check out scoutstuff.org and look at just about any item with an Eagle on it and you'll see why I say that Mike's coin bears more resemblance to other scout stuff than the 333 coin does to his.

3) I see a different shape, a different front design, different layout and font of the same words on the back. As I said before, there are only so many ways to fit words on a coin.

4) I defer to Graniteman on the banner- suffice to say if you look on Scoutstuff you see lots of the same style banners and scrolls for putting names, Troop numbers, slogans etc. on.

5) The closest argument I can see for any close resemblance is the use of the Fluer d Lis as a finishing accent- but again that's not unique nor is the colorization.

So let's see... the tiny Fluer are what... 1% of the back design (at most)? That would be $0.50- hardly worth the stamp, envelope or paper to send.

1) That would have most likely been the response if asked. I received nothing like that, even yet.

2) This may be true but my design was licensed by BSA through Coins and Pins. The other coin was not.

3) There only so many ways but to have all the same elements is what is surpising to me.

Find me a coin with or patch or some other item with the Scout Oath placed like my desgin and with the fleur d' le in red/white/blue then I would agree with your 1% but I think it is a bit more at this time. But like I said, I dropped it with them. Just came in here to ask the question and understand.

January 17, 2008

Well, even if the basic components are easily gotten, the back looks like a copy to me. I don't think that it would keep me from purchasing either coin though. In other words, if I had the Troop 333 coin, I would still think that the Atwell coin was different enough to purchase as well....and vice versa. Glad that they are different shapes as well.

I do some professional scientific writing and it is not uncommon to find your text or logical development paraphrased in other manuscripts, particularly as part of the "intro" or "background".

January 17, 2008

I don't think that it would keep me from purchasing either coin though.

If you were to buy both, the artist would have been compensated (lump sum in advance - a common licensing practice) for the use of their design by one of the sellers. He would receive no compensation from the other seller - who also profits from the design.

***I don't mean to fan the flames of the paricular coin in question, it just provides a convenient example. The principle holds regardless of the coin or artist.

I do some professional scientific writing and it is not uncommon to find your text or logical development paraphrased in other manuscripts, particularly as part of the "intro" or "background".

Quite common and even typical. However in a journal, if your ideas are cited you should be credited with a reference. Intentionally usurping somone elses ideas and claiming them as your own is scientific misconduct. I also believe that summarizing someone elses work is considered "fair use" under the copyright laws. In a journal, if you use a figure from another paper, you are required to obtain permission from the copyright holder - typically the publisher of the original journal. That is even the case when you want to use your own figure or picture in two different jounals.

[The latter is taken from personal experience. The primary author of a paper I was coauthor on wanted to recycle a figure. I reminded him that he needed permission from the original journal, which was granted. The only requiremnet by the first publisher was that the figure be properly cited and a used with permission statement added.]

Can you get away with copyright and trademark infringement? Yup, probably most of the time. Just because you can trample someone elses rights with relative impunity doesn't mean that it is appropriate or correct behavior. And again, I mean this generally, not just in the case of the coin that started this discussion.

January 17, 2008

If the BSA authorized both coins what's the problem?

IF the BSA authorized BOTH there is, and can be, no problem.

If not, the unauthorized one is guilty of infringing the rights of the licensee and stealing the (intellectual) property of the BSA.

As to whether the sums of money involved make this anything other than an exercise in intellectual curiosity...

3k · May 12, 2008

:lol: Apparently all of our ongoing forums about copyright infringement are going to get a whole lot worse. Congress is trying to pass The Orphan Works Acto of 2008. Not just coins, but even the pictures we post on line can be stolen quickly and easily if this gets approved.

