# Copyright issue?



## Unik Ink (Nov 21, 2006)

I have a situation with a customer of mine. I created a design for a local salon and printed an order of t-shirts for them a couple of months ago. She called me and wanted a quote for a new order of shirts. I found out that she also received quotes from 2 other screen printers. One of them had a lower quote so she is going to use them for the new order, using my design. When I printed her first order, she had me sign an agreement on delivery time, and for a copy of the .eps file of the artwork. There was no mention of transfer of copyright, but she said that she needed the design for her website and stationary etc. She is also an attorney, so I assume she knows copyright law. How should approach her regarding using my design without having the copyright for it?


----------



## darwinchristian (Aug 24, 2007)

Unik Ink said:


> How should approach her regarding using my design without having the copyright for it?


not sure you should.

Sounds like there's not much to do on this one. she's got the artwork, does she have an invoice for it? I'm not sure, but i think if she has the logo in print, with an invoice, there's nothing you can do in court, or anywhere else, (can't fool a lawyer...) as far as i understand.

best to sort these things out before you ever print the order.

Did you charge her specifically for the artwork? 

When I create a logo/ image for a company I charge them for it. Depending on how large the print order is and how difficult it was to create the image they may get a good discount or no art fee whatsoever. If they want the artwork then, they can have it, and you have been paid for it. 

If they want to go somewhere else to print their garments later, let them. there's no sense nickel and diming yourself. check your pricing to others and keep at an industry level for your type of printing but stick to a pricing guide. your quality of work should keep customers coming. 

you could also let her know that when company z prints for her at a lower cost and screws up her order that you won't give her a discount when she comes crying back to you, the printer who Did It Right.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

Unik Ink said:


> she had me sign an agreement on delivery time......How should approach her regarding using my design without having the copyright for it?


What did the agreement say? Sounds like you may have already signed away exclusive rights to the artwork.


----------



## charles95405 (Feb 1, 2007)

I think you will have to chalk this one up to lessons learned...cost of the artwork was the cost of not nailing down the rights to the artwork.

Hate to be negative, but does not look good for recovery....esp with an attorney...

Maybe a nice letter to her saying something like you enjoyed doing business with her and wish her well and tell her the ownership of the artwork is given to her in appreciation of past orders...


----------



## Unik Ink (Nov 21, 2006)

I just dug up the agreement. In short, it says that I was selling her the following: t-shirts and logo design on the following terms and conditions:
145 tshirts with logo in .eps format
price
delivery date

I never charged an art fee. At the time of the initial order, I asked her what she needed the .eps file for, she said it was for her website, so I didn't make a big deal about it. When I found out she was using another printer, I reread the agreement, and it is pretty vague. It doesn't state what she can and can't use the design for, and I don't think our verbal conversation would make a difference if it were to go to court. Typical attorney! Anyway, I put a disclaimer on the bottom of my order approval forms stating that I retain all copyright to custom designs unless a written agreement is made, so I won't run into this little problem again. I guess I should have been more thorough, but my sister works for her, and it was the first order, so I wasn't going to push the issue. All the artwork coming from other printers in my area is pitiful, so I think I might go do some awesome designs for her competition to spite her.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Unik Ink said:


> I reread the agreement, and it is pretty vague.


If it's written just as it is above ("t-shirts and logo design") it doesn't sound vague to me at all. T-shirts _with_ logo design would be a bit more open to interpretation, but the way it is written here lays out pretty clearly the things being purchased, 1) T-shirts, 2) Logo design.



Unik Ink said:


> Anyway, I put a disclaimer on the bottom of my order approval forms stating that I retain all copyright to custom designs unless a written agreement is made, so I won't run into this little problem again.


That's a good idea.


----------



## Unik Ink (Nov 21, 2006)

She actually said "t-shirt and logo design on the terms and conditions stipulated in the following schedule:" and didn't list any logo usage conditions. When I asked her what she wanted the .eps file for she only said for website and stationary use, so I took her word for it that is what she wanted it for. I didn't want to push the subject and seem like "I don't want you to screw me over, so can you retype this with copyright usage included". She is in fact my sisters boss, and I thought it would have set up a bad first impression when creating an initial business relationship. I guess you just have to be that way with attorneys though. A man's (or woman's) word just doesn't cut it anymore. Anyway, I'm just bitter right now, but I guess it's lesson learned.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Unik Ink said:


> Anyway, I'm just bitter right now, but I guess it's lesson learned.


