I’m sorta curious, what rule is being broken by them doing this?
They aren’t selling the print after all.
A law in most countries.
You must NOT use an image, logo, design etc. without the permission of its owner
This is the common requirement companies and individuals must abide by in marketing.
If they didn’t create it (printing something is creation, design is) they must seek permission to include it. The owner of the IP is the one who decides how their rights are used by others and under what terms including financial.
The logic behind this has these two common reasons.
- The IP owner chooses who can do what and in which ways.
- The public may believe an association between the two parties exists and the IP owner may not want their brand/product linked in this way.
You will commonly witness this when a music artist sends a cease and desist letter to a political party that used their work without their permission.
Seems that with that description, nearly every photo is in violation of some sort though?
What draws the line,
If I post a print with a BMW in the background, people might think BMW is affiliated, or supports that print in some way right?
If I post a pic next to Nike shoes, etc…
Not being rude, just generally curious.
I had a guy contact me once years ago when I ran a small plasma cutting business. Claiming some of the (2d animal cutouts) I sold were his, and I should pay him to use them. I had made the cad files myself, based on online images, silhouettes, etc. I mean, there are only so many 2D shapes for a rabbit after all- I doubt the first guy to do it was in 2004, so of course there were similarities, but cmon. Nothing ever came of it.
One simple answer to your question.
- The BMW was bought by someone.
- The Nike shoes were bought by someone
The model (in question above) was not purchased by ISANMate.
That said, BMW and Nike, can and do have issues about where their products are used. One famous one is Apple. If their products are used in films and tv shows, they are never used by the villain. Yes, that is true. Sorry if that screws up any future films or tv shows when you do not know who is the villain as they will have an android.
Your own example.
Sounds good.
Less good.
True, but, if you based them on someone else’s work, you BASED THEM ON SOMEONE ELSE’S work. Can you see the issue?
If you based them on a real rabbit you had in a photo, you are good. If you base them on your memory, you are good. If you base them on the work of someone else, your work would need to be truly transformative. This means your work needs to be so different that a reasonable person wouldn’t believe the source and the work you created are the same work.
It is common for random people to try and get money from people in the hopes you (in the example) will give them some cash to get rid of them in the hopes ift goes nowhere else. Doing nothing is a risk.
Good info.
Yea, I thought more, and can see the purchased items being viewed differently- atleast to extents, like you mentioned.
However, hasn’t everything been done before to some degree?
If you draw a square, its your word against mine that its not based on the square I drew last week, right?
Even if the square came to you in a dream, and was the first time you had ever seen one, its still, not new.
Just like this easter egg with ears is not new. Theres 10,000 versions of them online. This one might be really cool and neat, but, isn’t there 4000+ designers that could see it and say, dang, he copied my egg with ears!
This is the key point here.
This is yours as YOU thought of it and didn’t base it off anyone else’s works.
If you are later challenged by someone with similar work then you would have proof of your process of development post-dream.
No one is saying things need to look different, but they need to be unique or you have a documented path on how your version so similar to another was developed.
1 Like