"The Orphan Works Act defines an "orphan work" as any copyrighted work whose author any infringer says he is unable to locate with what the infringer himself decides has been a "reasonably diligent search." In a radical departure from existing copyright law and business practice, the U.S. Copyright Office has proposed that Congress grant such infringers freedom to ignore the rights of the author and use the work for any purpose, including commercial usage. In the case of visual art, the word "author" means "artist."

http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/...billid=11320236

So if someone likes your imagery and thinks they can make some money on it, here's a nice fat loophole to do it with. The new laws would force you to buy a copyright for every design, image, work of any kind you want to protect from infringement. Not only that, you might end up needing multiple copyrights from multiple databases that are coincidently owned by private businesses, not government branches. :laughing:

For the mods: If this post violates any guidelines, please shut it down, but this is a valid point for everyone who has designed or is designing a geocoin in the future.

8.8k · May 12, 2008

I think this is a very important piece of information to share here. It's not a promotional thread for anything, it's an important fact people should be aware of.

The only way to stop a bill in Congress is to write to your congressman/woman and tell them how you feel. Then spread the word and tell all your friends to write to their congressmen too. If we don't tell them how we feel about it, they might just go ahead and vote for it.

Speak up. And do it fast. Before they allow it to pass.

Kind of makes you wonder who thinks this stuff up? This one sounds like it was written by the "infringer".

4.2k · May 12, 2008

As to the issue of using somebody else's artwork that is posted here - the best solution would be for everybody to show some scruples (that word doesn't get used enough IMO) and have enough integrity to just not steal some on else's idea.

If this is truly a community, that shouldn't be a problem....

But, an interesting post, thanks.

1.7k · May 12, 2008

I agree that this issue is important to discuss and the topic has always been one that has intrigued me as I'm never quite sure how some people have gotten around the copyright issues when having coins designed.

But all that being said, at the rate Congress goes, I wouldn't lose any sleep over this bill having a real-life effect on us anytime soon.

:laughing:

24.7k · May 12, 2008

I think it's a step in the right direction. I do have very large issues with using private biz to do a government function if they are going to go back to registration based copyright though.

There are some larger realities. Take Snoopy. He is a cultural Icon. At some point he moved beyond the artists control in the same way that Kleenex became a word and not just a brand. Kick in that the artists has died, that a long, long time has passed (more than when orginal copyright protections would typically expire). Yet now to use this guy on a coin he's still copyrighted. His Iconic nature should have passed to the public domain a long time ago.

There is a balance. The last copyright bill moved to too far the other direction. It needs to go back to something more resonable.

3k · May 12, 2008

This is a much broader scope though. Someone can take your private photo of you or your loved ones and use it to sell anything. I'll say that again... anything. Use a little imagination and the consequences are pretty scary. Imagine having to copyright every family photo you ever post anywhere for anything :laughing:

hmmm... I wonder if that's how they got BrianSnat's mug on the Blackberry ad? :lol:

Edited May 12, 2008 by fox-and-the-hound

8.9k · May 12, 2008

As to the issue of using somebody else's artwork that is posted here - the best solution would be for everybody to show some scruples (that word doesn't get used enough IMO) and have enough integrity to just not steal some on else's idea.

If this is truly a community, that shouldn't be a problem....

But, an interesting post, thanks.

BINGO...we have a winner! A little integrity goes a long long way!!

If people want to use my picture to sell something, have at it. What are you selling, halloween masks?? lol

24.7k · May 12, 2008

This is a much broader scope though. Someone can take your private photo of you or your loved ones and use it to sell anything. I'll say that again... anything. Use a little imagination and the consequences are pretty scary. Imagine having to copyright every family photo you ever post anywhere for anything

hmmm... I wonder if that's how they got BrianSnat's mug on the Blackberry ad?

I'm already annoyed if when I pay a photographer for their skill in staging a photo and they also emblazon "COPYRIGHTED" all over the back of my photo. When I was at the fair I saw a lot of portraits from those photographers on display to earn them prizes. Most of them larger and nicer than what they would have sold the person posing for the photo. I have no interest in making it easier for them to keep my kids from making copies of family photo's.

The sword cuts both ways. Micky Mouse Tatoo's and Family Photo's should not be copyright infringments. The gist of the law does work to fix some issues that I have with copyrights.

Something as simple as Album Art becomes a PITA due to copyrights. EMI doesn't have a database. They don't give it out. It becomes fair use to post it so others can use it on self ripped MP3 files, or to correct great scans of CD covers that have been gnawed on by your dog.