Yeah, fair enough. On the bright side, it could have been a more expensive lesson


----------



## Salonteez (Nov 27, 2007)

Unik Ink said:


> Anyway, I'm just bitter right now, but I guess it's lesson learned.


Totally understand where you're coming from, although I'm a newbie to the forum's I'm quite experienced with logo designs and copyrights. You created the logo for the salon, and they paid you. In effect the logo becomes the salon's property and "branded image" to be used on everything affiliated with the salon's image from shirts to business cards. Interesting part is should another salon or business use the same image, both you and the orginal salon could sue jointly for copyright infringement.

As a "semi-pro" photographer I have sold many of my photos to private citizens as well as buinesses by actually selling the "liscensing" in one or two ways:

*Exclusive Rights* - meaning you are selling ALL rights to the buyer to do with as they wish. (it sounds as though this is what you did)

*Non-exclusive *- you sell the license to use the image for a certain amount of time or for certian types of projects such as shirts or note pads and for only a certain amount of run...meaning say 500 shirts. After that they have to ask your permission to use the image again. This gives you two things first right of refusal, as well as a "promised" order in the future. If they only buy 150 shirts...they still have to purchase 350 more from you before they can even ask to use it with someone cheaper.

After that you can add things like "only" clause stating the design can only be used for certain things or add a "time limit" that the image can only be used until such-and-such date.

If you want to see a bit more on the copyright laws check this out for quick reference.

http://www.photosecrets.com/law.copyright.intro.html


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

Interesting discussion. What if he had not had any written agreement? What if the salon had just come to him and said, design us some shirts with our name on them and print them, and he charged them for X number of shirts, with no mention of the design in the pricing or invoice.

I've always understood that the author owns all right to designs they create unless it's specifically stated in writing that the customer is receiving the rights to the design also. I don't think charging an art fee has anything to do with who owns the image. The art fee is charged for the time spent drawing the logo. I would think you would have a case if you wanted to sue. But it's not worth your time or money, and she knows it.

So if there had been no mention of the logo in the agreement, then she would not be able to get another printer to print it, correct??


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

rusty said:


> Interesting discussion. What if he had not had any written agreement? What if the salon had just come to him and said, design us some shirts with our name on them and print them, and he charged them for X number of shirts, with no mention of the design in the pricing or invoice.


I'd think that if you hand over a CD with the original artwork, it would be hard to stop the person from using it, whether you itemized the artwork on the invoice or not. Possession is 9/10ths.

In this case, he could have told the customer that it is company policy to keep the artwork in house unless an artwork fee is paid. Something like a flat $300 might work.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

rrc62 said:


> I'd think that if you hand over a CD with the original artwork, it would be hard to stop the person from using it, whether you itemized the artwork on the invoice or not. Possession is 9/10ths.


I don't know where that phrase came from, but I wouldn't try to use it in court. I can steal something and "possess" it, but that doesn't mean it's legally mine.

Also, using this logic, when a music company hands over a CD to me with the "original" song on it, that does not mean I own it the rights to it.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

rusty said:


> I don't know where that phrase came from, but I wouldn't try to use it in court. I can steal something and "possess" it, but that doesn't mean it's legally mine.
> 
> Also, using this logic, when a music company hands over a CD to me with the "original" song on it, that does not mean I own it the rights to it.


I didn't say I'd use it in court. This isn't court. This is the real world. The big difference is the music company will spend $50k in court without thinking about it. How much do you think Unik Ink is willing to spend on legal fees? You can copywrite whatever you want, but if you're not willing to defend the patent in court, it's just a piece of paper.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

rrc62 said:


> I didn't say I'd use it in court. This isn't court. This is the real world. The big difference is the music company will spend $50k in court without thinking about it. How much do you think Unik Ink is willing to spend on legal fees? You can copywrite whatever you want, but if you're not willing to defend the patent in court, it's just a piece of paper.


Yeah, that's why I said it's not worth fighting for. But that doesn't mean what she did was legal. I believe he legally owns the rights to that design, and if he wanted to take it to court, he would win. But short of a lawsuit, there's really nothing he can do to make here stop using his design, aside from asking nicely.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

What she did was unethical, imagine that...from a lawyer, but it was legal. She drew up a contract that said the deal included the original artwork, he signed it and gave here the artwork on CD. Depending on the exact wording of the contract, it may not be bulletproof, but I doubt it. Sounds like she knew exactly what she was doing.


----------



## Salonteez (Nov 27, 2007)

rusty said:


> So if there had been no mention of the logo in the agreement, then she would not be able to get another printer to print it, correct??


