| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2008 05:03:08 PM · #1 |
How do people sell decals and stuff using company logos?
Like This? How is it legal?
Pee on Sticker
|
|
|
|
09/26/2008 05:26:42 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 07:01:46 PM · #3 |
Borderline - I'm pretty sure that's not the real Ford company logo. If you look at the lettering, it's awful. ;-Þ
|
|
|
|
09/26/2008 07:04:28 PM · #4 |
Not just the logo but the kid depicted in the decal is from an old comic strip called Calvin and Hobbes.
Message edited by author 2008-09-26 19:05:15. |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 07:04:47 PM · #5 |
| It's not that easy ... there is a significant degree of latitude allowed in copyright (and probably trademark) law when the use is editorial, for comment/criticism, or parody. |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 09:51:11 PM · #6 |
| So as long as you alter it, it's ok? |
|
|
|
09/26/2008 10:47:58 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Chinabun:
So as long as you alter it, it's ok? |
No, it's not the alteration which can make it legal -- a mere alteration can still violate copyright as a "derivative work." It has to do with the use to which the work is put. To use someone else's image to create a new work of artistic expression can still violate the original copyright (see the recent case of the "Harry Potter dictionary"), while a use which is an expression of commentary, criiticism, or parody may be legitimate. For example, the characters from the Peanuts comic strip are frequently used by editorial cartoonists to comment on current affairs.
Probably the most confusing cases involve Andy Warhol's images of Campbell's Soup cans and Marilyn Monroe.
Using an established image in any way always opens the door to an accusation of infringement, and defending it can be prohibitively expensive even if you are in the right. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 02:10:56 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Chinabun:
So as long as you alter it, it's ok? |
No, it's not the alteration which can make it legal -- a mere alteration can still violate copyright as a "derivative work." It has to do with the use to which the work is put. To use someone else's image to create a new work of artistic expression can still violate the original copyright (see the recent case of the "Harry Potter dictionary"), while a use which is an expression of commentary, criiticism, or parody may be legitimate. For example, the characters from the Peanuts comic strip are frequently used by editorial cartoonists to comment on current affairs.
Probably the most confusing cases involve Andy Warhol's images of Campbell's Soup cans and Marilyn Monroe.
Using an established image in any way always opens the door to an accusation of infringement, and defending it can be prohibitively expensive even if you are in the right. |
Just to be clear though, the OP is talking about a decal that is being sold to the public as a commercial product.
Message edited by author 2008-09-27 14:12:02. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 03:21:49 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Chinabun:
So as long as you alter it, it's ok? |
No, it's not the alteration which can make it legal -- a mere alteration can still violate copyright as a "derivative work." It has to do with the use to which the work is put. To use someone else's image to create a new work of artistic expression can still violate the original copyright (see the recent case of the "Harry Potter dictionary"), while a use which is an expression of commentary, criiticism, or parody may be legitimate. For example, the characters from the Peanuts comic strip are frequently used by editorial cartoonists to comment on current affairs.
Probably the most confusing cases involve Andy Warhol's images of Campbell's Soup cans and Marilyn Monroe.
Using an established image in any way always opens the door to an accusation of infringement, and defending it can be prohibitively expensive even if you are in the right. |
Just to be clear though, the OP is talking about a decal that is being sold to the public as a commercial product. |
Right ... newspapers are sold as a commercial product as well. I'm not saying that this particular product is legal, but that it might or might not be depending on some judge's interpretation of the law, and the purpose of the depiction.
This use is clearly intended to serve as opinion/commentary on the trademarked product, not to deceive the consumer as, for example, slapping a Ford logo on your Soapbox Derby racer and claiming it was built or sponsored by Ford. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/03/2025 07:31:03 PM EDT.
