Many buyers of graphic art are misinformed when it comes to intellectual property rights. Others are confused by terminology. Clients often ask me to put a "logo" on their sign when what they really want is just a piece of clipart—an image or graphic that will enhance the appearance of their sign work.
Sometimes—if the job is worth it—I will create custom artwork for a client. Since most clients expect to have ownership of artwork I have charged them for, I don't make an issue of copyright, trying to hang onto the image rights to a piece of original artwork to be able to reuse it later for something else. Too much potential for ill will, in my opinion.
But the fact remains that custom artwork is owned by the original artist unless the copyright is transferred. In the US, a transfer of copyright must be done in writing. A written agreement between artist and client at the beginning is the best arrangement,
especially if the artist wants to repurpose the artwork later, or even if the artist just wants to include the artwork in a portfolio. This avoids client misunderstandings.
Another—stickier—problem arises when we use a piece of clipart in a design and the client then wants to use the design, including the clipart portion, as a logo. In many cases, to use clipart as part of a logo design is copyright infringement. This is not easy to explain to a client after the fact. Some will feel like they have been misled when this happens.
Most clipart offered by clipart and image providers like
istockphoto or
adobestock is not really sold—
it is licensed. When we buy clipart we do not actually own it and we usually don't have unfettered use of it. The license agreement may have limits on how the image may be used or how many times it may be duplicated, or other limitations (
istockphoto specifically forbids the use of their images in a logo design or branding scheme). And the license will certainly not be exclusive. Others can license the same image.
A proper logo serves to identify a business, or to identify the products or services of a business. Most people who want a logo design naturally expect that they will have ownership of the design and will be able to do with it whatever they choose without limits. This is not unreasonable. Also, those clients who understand a little about trademark protection will believe that they have the right to prevent or stop others from using their logo. They will assume that they will be able to apply for a trademark registration and have a reasonable expectation of having it approved. But if their logo contains copyright-protected components, they will not be able to do any of these things legally. And even if they have no intention of using it as a trademark, a client who buys a "logo" that includes a clipart image may be shocked and confused to learn that their competitors have "logos" with the same image.
What good is a company's logo if the company can't own it? A litigation-prone client might even feel they have been duped and sue the designer, especially if the client has invested time and money in marketing materials that include the so-called logo.
A logo should be an original design, not a piece of copyrighted clipart with a business name pasted onto it. Creating original design work is not always easy, to be sure, especially considering the sheer quantity of design work that is being produced these days. And the proliferation of "logo maker" sites makes matters worse. These companies are claiming to give people logos inexpensively. They rely on the public's ignorance and on the unwillingness of the buyer to read the user agreement where it usually states that the "logo" buyer does not have exclusive rights to the image. Obviously, a logo design that cannot be legally owned by a company has limited value, and it certainly cannot function as a design trademark, and the US Patent and Trademark Office will not grant a registration for it.
...................
Many times, especially for apparel, certain stock art / photo agencies require something along the line of an "enhanced" license fee for their assets to be used on merchandise. Be aware.
This is a good point. I have seen restrictions in end-user agreements that apply specifically to printing on apparel. Sometimes it's just a limit on the number of impressions allowed. Whatever the case, the agreement should be adhered to.
In addition, I would expect that most agreements would not allow you to
transfer a license to someone else without permission.
For example, I may legally obtain a license for an image for printing a thousand shirts. But would it be legal for me sell (or give) the image to someone else and then THEY print, or pay someone else to print, a thousand shirts? If they did not obtain their own end user license, would they not be infringing? By our actions, we could be inadvertently causing someone else to unknowingly infringe a copyright. The advantage of giving them only original design work in the first place is that they can legally do whatever they want.
Of course, this issue of "sharing" intellectual property is nothing new to us in the sign business. We know that a font, for example, is protected by copyright (though a typestyle is not in the United States). If we buy a font license, it's an infringement to give (or sell) a copy of the font to someone else. They need to get their own license.
Brad in Kansas City