Not exactly... because she is the owner of the salon and it is for a commercial business, the answer would be that she can do with it as she pleases since this design is a representation or "logo" of her business, especially if she goes and trademarks the logo...whole other matter trademarks. If she had just wanted some cool design made up so she could sell the design shirts in her salon...then yes, she would not be able to have another printer do it.

The other printer should actually ask if she owns the rights to the logo, much like Kinko's or Office Depot do on their printers...otherwise it would be illegal, yet in court, chances are that since she owns the salon for which the logo was created and paid for the logo and the shirts...although there was no mention of the logo in the agreement, she would still more than likely win since the logo is a representation of her business.

She did know what she was doing...and had probably already discussed with the other printers the cost of the logo but they may have been charging a hefty price for it while their shirts were lower, UNIK INK unfortunately, was lower on the cost of the design than the others and she jumped on it with her own "licensing agreement".

Word to the wise, as artists we own the copyrights to every design we create, written or not. If you are selling a design make sure that you are selling the liscense of the design and not the design. When I purchase designs from my suppliers for my shirts they are selling me the license to place them on the shirts I create. If I ask them to create a design for me I send them three things: 1. a confidentialty agreement 2. copy of design sketch 3. liscense agreement saying they can sell shirts, bumper stickers - whatever with the design already on it but can't sell the design outright.

As far as the "music" thing...you own the rights to play it as loud as you want, copy it as many times as you'd like for you own personal private use...once you make money from a COPY of it....that's illegal. Although, you can rightfully and legally resell the orginal that you purchased and keep the copy you made for yourself.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

rrc62 said:


> She drew up a contract that said the deal included the original artwork, he signed it and gave here the artwork on CD.


That's not what Unik Ink said. The contract just said the agreement was for the shirts and logo design. That does not automatically include a transfer of rights. Just because somebody pays for me to do artwork does not mean they legally own the rights to it.

For example, I'm paying an artist to paint an original picture for me right now. But when I buy it, I cannot reproduce it and sell. He owns the rights to it.


----------



## Unik Ink (Nov 21, 2006)

O.K. I talked to the owner today. She thinks that since I signed a piece of paper saying that I would deliver x amount of shirts and create a t-shirt design, and give it to her on a disk, that she owns the copyright to it. I tried to explain that if she commissioned me to do any other form of art for her such as a photograph, painting, etc. that she would not be able to reproduce it and sell it, and rules about digital art are the exact same. I never signed over any copyright or usage privileges. She told me that I was wrong, and if I wanted to argue my side, I could do it in court. She also told me that it is too late anyway because the shirts are already printed and being shipped. I'm not sure what type of law she practices, but my cousin owns a law firm that specializes in patent, trademark, and copyright law. I'm going to give him a call next week, and I'll keep everyone up to date on the situation. Too bad he lives on the other side of the U.S. lol. I hope a cease and desist letter, and having her surrender the shirts in question to me will be the end of it. I didn't really want to make a big deal about it but her attitude and disregard for my rights as an artist really, really, rubbed me the wrong way.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Well, I'll be interested to hear how it goes, because (without having seen the actual purchase order) it sounds like you *did* sell her the rights to the design and you have no case against her.

Just because you didn't intend to sell her the design itself, doesn't mean you didn't do it by accident.

I wouldn't let her attitude pull you in over your head - a counter suite could be very costly.

But hey, pro bono advice from your qualified cousin is a good place to start (i.e. no harm in that).


----------



## sunnydayz (Jun 22, 2007)

I agree with Lewis, unfortunately the way you worded it, including the type of file she would recieve would lead one to believe that you are including the artwork. If it had just said 145 tshirts with logo, you would probably be ok but because you listed the type of file which is clearly not a part of the t-shirt, it shows you were giving the art to her. It is really unfortunate but their are people out there that will take advantage of you if you dont dot all of your I's and cross all of your T's.

I would just look at it as a lesson well learned and be very specific from now on with your invoicing. Sorry you got taken advantage of  I cant stand people who do things like that.


----------



## Unik Ink (Nov 21, 2006)

Ok here is the letter.

Contract for Sale and Purchase
The Seller, "ME" Owner of Unik Ink Custom Screenprinting, hereby agrees to sell, and Purchaser "Salon" hereby agrees to purchase the hereinafter described Product and Logo design on the terms stipulated in the following schedule:

Description: 145 t-shirts with Logo in EPS format for "Salon"

Price: to be paid by check by Purchaser: $$$$$$

Balance payable as follows: In full upon execution of this agreement

Possession: Possession of said property is to be delivered on or before August 3, 2007.

