Recommended Posts

ya i understand, just remember we have Obama now everything will be ok, o and dont forget Acorn.  :-[ just thought i would throw that out there for a good laugh ;D:thumbsup:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan , I caught it  :thumbsup: , but I am very used to sarcasm  :-[  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who knows me knows I live for irony, I  could use a good laugh right now. What's the connection??

Irony:

Bush's invasion of Iraq when Osama Binladin said Saddam is an infidel and he would welcome Bush's invasion! - LOL good one. ;D

Bush's "Mission accomplished" Photo op - LOL enough said  ;D

WDM - WOAH! That's a good one. ;)

Economic bailout out! LOL SO, who sunk the ship? :-[ 

The "Viva Viagra" commercials during the Bush presidency - LOL has anyone caught that one yet???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holly Crap.... This Happened to Me hear in Aust!!!!

Tho I wasn't blatantly set up. But I was pulled aside for reproducing a GM-H Decal. Sold for $7Aust. Sued........... $670Aust.

I havn't the time to read the intire thread to see how this all panned out just yet. I'll have to come back.

It leads me to ask how is Lettering all those Stock cars out there across the U.S?:thumbsup: There must be thousands of shops hear in (as they say) in breach!! Then their is drag racing, Boat racing, Moto-X ...... My God Motor X alone is huge! I find it hard to believe all these shops are asking for Signed permission from the Team owners for their shops to have the "Go Ahead" and sign their Bikes/Cars/ Boats/ Trucks/ Go Karts...... the list go's on!

But after sleeping on this I recall my Collage days... This is interesting to Note.

Now a few years back I studied Photography. Copyright just happened to be one of the subjects.

At the time I was pretty Green, But I'm a lit older and a little wiser... After reading the first three pages of this topic I had to retire to bed. But I woke up recalling a few things.

Now in the Photographic field it is the LAW that no person can be Photographed with out there consent... ok, that's a little vague. You as a Photographer cant ask some one to "Model" for you with out there consent... Of course few people take this seriously... But it is actually Law. So for example if you where to take a Photo of a group of people (strangers) standing on the street corner, They can ask you to dispose of that Photo if you did NOT ask for there consent!!!

Now in the Industry they have a Thing called a Model Release form.. (you can look them up on the Net) This is a LEGAL binding contract. A similar form is used for Business names that may be used as a Backdrop in a Photograph.... And that Business DOES not have to be a Known name.... It could be a simple Fish and chips shop.

I brought this up because some where on page 2,3, :thumbsup: some one was using a waver or (I forget the term. Damn my memory at this time as I have little!) that was placed at the bottom of every receipt given, and was told that a lawyer claimed this would not stand up in Court.

If this is so then there is a Gross discrepancy in the system!..(who would think that could happen)

Personally I would NOT take this a just and have asked for a second opinion...

Secondly... Useing the "Model Release" formula..... How is it so that Paparazzi's can get away with Capturing Britney spears or Madona or Add Name hear. In circumstances that this Person feels is an infringement on thier personal space?:thumbsup:

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now in the Photographic field it is the LAW that no person can be Photographed with out there consent... ok, that's a little vague. You as a Photographer cant ask some one to "Model" for you with out there consent... Of course few people take this seriously... But it is actually Law. So for example if you where to take a Photo of a group of people (strangers) standing on the street corner, They can ask you to dispose of that Photo if you did NOT ask for there consent!!!

Secondly... Useing the "Model Release" formula..... How is it so that Paparazzi's can get away with Capturing Britney spears or Madona or Add Name hear. In circumstances that this Person feels is an infringement on thier personal space?:thumbsup:

Don't know about Australia but in the US it is perfectly legal to take someones picture in public. (or property for that matter) It can be used as an editorial piece without their permission. If you want to use it commercially, a model/property release is required. Sketchy laws on photographs containing trademark image or company names. If you took a picture of a group of people for instance and one was wearing a Nike shirt. You would not need permission from Nike to sell the photo because it is not the main focus. If you took a closeup of the logo then you would need permission from the company. As for the paparazzi, being that celebrities are in the public eye, images of some of them in public are considered to be public domain so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest manwayvan

