-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Copywrite Infringement ?
- Thread starter ronl1975
- Start date
ProWraps
New Member
DISCLAIMER
Lest anyone think otherwise, BroncoGator is not an actual logo and there is NOT an NFL or an NCAA football team called BroncoGator. BroncoGator is an original/copyrighted artwork by the artist NIK and is a parody of the Denver Broncos and Florida Gators logos. I in no way intend to confuse the public with this artwork; it is not sanctioned or endorsed by either the NFL or the NCAA or any individual organizations. As is my right as an American, it is this artist’s way to freely express himself in a humorous fashion and to show support for one player; Tim Tebow. I have chosen to make my artwork available to likeminded people and the public at large through what the courts have held to be a common and acceptable way to satire and parody, through print on tee-shirts and other garments.
Lest anyone think otherwise, BroncoGator is not an actual logo and there is NOT an NFL or an NCAA football team called BroncoGator. BroncoGator is an original/copyrighted artwork by the artist NIK and is a parody of the Denver Broncos and Florida Gators logos. I in no way intend to confuse the public with this artwork; it is not sanctioned or endorsed by either the NFL or the NCAA or any individual organizations. As is my right as an American, it is this artist’s way to freely express himself in a humorous fashion and to show support for one player; Tim Tebow. I have chosen to make my artwork available to likeminded people and the public at large through what the courts have held to be a common and acceptable way to satire and parody, through print on tee-shirts and other garments.
tintguy31794
New Member
It amazes me what people will pay for.
G-Artist
New Member
Just so you know...it is "copyright"...as in RIGHTS that you have when
creating any intellectual property.
G-Artist
New Member
It could be both a copyright and a trademark issue.
Take the image of Mickey Mouse.
Disney has the copyright on the image.
Mickey is also the trademark found on many goods and services as well.
I wish the guy well. And hope he makes lots of $$$ because if either of the other two entities
who have standing decide to go after him he'll need every cent (and then some) for defense.
One doesn't need to prosecute to protect a copyright (in other words, you can't lose it if some
one else infringes and you do nothing ) but under trademark law you either defend vigorously
or lose out.
Take the image of Mickey Mouse.
Disney has the copyright on the image.
Mickey is also the trademark found on many goods and services as well.
I wish the guy well. And hope he makes lots of $$$ because if either of the other two entities
who have standing decide to go after him he'll need every cent (and then some) for defense.
One doesn't need to prosecute to protect a copyright (in other words, you can't lose it if some
one else infringes and you do nothing ) but under trademark law you either defend vigorously
or lose out.
binki
New Member
MM is in published works thus the copyright. His is on a T-Shirt and is a logo. TM will be his trouble.
NotAPrinter
New Member
We print UF products as one of our primary lines, so dealing with collegiate copyright and trademark is SOP. There are a lot of aspects to consider here, depending on how picky the parodied entities involved want to get.
In this case, the artist has used (primarily) the Broncos design with Gators colors. The parodied designs have been changed by more than the required percentage required by law. While UF is VERY protective of their image and designs, they have not trademarked their colors (we use them on a LOT of local businesses graphics). The "Disney Rat" has been mentioned... and Disney is rabid about protecting ANYTHING that even remotely may infringe on their image.
Though I know nothing about how the Broncos deal with such issues, in my in-expert opinion, I seriously doubt that the BroncoGator design is going to cause any sort of legal debate between the parties involved.
In this case, the artist has used (primarily) the Broncos design with Gators colors. The parodied designs have been changed by more than the required percentage required by law. While UF is VERY protective of their image and designs, they have not trademarked their colors (we use them on a LOT of local businesses graphics). The "Disney Rat" has been mentioned... and Disney is rabid about protecting ANYTHING that even remotely may infringe on their image.
Though I know nothing about how the Broncos deal with such issues, in my in-expert opinion, I seriously doubt that the BroncoGator design is going to cause any sort of legal debate between the parties involved.
Craig Sjoquist
New Member
Well the gator does not look at all like the Gainsville Gator and the Bronco part only has a near shape
So I see no problem agrees with Prowraps
Go Tim Tebow That is kinda a cool idea
So I see no problem agrees with Prowraps
Go Tim Tebow That is kinda a cool idea
Really? What law would that be? How did you calculate this percentage and what percentage did you come up with?
Just curious
Last edited:
signcrafters london
New Member
Looks pretty close to me.
Attachments
G-Artist
New Member
schramm
New Member
I think the % which is being talked about is 10%, however I do not believe that is on Trademarks and Copyrights. I believe the 10% has to do with element. I mean if that was the case changing Mickey from a waving stance to Mickey smoking a cigarette would be changing it by 10% and we all know that would never fly!
G-Artist
New Member
It is an undying myth that changing by a "percentage" will keep you from running afoul of copyright law.
That have been shown in case law 100's of times. If any of the original is recognizable on the altered product, it is an infringement no matter how much or how little was altered or transformed.
From the FAQ at the U.S. Copyright Office Web site.
How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians
How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent.
That have been shown in case law 100's of times. If any of the original is recognizable on the altered product, it is an infringement no matter how much or how little was altered or transformed.
From the FAQ at the U.S. Copyright Office Web site.
How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians
How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent.
binki
New Member
Trademark infringement is not illegal, counterfeiting is. He did not represent that he was part of the NCAA or NFL so it is civil, not criminal.
And still, these are brands so it is trademark, not copyright.
As for his case, he is showing allegiance to a team or person and may have a defense. There is some case law around this aspect although he will have to get some legal representation to prevail.
It is an interesting case from the aspect of what he is trying to do and how he did it.
Two similar cases:
The kid that started a software biz using his name, Mike Rowe Soft and South Butt Clothing (as opposed to North Face). The second is still going. The first settled for too little imo.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/06/24/the-south-butt-v-the-north-face/
schramm
New Member
While what you say COULD be true and without some checking from my uncle who is an attorney that handles these types of cases I will have to say this:
While it may not be illegal or the area may be grey, either way the bigger looser is going to be the one that stole, borrowed or re-designed it. If the 2 teams wanted to they could sue him for any reason and I doubt he has the resources or the money these teams do and at the end of the day the saying, "Here today - gone tomorrow" would be in effect.
I am in the process of doing a mirror that I am going to reproduce from a 1878 print. The company is still in business and I emailed them to get permission in writing to use there name on my mirror(s). While in 1878 there were no copyrights, since the company is still in business it is better to have permission of use then get stuck assuming it was ok to use them.
IMO and this is only MY OPINION had this person gone to the owner of these 2 logos as asked for written permission, they would of told him NO! That is why he didn't do it. Trademarks and all KNOWN branding is also protected under the law.