Signatures___________ Date______________

Nowhere in this document does transfer of copyright occur. I created her a t-shirt design. That is a piece of artwork. Just because it is digital artwork doesn't mean it has special rules. Replace the word "Logo Design" and "Logo in EPS format" with "Painting" and reread the document. If I was commissioned to paint a picture for her, do you think she would have the right to take it, have prints made, and sell them according to the wording of this document? I don't think so. She bought 145 t-shirts and a cd. Whether it is a painting, photograph, song, novel, sculpture, or digital graphic, it is all protected by copyright law. It seems like people down play graphic design as artwork because it is made on a computer. Personally, I want to stand up and win a case like this. I'm new to the business around my town, and I would love to send a message to the other screen printers letting them not to print my stuff, and by letting potential scummy customers such as this woman know not to steal my work. I ask my customers when they bring artwork in where they got it from, and I don't print other designers artwork. It's unethical and illegal. I'm not scared to take on someone just because they're a lawyer. If I don't fight her when she is in the wrong the following is happening:

1. I am directly losing money from my customer who is not using me to print the design that I created and legally own the copyright to.

2. My competitor is prospering financially off of my work.

3. If my competitor uses low quality shirts, ink, or misprints the shirts in any way, everyone that knows that I created the design thinks that I am putting out low quality products and I indirectly lose business and my business reputation is hurt.

4. If my competitor does a good job and takes credit for it, he/she is taking business that would have gone to me if they knew who really created the artwork.

5. If the other printer feels the need to make a derivitive work of my artwork such as putting something offensive on it, or modifying it in any way that takes away from the original design value, those who think that I created it think that I have horrible design skills, therefore hurting my business reputation.

I have no problem letting my customers use my designs for other things. In the past, I've let people use a design that I've done for them from everything from business cards to wall murals. I even told this woman she could use the design on her website (which is what she told me she wanted it for when I questioned why she wanted the .eps file). I have NEVER given full ownership of my artwork to anyone though. 

Well that is my argument. I think I have a few bullets in my gun. I don't know everything about copyright law, but from what I learned in Journalism 101, and from what I've read on the internet, it seems pretty open and shut to me. Now to find an attorney that will work for a contingent fee. lol

Here are a few samples of some real copyright transfer agreements .pdf file & website.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

Good for you Unik Ink. You are on the right side of the law. Copyrights do not legally change hands by accident, regardless of what others try to tell you. There has to be a specific contract transferring the rights to her, and the agreement you signed did not do that. The fact that you gave her a disk with a file on it is irrelevant and meaningless from a legal standpoint. Copyrights are not tied to an art file.


----------



## Salonteez (Nov 27, 2007)

Unik, after reading what your order letter stated I would agree with Rusty, and pursue legal action. Like you I'm new to the t-shirt biz, yet I've had many years experience dealing with copyrights for my work as photo-stylist working on many national ad campaigns for large accounts.

In my "terms and conditions" page that is attached with every order or quote the very last line is a LEGAL NOTICE stating " Purchase of a design(s) is a limited license to "use" (re-sell applied design on garment(s), or other object(s)) for personal or resale use. No other permission is written or implied. Duplication, reproduction or changing of design(s) is strictly prohibited."

Clients agree to three things when they sign, artwork is what they want, price is as agreed, and to the terms and conditions. I also have a place for them to intital in the terms and conditions. The client gets a copy of both.

I know it may seem cold and inpersonal when you're operating in a town where word, good and bad, get around fast but it adds to your professionalism and attention to detail.

It sounds as though she has watched to many law type tv shows and has been dying to say "I'll see you in court", hoping that you'll be intimidated and back down. I would totally go after her and for not only the t-shirts that she had printed, but for the complete stopage of her using the design even on her website unless she wants to pay a hefty recurring yearly rights fee.


----------



## Unik Ink (Nov 21, 2006)

BTW, the letter I posted is what she typed up for me to sign (she is an attorney). The order form that I had her sign off on, had a copy of the design with shirt and ink colors being used, along with shirt brand, quantities, and sizes. It did not give any copyright usage rights either. It is just a form that I get all of my customers to sign off on to make sure artwork, spelling, and tshirt sizes are correct.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Unik Ink said:


> It seems like people down play graphic design as artwork because it is made on a computer.


I don't think so. I for one devalue it (or some of it anyway) because it's commercial, ephemeral, and of no lasting societal worth. Not because it was made on a computer.



Unik Ink said:


> Personally, I want to stand up and win a case like this.