Balance.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Renegade Knight

1.4k · May 12, 2008

If you post artwork in the forum, you are one click away from your work. Nobody could take your artwork and claim they made a reasonably diligent search for you, especially if you have subsequent posts.

Does this law say something abut specifically having to *buy* copyrights? Because you don't have to buy copyrights. (The only thing you have to buy is lawyers when someone else rips yours off.)

This sounds like the kind of law that will have lots of hyperbole swirling around it.

3k · May 12, 2008

If you post artwork in the forum, you are one click away from your work. Nobody could take your artwork and claim they made a reasonably diligent search for you, especially if you have subsequent posts.

Does this law say something abut specifically having to *buy* copyrights? Because you don't have to buy copyrights. (The only thing you have to buy is lawyers when someone else rips yours off.)

This sounds like the kind of law that will have lots of hyperbole swirling around it.

"The artist would bear the financial burden of paying for digitizing and depositing the digitized copy with the commercial registries.

• Almost all visual artists such as painters, illustrators and photographers are self employed. The number of works created by the average visual artist far exceeds the volume of the most prolific creators of literary, musical and cinematographic works. The cost and time-consumption to individual artists of registering tens of thousands of visual works, at even a low fee, would be prohibitive; therefore countless working artists would find countless existing works orphaned from the moment they create them.

• The Copyright Office has stated explicitly that failure of the artist to meet this nightmarish bureaucratic burden would result in his work automatically becoming an "orphan" and subject to legal infringement."

More or less it says that if you don't register your image with a recognized registry, then it's up for grabs. International copyright gets even worse with language barriers. Worst of all in this scenario is that we're already protect from this scenario by laws that are going to be plowed over...

"It is a violation of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works for any country to impose registration on a rights holder as as a condition of protecting his copyright. See Article 5(2) "The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality (emphasis added)."

:huh:

3.6k · May 12, 2008

I'm already annoyed if when I pay a photographer for their skill in staging a photo and they also emblazon "COPYRIGHTED" all over the back of my photo. When I was at the fair I saw a lot of portraits from those photographers on display to earn them prizes. Most of them larger and nicer than what they would have sold the person posing for the photo. I have no interest in making it easier for them to keep my kids from making copies of family photo's.

I think your point is off the mark. If you wanted family photos why didn't you have Uncle Bob use his spiffy new digital camera with all the bells and whistles? Instead you chose to hire a professional photographer for a higher quality image you knew his expertise and equipment would capture. Sure enough it did. You paid for a print not the image. The image is always the photographer's property unless you've contracted to buy it off him. You didn't but want the rights that come from owning the image, like free duplicates and re-prints. Doesn't quite sound fair to me.

May 12, 2008

This is a much broader scope though. Someone can take your private photo of you or your loved ones and use it to sell anything. I'll say that again... anything. Use a little imagination and the consequences are pretty scary. Imagine having to copyright every family photo you ever post anywhere for anything

hmmm... I wonder if that's how they got BrianSnat's mug on the Blackberry ad?

Think about all those photos on photobucket or flickr! Yikes

1.4k · May 12, 2008

I did a little research on this bill to find out for myself and my opinion is that it is outrageous. This article from the Graphics Arts Guild is particularly telling.

Registering copyrights is not required per se, but it pretty much the only way to ensure protection.

Edit: The article I link to above is The Orphans Works Act of 2006. Seems the 2008 act is basically the same thing, so I presume it didn't pass the last time around?

Edited May 13, 2008 by danoshimano

2k · May 13, 2008

Not looking to bash a coin, the person whole made it or the cmopany who helped produce it!!!!

I saw a thread about copyright and the first coin that came to mind in regards to copyrights was the new coin. I have one and it is very nice and the thought behind it is even nicer. I am just surprised it was produced and that the coin company (USA based, not the mint) had this coin made.

I'll say again I am not looking to bash, but instead ask the question of copyright.

Do coin productures not ask the questions in regards to copyright approval?

Do some people not care that the artwork is someone elses?

