[amayausers] Re: (No Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:20:09 -0700
- From: "Jeff Banks" <banksje@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <amayausers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
My take on Dakota and car issue was different. It is the same as Disney,
Harley, etc. You can digitize it, and you own the intellectual rights to
that digitized design, but you can not sew it and make profit without
permissions. Your statement about Dakota allowing someone to use them is the
key. It is NOT up to Dakota to police what the person does with the Car
design. They could sell the car designs with the statement just as you say,
that to sew it and make profit from it you need permission from the Auto
maker. The person using the Car Design then needs to get permission from
auto maker to use it to make goods. If the end user could show Dakota they
have permission to use it from the Auto Maker, Dakota would have no problem
selling it to them. BUT, Dakota did not want these administrative nightmares
which equates to $$$$, so instead they just pulled the designs.
I still suggest to get better answers, and best is to talk to an
intellectual legal firm. If there is question about it in your mind, then
ask the proper legal attorney to be sure.
Jeff Banks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roland R. Irish III" <signman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <amayausers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: [amayausers]
> In the case where someone wants to 'give' the customer the digitized
> files-then it should be up to that person to ASK when subcontracting
> to a digitizer 'WHO OWNS THE COPYRIGHT'...
> because if the digitizer is doing the job as 'Works Made For Hire'
> and by federal copyright law, they do NOT own the rights to that.
> But if buried in the fine print of your invoice or contract with this
> digitizing shop is one little word about copyright, then yes, they
> can own 'the controlling use of that digitizing file' but NOT the
> copyright of the artwork. That is NOT transfered by default. Another
> section of the federal law covers that.
> Talk to the folks at Dakota-and find out why they had to drop ALL
> digitized designs with Auto and Truck designs that looked like actual
> vehicles....because the 'big three' auto makers OWN THE COPYRIGHTS TO
> THOSE VEHICLE DESIGNS, irregardless of Dakota's claim to 'ownership
> of digitized form'-they cannot allow anyone to use them. At all-you
> cannot order any designs from the 'old files'-they are forbidden to
> use them. I know, I called to get a limosine design that was in the
> catalog from 2001 or something that I had.
> So just because a shop or someone did the digitizing, they DO NOT OWN
> THE COPYRIGHT TO THAT DESIGN.
> However, if you prepare a screen for a teeshirt job-and charge the
> customer 'setup' charge for each screen, YOU OWN THAT SCREEN. But if
> you put 'SCREEN CHARGE' on the invoice-guess what-you SOLD THAT
> SCREEN to the customer and he CAN ask for it to give to another shop!
> BIG STINK in the screenprinting business when THAT was upheld in court.
> So, if you charge the customer for 'digitized file' then he owns it-
> not you. But if you charge for 'setup and/or digitizing'-he is paying
> for the SERVICE, not the 'end product'-that file.
> Lawyers get all their money 'splitting hairs'....and 95% of the
> embroiderers and screenprinters will never run into this. But it can
> and will happen somewhere, sometime!
> Just one p'o'd customer with a sharp lawyer can screw you big time.
> I've only been embroidering for 2 years, but I've been involved in
> graphic advertizing sales over 30 years, and running my own graphic
> screen and sign shop for 25 years....been to several seminars and
> followed many cases like this over the years.
>
> Roland
>
Other related posts:
- » [amayausers] Re: (No Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:20:09 -0700