Good luck (I mean that in a genuine, non-sarcastic, not necessarily coming across in text kind of way). It sounds like you're in the right ethically.



Unik Ink said:


> it seems pretty open and shut to me


It definitely isn't (or not in your favour anyway), but very few cases are.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

rusty said:


> Copyrights do not legally change hands by accident


Exactly. And it sounds like he did work for hire, which meant the copyright most likely resided with the salon from the start. Nothing is ever simple.


----------



## binki (Jul 16, 2006)

If someone comes to you for work to be done and THEY hand you an agreement throw them out. Work on your terms, not theirs. 

Anyway, if she is a lawyer, file a complaint with the BAR. She pretty much committed fraud. That will get her attention.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

How did she commit fraud? He didn't have to sign her agreement. I personally would not waste my money fighting it. What would you do with the artwork once you won? He'll probably never see this customer again anyway. It's not like he can print this artwork on T-Shirts and make millions...or even hundreds. He'll spend $2000+ getting it back and she'll just pay someone else $200 to redraw it.


----------



## darwinchristian (Aug 24, 2007)

rrc62 said:


> I personally would not waste my money fighting it. What would you do with the artwork once you won? He'll probably never see this customer again anyway. It's not like he can print this artwork on T-Shirts and make millions...or even hundreds. He'll spend $2000+ getting it back and she'll just pay someone else $200 to redraw it.


couldn't agree more.


----------



## binki (Jul 16, 2006)

It doesn't cost anything but a little time to file a complaint with the State BAR.


----------



## darwinchristian (Aug 24, 2007)

binki said:


> It doesn't cost anything but a little time to file a complaint with the State BAR.


even so, it depends on where Unik Ink could most efficiently "spend" his/her time. 

how long would it take to pursue collections in this regard from start to finish in hours vs. how much money could he/she be making by spending that time in production, promotion, organizing work flow efficiency, etcetera? not to mention the lady who goes to another printer and finds that the quality is reflective in their lower price, and decides to go back to Unik after all.

definately worth looking into, but best to remember, time IS money. and the dollar amount is reflective of the individual in question based on how efficiently they conduct business.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

Solmu said:


> Exactly. And it sounds like he did work for hire, which meant the copyright most likely resided with the salon from the start.


What kind of work is not "for hire"?



Solmu said:


> Nothing is ever simple.


Lots of things are simple.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

rusty said:


> What kind of work is not "for hire"?


I meant in the legal sense.



rusty said:


> Lots of things are simple.


True, it was a stupid thing to say.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

Solmu said:


> I meant in the legal sense.


That's what I was asking. What kind of work are you referring to when you say it's "work for hire".


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

rusty said:


> That's what I was asking. What kind of work are you referring to when you say it's "work for hire".


It's an area of copyright law I definitely don't have a firm grip on. If it was more relevant to me I'd've looked into it, but it doesn't really effect me (it is interesting though). But I know that (for example) if you hire a photographer to take portrait photos it would fall into that category; my feeling (could be wrong) is that logo design is a similar thing. It's a case where the designer is asked to provide work for a specific entity that can't be used elsewhere, would be based on their own pre-existing ideas and business, etc.

I _suspect_ (not know) that graphic designers are in a grey area when they do paid by the hour custom work for someone (as opposed to selling an already finished design), that without a clearly defined contract could potentially get complicated if it has to come down to settling a dispute in court.

Whether or not something is work for hire depends on how the contract was written, but there are defaults. The best way to cover yourself (as a designer who doesn't want to get ripped off) is to always use a contract that defines the terms so they don't get them dictated to you in the court room.

The problem is that without a written contract you have verbal he said-she said, at which point the other party will claim that verbally the contract matched a work for hire agreement, while the other party says no it didn't. Who will be proven right? That's what I meant by "nothing is simple" (a silly cliché, but my point is it could go either way - it's not black and white).

I just wouldn't want to be put into a position where I had to claim it _wasn't_ work for hire when the proof (i.e. none) is the same either way.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

rusty said:


> That's what I was asking. What kind of work are you referring to when you say it's "work for hire".


Simply stated, it means if someone contracts you to design their logo, they own the results. Along the same lines, if you are working for a company and you patent something, the company owns the rights to the patent.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

rrc62 said:


> Simply stated, it means if someone contracts you to design their logo, they own the results. Along the same lines, if you are working for a company and you patent something, the company owns the rights to the patent.