I know that I have personally turned business away that I knew was not original art or that someone had not gotten approval to use. I also know that I have paid artist. Not geocoin artist but others for their artwork. I am using two such examples on a coin coming out in the next few months.

Please keep this on track, this is not ment to bash any coin or person.

2.5k · May 13, 2008

What coin are you talking about. There are way too many out there to guess. :huh:

1.6k · May 13, 2008

'The' new coin? There is only one? This must a 'Highlander' coin... :huh:

3.3k · May 13, 2008

I agree, you've lost me totally. So I'm not sure I can be of much help here.

But, I do know of a instance where one coin company had a prospectively hot seller in from the mint, and actually sent them all back to be melted. After they found out that they believed it was a direct copyright infringment. That cost them a good chunk of change.

TMA

8.8k · May 13, 2008

Atwell Family said this is not to talk about one coin, it's to talk about the question at hand.

2.5k · May 13, 2008

I thought they said,"the first coin that came to mind in regards to copyrights was the new coin. I have one and it is very nice and the thought behind it is even nicer." I was just wondering which one it was.

1.6k · May 13, 2008

Do coin productures not ask the questions in regards to copyright approval?

Do some people not care that the artwork is someone elses?

Question 1: Yes, always, if it looks like a mainstream copyrighted image. Eg: Harley Davidson, Disney, Looney Tunes, a TV character, a famous work of art, etc. If someone brings us art ideas or concepts and we draw it from scratch, then we hold the copyright and share that with our client.

If someone brings us a basic design for a coin created digitally somehow, we do not ask them if they have right to use it. If it has Jamie's name (MHN) on it, then we are usually going to be in discussions with him anyway because Chris always wants something tweaked so we'd know pretty soon if it wasn't our client's art to use.

Question 2: Caring takes heart and we have lots. At what point is it artwork that is copyrighted? Is your sketch on a dinner napkin copyrighted? - I'd say it is to you at that point. When we make it into a piece of art for the mint and slap Copyright Edley Imagineering Inc across it for sure it is copyrighted to us and to you once you pay the bill . Before that? You own the rights to the dinner napkin art.

Helen

Edited for correct use of the Queen's english :huh:

Edited May 13, 2008 by Landsharkz

2k · May 13, 2008

Here are a couple examples that people have asked of me:

Upper Right "Taz". I said no and saw it on another tag.

Lower Middle "Marvin Martin" Haven't seen on another coin but was asked.

3k · May 13, 2008

I don't know how long it will take to bust the geocoin crew, but it will happen at some point. There are a lot of infringements (outside coins) happening everyday and many of them slip through because it's tough to pin the crime on someone. With a geocoin and contracts including checks/m.o/credit card numbers it would be a very short trail to follow. There are companies who's sole existence is based on hunting down offenders and busting them for large settlements if not worse. If you are caught making money off of someone else's intellectual property you can be held liable for every penny made, plus damages, court costs, etc. If you're busted, you'll pay many times over any money you made.

But wait, you say, I didn't sell my coin with the copyrighted artwork. Oh, but did you trade it? You do realize barter is considered sale according to the United States Internal Revenue Service right? Look at your latest tax return booklet where it says outright that goods and service attained through barter are equal to earned income.

So some will take their chances. They might never be caught, but a coin isn't going to disintegrate anytime soon and you can be held accountable for something like 40 years if I remember correctly. :huh:

edit: 4 2 spell

Edited May 13, 2008 by fox-and-the-hound

3k · May 13, 2008

I did a little research on this bill to find out for myself and my opinion is that it is outrageous. This article from the Graphics Arts Guild is particularly telling.

Registering copyrights is not required per se, but it pretty much the only way to ensure protection.

Edit: The article I link to above is The Orphans Works Act of 2006. Seems the 2008 act is basically the same thing, so I presume it didn't pass the last time around?

Nope, enough artists and forward thinking citizens spoke up to stop it. But where there's greed, opportunity will create itself and so it's back again and rearing it's ugly head. :huh:

Do designers need to get copyrights to their designs?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment