Tell the printer to go ahead and get the permission or rights if he wants the business. After all he's the one doing the printing & it's probably cropped up before. Better his head in the noose than yours.
A while back Ford sued a web site for using its name. I think it was The Ranger Station. Clink link below.
------------------ "Kilgore Trout once wrote a short story which was a dialogue between two pieces of yeast. They were discussing the possible purposes of life as they ate sugar and suffocated in their own excrement. Because of their limited intelligence, they never came close to guessing that they were making champagne." - Kurt Vonnegut
Jim, it sounds like your printer is too complicated. I may be wrong but I don`t think other people have run into that problem. I had the place I use digitize the emblem so although it looks similar it`s not an exact copy.
Opie, I have a local lady that does my shirts at a very reasonable price. I can't say she won't have a problem with it but she is more likely to work with you. If this is for the spring fling, you won't have to pay shipping because I can pick them up and bring them.
Our stuff was done though Cafepress.com and they did our stuff this one last time...so no worries on Spring Fling. But this is the 3rd printer that have rotated to for my Fiero projects in the last few years...change printers for the same reason each time...no more without express written permission from GM.
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop:
Opie, I have a local lady that does my shirts at a very reasonable price. I can't say she won't have a problem with it but she is more likely to work with you. If this is for the spring fling, you won't have to pay shipping because I can pick them up and bring them.
Which GM has the rights? The old GM or the 'new' GM? They should be happy for the exposure, even if they don' t make Pontiacs any more.....
They own the rights to the logo. The problem is that someone can come along and start producing products and slapping a GM logo on it. Next thing you know, people believe these items are official GM items and backed by GM. Then, you have the people who make their own version, slightly altering the logo and making it look bad, and trying to pass it off as official.
The best way to approach this is with the printing company, or GM to see if you can get permission.
It's perfectly legal to use the name/logo on a t-shirt for a club event, as long as the shirts are not being sold for profit (you can however, sell them at cost to cover the cost of production).
It's perfectly legal to use the name/logo on a t-shirt for a club event, as long as the shirts are not being sold for profit (you can however, sell them at cost to cover the cost of production).
The problem is that a print shop could be on the hook if something happens. They basically have to CYA.
The problem is that a print shop could be on the hook if something happens. They basically have to CYA.
The print shop should be able to accept a signed (and notarized if necessary) document stating that the shirts are only for a club event and will not be sold for a profit, which would waive them of any responsibility, and shift any possible problems back onto the client.
Originally posted by infinitewill: Having been involved in many, many copyright law suits (defending my own copyrighted artwork) the above is absolutely not true! IF the printer did it for no charge then maybe that defense might hold up. The fact that money changed hands for materials reproduced from copyright held by another party makes the producer culpable regardless of the intent of the person that commissioned the work. A waiver in no way holds the producer without liability.
Dr. W.
The printer is charging for materials, operation, and time. Printing one 4 color logo at a certain size, is not going to increase the profit of the printer, over any other 4 color logo at the same size. Copyright is a very wide field. General artwork is very different from a brand mark. The way each one is defended, and can be legally used, is quite different. It is perfectly legal for a car club to use the logo of the car the club exists for, as a reference to that car; on a web site, t-shirt for a show, or similar materials for club usage. It's only going to be a problem if there is misrepresentation involved. Claiming things as official products, which are not, creating counterfeit reproductions, or claiming to be acting on behalf of GM in respect to something related, for example.
And a waiver does exactly what it says it does; waives one of liability. Just like when you went on a field trip to the zoo in elementary school, and your parents had to sign a waiver, the bus driver would not be responsible for you falling into the bear pit, were it to happen, simply because that person drove the vehicle which took you there. The school and its employees were waived of liability. Waivers are everywhere, and you probably participate in the waiver of culpability for some party, on a daily basis, as most people do.
I ask because in the last 35+ years as a commercial photographer/graphic designer I have been involved in 27 copyright infringement suits involving my work, including not-for-profit, derivative use and "fair use". I am 27-0, not having lost a single suit that I nor my agents brought. I also have a Ph.D. in visual communication with a significant focus on image authentication and intellectual property rights.
Do I think making a few t-shirts for a car show would cost GM a dime? No I don't. But that is not the issue here. It is about copyright laws that govern intellectual property in the U.S A. Like it or not, GM still owns the Pontiac and Fiero copyrights as their bankruptcy took place before Pontiac was shuttered.
With all due respect, you may know a lot about motors, engines and such, surely more than I ever will, but you don't know squat about U.S. copyright law. I think you need to go immerse yourself in The U.S. Copyright Code contained in The Code of Federal Regulation: a light read of about 1100 pages. Also the more recently enacted The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998; another short read of nearly 700 pages, both of which I have done. You have no idea what you are talking about regarding copyright, something I have been involved in for over 35 years.
Pax,
Dr. W.
[This message has been edited by infinitewill (edited 03-18-2015).]
Originally posted by infinitewill: I ask because in the last 35+ years as a commercial photographer/graphic designer I have been involved in 27 copyright infringement suits involving my work, including not-for-profit, derivative use and "fair use". I am 27-0, not having lost a single suit I nor my agents brought. I also have a Ph.D. in visual communication with a significant focus on image authentication and intellectual property rights. Dr. W.