Ok. So I guess this could depend on whether she hired him to create her official business logo, or to just create a logo for some T-shirts. If this was her official business logo, then it makes sense that she would own the rights to it. But I'm thinking that the contract was for T-shirts and their design... not her official logo.

Is she using the logo you created as her official business logo on her business cards, signage, etc.?


----------



## darwinchristian (Aug 24, 2007)

unik ink's first post:



Unik Ink said:


> There was no mention of transfer of copyright, but she said that she needed the design for her website and stationary etc.


----------



## Unik Ink (Nov 21, 2006)

Here the general definition of "work for hire"


www.copyright.gov said:


> Section 101 of the copyright law defines a “work made for hire” as:
> 1 a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment;
> or
> 2 a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a
> ...


It looks like work for hire has to meet one of those 9 categories, or have a signed agreement stating that the work is "work for hire". Everything I have read off of the government copyright website indicates that I am protected, and that my customer is infringing on my copyright.



work for hire-whole article (.pdf)

copyright basics

I understand where some of you think I could be making money spending my time elsewhere and this isn't really a big account anyway but I don't think that I'm wasting time by any means. I usually work 12+ hours a day doing something related to my business, so taking a few hours to research and make a few phone calls isn't that much trouble to me. Besides, my business integrity is at stake. I feel that I would be shortchanging myself in the long run by not pursuing this. I'm an artist. I make a living off of my artwork. I'm very particular about my art, and I am very particular about the quality of my products. The shirts have been printed, and they are a lesser quality than I produce, and that looks bad on me. People who know that I did the design will think I print low quality shirts. That being said, I will not be able to pursue this if I have to pay attorneys fees, but if it looks like it has a high chance of success, I'm sure an attorney would work for a contingent fee so I don't come out of pocket anything. I hate frivolous lawsuits, and I don't want to care about making a dime on this, I just want to protect my livelihood. I want my competition to know that if they print my artwork, they will be sued. I want crooked customers to know if they steal my artwork and try to pinch pennies by having my competition to print my design, they will be sued. If it was someone across the country that saw my design on a website and stole it, it would be one thing. It might even be flattering. These are people in my small town, who are doing this. It directly affects my business.

I have been out of this weekend buying equipment (= but I am going to call my cousin who is a copyright, patent, and TM attorney tomorrow and see what he thinks. I'll post back tomorrow night or wed. Maybe I'll win one for us small guys. lol


----------



## darwinchristian (Aug 24, 2007)

Unik Ink said:


> taking a few hours to research and make a few phone calls isn't that much trouble to me. Besides, my business integrity is at stake.


indeed. 




Unik Ink said:


> I'm sure an attorney would work for a contingent fee so I don't come out of pocket anything.


best to speak to one.



Unik Ink said:


> I have been out of this weekend buying equipment (= but I am going to call my cousin who is a copyright, patent, and TM attorney tomorrow and see what he thinks.


having a family-stlye lawyer beats it all. he will teach you so much and then he'll introduce you to his buddies who handle all those other legal issues...


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

Unik Ink said:


> I'm sure an attorney would work for a contingent fee so I don't come out of pocket anything.


Contingency means that the work for a portion of the proceeds, usually 1/3. Other than a moral victory, who much money do you think you gen get here? A lawyer will want to see a few thousand dollars in his pocket to do it on contingency. I'm curious why you want to fight this, other than to teach this person a lesson. I don't see any financial gain by winning.


----------



## Unik Ink (Nov 21, 2006)

rrc62 said:


> Contingency means that the work for a portion of the proceeds, usually 1/3. Other than a moral victory, who much money do you think you gen get here? A lawyer will want to see a few thousand dollars in his pocket to do it on contingency. I'm curious why you want to fight this, other than to teach this person a lesson. I don't see any financial gain by winning.


The first order that I did totaled close to $1500. If she placed an order close to that I'm sure I could sue for at least that. I don't know an exact number that I could sue for but as I said in an earlier post, here are the damages to my business that I could also collect on:


> 1. I am directly losing money from my customer who is not using me to print the design that I created and legally own the copyright to.
> 
> 2. My competitor is prospering financially off of my work.
> 
> ...


It's more than just the money off of this one order. My competition is prospering while hurting my reputation. Besides, if someone came into your place of business and stole your equipment, would you not pursue legal recourse. Stealing intellectual property is the same thing.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

I don't think you'll be able to collect any money here. Money was exchanged for products and services with a signed contract. The contract that you signed may or may not have given her the rights to take the artwork to another printer. That will cost you some money to figure out. 

