Sign in to follow this  
thesgnguy

cutter work

Recommended Posts

I don't believe a picture of said work is a direct violation. The cut file sure would be. As a peer I would definitely caution you on producing stuff like that and also on show and tell. HD is a very nasty company to invite into a lawsuit and actively search for offenders. 

 

Now if that's for yourself, as near as I can interpret the law you can do that for yourself. Still can't post the cut file to the forum. (not that you intended to)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wildgoose said:

I don't believe a picture of said work is a direct violation. The cut file sure would be. As a peer I would definitely caution you on producing stuff like that and also on show and tell. HD is a very nasty company to invite into a lawsuit and actively search for offenders. 

 

Now if that's for yourself, as near as I can interpret the law you can do that for yourself. Still can't post the cut file to the forum. (not that you intended to)

No personal use, best friend ,dead dog memorial is not an excuse for CR infringement, neither is giving away ,or donating. You might get to keep your stained undies since you didn't sell but still could lose your crap.

If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."

False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

Hard to believe people in this business don't know the laws , don't  take the time to learn them or just pass around foolish assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually giving it away is infringement on Trademark law. Diluting the market. 

 

Freebird I disagree on making something for yourself. In the US you can make anything you can make unless expressly prohibited by law such as guns, alcohol etc.  I actually learned this from a major institution that I was trying to get licensed with . They denied my request for license due to projected volume but through the course of communication I had made a comment about making some for my kids and they were the ones that actually admitted there is no law against that and actually pleaded that they hoped I would be so kind as to adhere to their brand colors and layout etc.... I followed up with my buddy the trial lawyer and he concurred. There are about 5 ways that you are protected is how he put it. Thats not the case is if the government is the owner so no swat team logo's on the wife's minivan but you can still buy a black chevy caprice, tint the windows and take off the hub caps and put 5 antenna on the back and look just like the feds. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please show were it says in the copyright laws , statues etc were it says that using it for yourself is not a violation ?  There is none. There is some exceptions for music as long as you own the original. I'd get new lawyer.

From my years of dealing with CR/TM violation while running a ISP.

..." Other misconceptions concern print, graphics, or other visual content. Some of these are that if the purveyor of the illegal copies is not charging for them or otherwise making a profit, the copying is not an infringement; that anything posted on the Web or on a Usenet news group must be in the public domain by virtue of its presence there; that the First Amendment and the fair use doctrine allow copying of virtually any content so long as it is for personal use in the home, rather than redistribution..."

Copyright Infringement

Copyright law does not contain any caveat that allows unauthorized parties to make personal copies of copyrighted products. However, under the doctrine of "fair use," individuals may be permitted to make backup copies or archival copies of some materials as long as certain conditions are met. Creating a copy of a copyrighted work for your own ease of use is likely to be considered copyright infringement. But if you are making a copy so that you may use a copyrighted product in case the original is stolen, damaged or destroyed, your conduct may fall within the doctrine of fair use.

Generally, copyright infringement occurs when an unauthorized party reproduces, distributes, performs, publicly displays, or makes a derivative work from a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright owner. Although the practice commonly occurs, making a copy of a protected work for a friend or for personal ease of access is prohibited and may subject the person making copies to personal liability. Additionally, making a personal copy of copyrighted material so that you can use it in a different manner may be prohibited under copyright law.

Generally, copyright infringement occurs when an unauthorized party reproduces, distributes, performs, publicly displays, or makes a derivative work from a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright owner. Although the practice commonly occurs, making a copy of a protected work for a friend or for personal ease of access is prohibited and may subject the person making copies to personal liability. Additionally, making a personal copy of copyrighted material so that you can use it in a different manner may be prohibited under copyright law.