I just want to know what happened to lara? Unless I missed something she hasnt been on this post in awhile and had never posted an outcome. Maybe they confiscated her computer or took "care" of her. Maybe we should file a missin persons report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not totally sure how this works, but I have a cousin who is a lawyer down in Springfield, IL, and her husband is a trail lawyer for a big company.  I was told that you can reproduce any logo for someone as long as they have permission to use the logo, and I would think that is a girl is sponsored by Dewalt that she has permission to use there logo.  Therefor, not making it illegal to make it for her.  So, if the whole thing was a set-up to try to bust people that would be entrapment due to the fact the girl said she was sponsored by them!  I would be suing them for entrapment, and emotional distress over the case and worrying if you were going to lose everything you owned over this! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not totally sure how this works, but I have a cousin who is a lawyer down in Springfield, IL, and her husband is a trail lawyer for a big company.  I was told that you can reproduce any logo for someone as long as they have permission to use the logo, and I would think that is a girl is sponsored by Dewalt that she has permission to use there logo.  Therefor, not making it illegal to make it for her.  So, if the whole thing was a set-up to try to bust people that would be entrapment due to the fact the girl said she was sponsored by them!  I would be suing them for entrapment, and emotional distress over the case and worrying if you were going to lose everything you owned over this! 

The problem is that, as the producer of graphics, you are responsible for verification that the customers claim to permission is legit.  At least, that is the jist of the first 8 pages or so, and the last responses from Lara. 

Personally, I would have counter-sued as well, because it's clearly fraud and extortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sued by Dewalt . 1 of the % based outfits like you descibe . A no loss situation for Dewalt . I'm sure it is like the telemarketers that call me for a donation to the local Fire Dept . The local fire departments onlys gets 20%  , but 20 % of anything is better than nothing . I always give directly .

From what I understand " legal entrapment " is described as getting somebody to do something that they were not going to do anyway . So morally it may have been entrapment , but not legally .( if you are going to make whatever decals a customer wants , not entrapment )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was this instance where someone came out to my mom's farm, took B&W pics of some of her old rusty farm equipment, which was on private property, and went and published it in a book for sale, locally.  Totally unbeknownst to her, she later saw the equipment in the book and was outraged!  She was told (not by a lawyer, but by a business owner that she trusts and likes, and who is pretty savvy with copyright laws) that there was nothing she could do about it.

The reason she was mad was because no one asked her or even mentioned it.  She was thinking maybe she should go out to that person's back yard and take some pics of her stuff and print out her own little book - say she had a nice water feature or something..?

LoL

That's why you go to a lawyer and not a "savvy" business owner. If he did not have a property release and the work was not considered "editorial" then any money made by the photographer she has a right to go after. I would check into sales #'s for the book and if it's a large amount I would go for it. If it's not much $$ then she'd spend more $ on lawyer than what it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about all the logo's that come with SB. in the library (Dr. Pepper) and other's. can you not use these logo's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SB came with logos? I'm upset - mine didn't.

Charlie

Look around, I didn't know mine did until a few months ago.  Some really cool Australian companies and older style retro logos of some well-known companies.  I am printing myself a sweet "Action Liquor" shirt from the logo included.

what about all the logo's that come with SB. in the library (Dr. Pepper) and other's. can you not use these logo's?

Correct, you should not sell them, they are still protected by copyright.  I assume they are included as samples for practice/testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no word from Lara about the outcome? have 'Dewalt' drilled her and screwed her to the wall? so she cant type anymore?

hope its all ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  She had a bitter pill to swallow . Sometimes It takes some time to feel like talking about certain things & I feel this is the situation here . I'm sure when she feels up to it , she will inform us . The story was about finished ... just a matter of what settlement she agreed to . It is a possibility that if she went to court , it could be thrown out or awarded a token amount . I hope that is what happens . 1 penny award  :thumbsup: ( still was expensive with the $1K in legal fees & time/aggravation/stress )

  1 of my favorite movie lines " Chin Up " Charlotte's Web

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"... A search for their website produces a parent company, which is a member of "Pride of Dakota...'

The fact that their parent company is a member would make this a difficult case to win in court. Again the company can say they were acting as agents for the parent company.

As for snitching on a brother, I'd mind my own, no flames just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THANK YOU, WE ARE NEW TOO, AND WE ARE FINDING MANY BUSINESSES WANT LOGOS, SO FAR THEY'VE BEEN THEIR OWN BUT THANKS, WE WILL WATCH FOR THIS TYPE AND i SUPPOSE ASK FOR THEIR RIGHTS TO COPY? hMM WELL THANKS AGAIN.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry guys , i know we are all talking about copyright and the things associated with that , which is great and good BUT does any one know or heard from laras4labs lately ? i like to see how she is traveling ?

pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bump :huh:

new here, just read all 13 pages of this.

no news on how, or if, this was resolved?? i know that sometimes there may be years wait for a case to get to court, which may be the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

( I assume tears = years  :D )

& sometimes an agreement not to disclose the settlement .  :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now