(1) You are not printing the job because the other printer underbid you. That's business. Do you think that beating this person in court will make her want to use you again? I doubt it.

(2) Your work that you sold to your client. Your competitor is working for the client. You'll need to convince a judge that the wording "T-Shirts AND logo on CD" was not intended to give her the rights to reproduce the artwork. I think that will be a tough sell.

(3) This argument will hold water if you can get the contract voided.

(4) Not true. You didn't get the job because he underbid you. This whole thing would be easier if this were not a business logo.

(5)This could happen, but if the customer OK's the changes, I don't think there's much you could do. It is her business logo. Again, if you can get the contract voided, this argument may have merit.

If someone came in and took my equipment and I signed a contract saying they could have it, then there's not much I could do except dispute the contract. The difference is when I get my equipment back, I'll be making money with it again. If you win this, you'll never print for this customer again...and who else would you print this for?

If you're going to take this to court, you need to look at it from both sides. I see your points, but she has has a contract that conveys ownership of "T-Shirts and artwork on CD". Put yourself in her shoes. How would you structure her defense? You'll have to figure that out before you can structure your own. I know how I would handle it from her end, which is why I would bother trying the fight it.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

rrc62 said:


> I don't think you'll be able to collect any money here. Money was exchanged for products and services with a signed contract. The contract that you signed may or may not have given her the rights to take the artwork to another printer. That will cost you some money to figure out.
> 
> (1) You are not printing the job because the other printer underbid you. That's business. Do you think that beating this person in court will make her want to use you again? I doubt it.
> 
> ...


Ross, have you read any of the copyright laws? Unik Ink posted some of them. Which one of those laws gives her the unconditional rights to the design he created?


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

rusty said:


> Ross, have you read any of the copyright laws? Unik Ink posted some of them. Which one of those laws gives her the unconditional rights to the design he created?


The contract he signed gives her the right...or at least she thinks it does. It will cost some money to find out and if he wins, I'd bet that she is simply ordered not to use it again, in which case, she will have another shop draw up a new one. The fact that it is her business logo tips the scales in her favor also. I hope he wins this and gets something out of it.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

rrc62 said:


> The contract he signed gives her the right...or at least she thinks it does. It will cost some money to find out and if he wins, I'd bet that she is simply ordered not to use it again, in which case, she will have another shop draw up a new one. The fact that it is her business logo tips the scales in her favor also. I hope he wins this and gets something out of it.


That contract is meaningless as it relates to transfer of copyright. It does not address any transfer of copyright. The only problem he might run into is if the design in question is her actual business logo. It might be sticky to say that he owns the rights to her business logo. But if the T-shirt design is in any way different from her official business logo, he does own the rights to the T-shirt design that he created, and she would not be able to reproduce it without his written permission.


----------



## rrc62 (Jun 2, 2007)

rusty said:


> The only problem he might run into is if the design in question is her actual business logo.


If I recall, it is her business logo. Either way, I don't see a financial gain by taking it to court. Thats the best way to figure out if he has a case would be to spend a 1/2 hour with a lawyer. The transfer of copywrite was implied in the contract and that's what needs to be disputed in court.

Answer me this....What does he gain by winning?


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

rrc62 said:


> If I recall, it is her business logo. Either way, I don't see a financial gain by taking it to court. Thats the best way to figure out if he has a case would be to spend a 1/2 hour with a lawyer. The transfer of copywrite was implied in the contract and that's what needs to be disputed in court.


I would disagree that the transfer of copyright was "implied". Transfer of copyrights require very specific language.



rrc62 said:


> Answer me this....What does he gain by winning?


He's already clearly spelled out what he would gain in several posts. If it's worth it to him, that's his decision to make. Nobody else can make that decision for him. In my situation, I would not mess with it, but I'm not in his situation.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Unik Ink said:


> I understand where some of you think I could be making money spending my time elsewhere and this isn't really a big account anyway but I don't think that I'm wasting time by any means.


If nothing else you'll have a good knowledge of copyright law by the end of it, whatever the outcome (so at least there's _something_ to be gained win, lose or draw).

Nevertheless, I agree with Ross.



Unik Ink said:


> People who know that I did the design will think I print low quality shirts.


But how many people are going to know you did the design? You, the client, and the family member who introduced the client to you?


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

rusty said:


> I would disagree that the transfer of copyright was "implied".


It was *definitely* implied. I guess the case would come down to whether or not implied is good enough (with Unik arguing it isn't and therefore the contract is invalid, and the defendant claiming that despite the fact that it wasn't a lengthy legal contract the meaning and intent was clear).