As long as I'm not effected or fubared by what others do I don't really care. But to give out wrong info is wrong. Before I sold  my Computer Store and ISP we use to get hit with C&D's due to the personal websites users put up and used copyrighted material. Spent more time arguing with users that thought it was unfair and wasn't harming the company  and free advertising for that company etc yada yada yada. And this was late 1990's before the big search engines and shit. Now I can't imagine how many we would have gotten.

As our lawyers told us. Don't own it, didn't license it don't use it. And what goes on behind closed doors well should stay there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you in 99% of what you just displayed. Where I disagree is that in the case of said cut vinyl application it would be more similar to saying for instance the computer program that was used as an example on someones machine would be completely a copyright violation but if they were a servant coder and were capable of writing their own program  that functioned exactly as excel or word rather than making some copy and using it. You can copyright a product not an idea essentially although there have been patents on some ideas that come pretty close to clamping down on that one too. I'm thinking of the front brake cable routing that Honda did for a few years exclusively and the rest couldn't duplicate it for a while. Now they all do. Those were all products though. Joe Blow in his garage could look at the way Honda did that and do it to his own bike. 

It's like telling someone who is gifted at drawing cartoons that they can't draw one of their favorite character without breaking the law. Bull crap. It would be like you deciding you really like a certain color of paint on one the the new chevy's and so you decide to paint your car the same and Chevy coming and suing you.

I built a nice wood computer cabinet and it is about the same thing as you can buy at the store. Form follows function so it ends up the same. Not breaking the law there.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best quote from that publication (assuming I can quote it without infringing) is on page 52 where it says Regardless of what the Law says, rights clearing may play out differently in practice. Meaning just because it may be legal in one case doesn't mean it will be legal in yours. Or visa-versa. 

 

A few years back I custom built a little Yamaha 550 chain drive into a rat rod bobber and I built a wicked cool HD logo that said Hardly (rather than Harley) Davidson motor scooter (rather than cycles) that looked just like the regular HD shield. I got so many positive compliments on the decal on the bike that I thought maybe I would mass produce it. Several on the forum (I was a greenie then) cautioned me against it. I talked with my lawyer buddy of coarse (two actually) and was told it would totally be protected by fair use since it was a total parody. I decided to take the bull by the horns and actually corresponded with HD about it. Of course they said if I produced them I would face litigation. I did some serious thinking on the matter and decided I didn't want to face a lawsuit with HD regardless of whether I was right or not. The financial implications of my little part time business venture trying to defend against a monster like that were way too real and scary. So I learned that even though something may be protected by fair use you can still get sued so pick your battles. Interestingly they didn't give me any crap at all about the one on my bike which I pulled off before I sold the bike just to keep the monster in the closet asleep. I like my house and my cars, I think I'll keep them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that HD sued a bar because the bar used their shield and badge but with the bar name in it. Supposedly HD won and the bar had to remove the sign. Dont know of any fines. But I know Intel sued a few companies for using their circle from "Intel inside" saying something else "inside" and won. I know 1 in particular that had to pay Intel for their copyright infringement even though they changed the wording. They didnt sell its as a decal or anything but was in their advertising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the subject..........how do you know? I know all the obvious stuff but what about names and pictures/clipart found on the interweb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most things out there are likely copyright protected. The ones that are safe will have a license agreement that allows free for commercial use. Some say free for personal use. etc... You can often contact the designer if you are in doubt but it isn't usually a quick turn around. There are sites that sell artwork prebuilt and even those you have to really watch because they add stuff in thats not theirs to put there and have a disclaimer somewhere in the fine print putting it back on YOU. Good designers like SignTorch will have very specific information about what you can and can't do with their designs. 

When in doubt draw your own but make sure it's not inspired too much by something heavily protected. Monkeys examples are good ones to show art that was derived or inspired by something protected. If your lacking the skills to draw your own you can also look into shutter stock or similar for "royalty free" vectors. Just pay attention to the details because most of those will allow you to reproduce them for commercial use but may not allow you to use them as part of a brand for some other company or to sell the file to others. 

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
Sign in to follow this