Well then! Given the choice, I for one will certainly take you for your word on copyright information
Originally posted by infinitewill: With all due respect, you may know a lot about motors, engines and such, surely more than I ever will, but you don't know squat about U.S. copyright law. I think you need to go immerse yourself in The U.S. Copyright Code contained in The Code of Federal Regulation: a light read of about 1100 pages. Also the more recently enacted The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998; another short read of nearly 700 pages, both of which I have done. You have no idea what you are talking about regarding copyright, something I have been involved in for over 35 years.
With all due respect, you may have a Phd and have dealt with copyright infringement issues with your own photography, but you don't know **** about me.
And this whole discussion has nothing to do with copyright law. It's about trademark law. Pontiac, Fiero, and the pegasus and arrowhead logos are protected primarily by trademark law. Like I said, it's completely different from the case of copyright infringement on your photography artwork. I'm a software engineer. I have to deal with possible copyright, trademark, and license agreement issues on a daily basis. Copyright isn't something you have to actively fight to retain. Once you create something, you have it, and you will always have it (until 70 years after you've died, anyway), unless you explicitly assign your copyright to another entity, or into the public domain. Trademark on the other hand, is something that you can lose the rights to, if you don't actively protect your mark.
What the problem is for GM, and the concern for this thread, is trademarks. And it is perfectly legal to use the trademark of an entity to refer to that entity.
It is perfectly legal for a car club to use the logo of the car the club exists for, as a reference to that car; on a web site, t-shirt for a show, or similar materials for club usage.
That is flat out wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. The large clubs that use GM logos do so with PERMISSION from GM. see
I understand the GM logo, but Fiero is a word that`s been around longer than the car, so if there is no Pontiac or GM emblem attached to it how can it not be used. This has happened before, where two different people came up with a similar logo for something without any knowledge of each other`s design. So does each individual have rights to his own design or does the one that copyrights it have exclusive use of it even though the other party`s design is similar?
Even though it`s a movie " Coming To America" brings up an interesting point. McDowells was getting hassled by the McDonalds people because the signs looked almost identical, but McDowell was the owner`s name and the "golden arches" could be looked at as a big M which would designate the owner`s last name.
[This message has been edited by TXGOOD (edited 03-18-2015).]
I understand the GM logo, but Fiero is a word that`s been around longer than the car, so if there is no Pontiac or GM emblem attached to it how can it not be used. This has happened before, where two different people came up with a similar logo for something without any knowledge of each other`s design. So does each individual have rights to his own design or does the one that copyrights it have exclusive use of it even though the other party`s design is similar?
You can't use the logo.... Fiero is a word and you can use that anywhere, but when you use the Pontiac Logo version of "Fiero", permission is needed.
Has anyone determined the royalty fee? It can't be very much.
There is an old thread in the archives about someone who wanted to sell hats. GM basically did not want to mess with him, too low volume. He ended up selling thru FieroStore (who is licensed for apparel).
Didn't Dave K. ("Orief" on the forum) run into some issues when he was making the seatbelt pads with the Fiero logo? I think he stopped making them as a result.
OK...then it sounds like the FieroStore has a potential line of new business....if we route all these type of things through them...for a small fee to FieroStore then it should resolve the issue for everyone here...sounds like a phone call and discussion is needed
Originally posted by TXGOOD: I understand the GM logo, but Fiero is a word that`s been around longer than the car, so if there is no Pontiac or GM emblem attached to it how can it not be used. This has happened before, where two different people came up with a similar logo for something without any knowledge of each other`s design. So does each individual have rights to his own design or does the one that copyrights it have exclusive use of it even though the other party`s design is similar?
Even though it`s a movie " Coming To America" brings up an interesting point. McDowells was getting hassled by the McDonalds people because the signs looked almost identical, but McDowell was the owner`s name and the "golden arches" could be looked at as a big M which would designate the owner`s last name.
You do not file a form to get copyright. Whatever you create, is something you automatically own copyright on. You do file for trademark. If two people independently create the same logo for different things, then whoever files for trademark and is granted it first, gets legal ownership rights of the trademark. Use of it by the other party, may constitute a violation of that trademark, for which the first party will need to defend it.
The bit in Coming to America was making fun of McDonalds, and the character was clearly using the confusion created in order to inflate his own profit.
Didn't Dave K. ("Orief" on the forum) run into some issues when he was making the seatbelt pads with the Fiero logo? I think he stopped making them as a result.
Very possibly yes. That use would constitute the use of a trademark in a product designed for profit, and would thus be a violation of trademark law.
Originally posted by mrfred8: That is flat out wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. The large clubs that use GM logos do so with PERMISSION from GM. see
if it was just legal to use the stuff why would they bother to deal with GM.
Are you a trademark lawyer? You're making general assumptions about every possible use, based on a few things you've seen.
I don't know what that club was doing with all the marks being used, and how they were using them, but every possible use is not legal without license or explicit permission. However, some uses are.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe you don't understand, or simply refuse to.
Ive had several things printed with logos, symbols, names, just about anything I wanted with no issues. Hell, the club shirts I designed used the pontiac logo AND the Pegasus. Like I said earlier, come to the darkside my friend! Are you just wanting some even stuff of you trying to make a new shirt for everyone to have?
The logos/trademarks belong to the company (they produced them, maintained them, etc). They have the legal right to control how they are used. It isn't about GM being mean, it is just good business practice to maintain your "branding".