Unik would probably be accused of having underbid on the initial contract on the assumption of further work, and only suing now that he realises there won't be any. Which is entirely his problem. A serious danger of it looking like sour grapes here.

Unik's case depends on the rather tenuous concept of what is moral, and the significantly less tenuous concept of what makes up an adequate contract.

It could go either way, but my money is on the other party. I think the best Unik could hope for would be an official order to cease using the logo, with no compensation (and might not even get that).

But, yes, it could pay out in Unik's favour, a few hundred for this, a couple grand for that, and in the end a modest but measurable payout.

More likely in a system that doesn't have the time to spend on petty crap like this, the case will either be dismissed very early on, or a quick split where neither party wins to get it over with.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

Solmu said:


> It was *definitely* implied.


It could only be "implied" to people that don't understand how copyrights are transferred.


----------



## darwinchristian (Aug 24, 2007)

rusty said:


> It could only be "implied" to people that don't under how copyrights are transferred.


I don't know how copyrights are transferred. I also don't know when they are created. 

With my unfamiliarity of "things" set aside, I would read the following:

"Contract for Sale and Purchase
The Seller, "ME" Owner of Unik Ink Custom Screenprinting, hereby agrees to sell, and Purchaser "Salon" hereby agrees to purchase the hereinafter described Product and Logo design on the terms stipulated in the following schedule:

Description: 145 t-shirts with Logo in EPS format for "Salon""


and think, "oh, someone just sold a logo and also some tees with it printed on them. i wonder what the customer has to do to copyright, trademark, or otherwise protect the elements within her newly purchased company image."


----------



## Unik Ink (Nov 21, 2006)

I just spoke with my copyright attorney. He said this would be a very gray area issue. I was commissioned to do a design for the company. He said since they didn't have any input into the concept of the design (they gave me free reign on the design, just had required text) that I would be the author. Since it is a brand identity and it is being used for business identity, it would be implied transfer of copyright in most cases because of work for hire laws. He said that I can retain all copyright privileges on all of my designs by putting a disclaimer on all of my work orders saying that my company owns all copyrights to custom artwork. I can give any, all, or no permission to reproduce my work in that case, and if a customer wants to go somewhere else to have shirts printed, I can charge a fair market price for the design for full transfer of rights, give specific usage permission, or I can refuse all usage. If I refuse all usage, and it has a trademarked name in the design, I could not use the same design with other text though for someone else. He said that he would probably chalk it up to lesson learned, and make ownership rights understood in the beginning from now on.

That kind of sucks because now people are wearing poorly printed shirts with my design on them. I guess the gameplan now is to hit up her competition for orders, and provide even better designs for them.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

Good to know and a good lesson learned.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

rusty said:


> It could only be "implied" to people that don't understand how copyrights are transferred.





Unik Ink said:


> I just spoke with my copyright attorney. [...] Since it is a brand identity and it is being used for business identity, it would be implied transfer of copyright in most cases because of work for hire laws.


Hmm... now... who was it who said that earlier again? 



Unik Ink said:


> I guess the gameplan now is to hit up her competition for orders, and provide even better designs for them.


I think this tactic will do more for future business than suing an ex-customer would have.

I definitely think you got burned on this one, I just think when you made a decision to switch from "lesson learned" to "revenge via legal system" it wasn't the best choice.


----------



## rusty (Feb 9, 2007)

rusty said:


> The only problem he might run into is if the design in question is her actual business logo.


I had also said this ^. So I agreed that if she was using it for her business identity, that it would be a gray issue. The point I was making was if she was not using it as a business logo, and was an original T-shirt design, then he owns the rights to the design. But the simple fact that it says on paper that somebody is receiving a logo on a file does not imply a transfer of copyright. That's what I was referring to in your quote.


----------



## nazar (Nov 7, 2007)

Quick question ,what if i find a picture/artwork and have it modified are change it from its orignal state and print shirts is thaT Legal?


----------



## ezilla (Feb 27, 2007)

nazar said:


> Quick question ,what if i find a picture/artwork and have it modified are change it from its orignal state and print shirts is thaT Legal?


No. You cannot modify any image or artwork that has a copyright unless you have written permission from the creator of said work. Hence the reason for the copyright. Sure people do it, but the world is full of lazy scumbags looking to make a $ off of someone's hard work. You can buy images and vector artwork from many places. You can take a digital camera and produce images and manipulate them yourself. Use your creativity. I can't draw to save my life, but I can use different graphics programs to come up with designs. Just my $0.02.


----------

