Free Patterns

[John]

Hey Jon, the reason I haven't gone to PM's with this issue is because it is an issue everyone that has duplicating equipment must come to realize.

Logos, trademarks, copyrights, etc are protected only by the efforts of the owner of the logo etc. Looking at some of the sites that have logo artwork for sale, they all have a "license agreement" not with the logo owner but the end user. And then at the bottom they have a statement....if you own one of the works on our cd we will take it off at your request. They basically put them on the cd knowing there are going to be few and far between that will actually make the effort to stop them. They know they have no legal right to put them on a cd.

One last comment. If you get a letter from GM asking you to remove a "bowtie" from your site, what would you do?

Okay, one last, last comment. It's okay to 5 MPH over the speed limit. No police officer will bother to stop you.

John

A full time woodworker that has done art and craft shows for 28 years and has to be a step ahead of the copycat artists to stay profitable. And yes, "Bubba," that tells his wife, "hey honey, I'll make one of those for you" is taking my original idea, and money out of my pocket .......till "honey" comes back the next year and describes how "Bubba" made a mess out of it and she is back to buy mine. However, when "Bubba" has duplicating equipment, the challenge becomes greater. (Don't confuse this statement with "whining." It is reality)

[CallNeg151]

Logos are generally protected by trademark (as opposed to copyright or patent). Each type of intellectual property has its own set of rules and protections, so if we want to be precise, its best not to confuse the three together.

In the United States, trademarks are protected locally under common law, but may also be registered and protected at a federal level under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 - 1127).

As the name implies, trademarks arose as markings that were placed on products so that consumers could identify (and thus remain loyal to) the manufacturer of that item. To this day, trademark law exists to directly serve the public interest by allowing them to identify makers of goods or providers of services. Copyright and patent, on the other hand, have an indirect public interest, in that protecting the interests of the intellectual property holder for a limited time encourages them to innovate. This distinction is important, because it provides the reasoning why copyrights and patents will eventually expire, while an in-use and and adequately defended trademark never will.

What manufacturers and service providers are concerned with are the dillution of their trademarks. Trademark dillution occurs when a trademark (or similar trademark) is used in a way (keep in mind this is a very simplified discussion, not legal advice) that diminishes the value of the trademark to identify the goods and services. The analysis of this will depend a lot on a number of factors. In Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (1961), the Second District developed a list of 8 factors:

1. The strength of the trademark (Kodak is strong, unique, etc. "Henry's" is not)
2. The degree of similarity between the two marks (Polaroid is very similar to Polarad)
3. The proximity of the products (where/how they are sold)
4. The likelihood that the prior owner will bridge the gap (would the original mark holder have branched out to make/sell the goods and services of the alleged infringer)
5. Risk of actual confusion (would a consumer possibly confuse Polaroid and Polarad's film products (likely), or think that the McDonalds foods is behind "MacDonald's Scottish Importing Company" (not likely))
6. The reciprocal of defendant's good faith in adopting its own mark (did a defendant adopt their own mark in an attempt to benefit from an association with the original mark holder?)
7. The quality of the defendant's product
8. The sophistication of the buyers (similar marks are more tolerated if the market is specialized and buyers are expected to have a sophistocated knowledge of the goods and services they are using, thus making confusion much less of a risk).

While the Polaroid case dealt with what happens when a second person uses a similar trademark, these principles have created a system where a trademark holder must protect the strength of their mark, or risk a loss of protection. The most famous example of this would be "Asprin," which was originally a trademark of the Bayer. Asprin was so successful that people began to use it as a generic to describe a type of medicine rather than the manufacturer. Eventually, the courts ruled that it had become genericized. The biggest at-risk manufacturer today is probably Xerox, which is constantly running ads reminding writers to refer to "Xerox brand copiers" rather than "xerox machines." Their dilligence in trying to protect their trademark will be the centerpiece of any litigation when someone tries to trademark "Zerox," for example).

Bringing this back around to topic...

Jon is right. There are many acceptable uses of a trademark. The primary use is to identify goods and services provided by the trademark holder. Thus, a store selling Coca-Cola brand soft drink, might use the Coca-Cola logo to identify that they are selling that product (but would be liable if they used the logo to identify Pepsi brand soft-drink, for example), provided that there is no risk in people mistaking that the store itself is owned and operated by the Coca-Cola corporation, of course. Likewise, a shop guide publisher, might acceptably use the Ford Motor Corporation logo on it's guide to indicate that the guide describes vehicles manufactured by Ford, but would need to do so in such a way (and with a disclaimer) that would prevent any reasonable consumer from believing that the guide itself was a product of Ford (i.e. ACME Car Guide (big letters) for servicing Ford Brand automobiles 1977-1978 (smaller letters) (Small ford logo in corner for visual reference, with a disclaimer inside saying "Ford is a registered trademark of Ford Motor Corporation. ACME is in no way affiliated with Ford Motor Corporation, and Ford does not sponsor or endorse this product.", etc.)). These examples, of course, assume that the association itself will not tarnish the reputation of the mark holder. For example, Mattel toys might sue and win an injunction should NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) wish to advertise that they are selling Mattel toys as a fund raiser (and if it isn't clear, this is purely fictitious, there is NO relationship between the two entities, and Mattel does not endorse or in any other way support NAMBLA).

The overall question of legality ultimately rests on how a logo is being used. The news could use the Viacom logo to identify a story that deals with Viacom stock, for example, but could not use the logo at the beginning of the program to suggest that they are a product of Viacom (unless, of course, they are).

Unlike copyright, which makes illegal the copying of protected media (subject to the defense of fair use), violations of trademark do not arise merely from posessing or copying a trademark or logo, but only from specific instances of use. The big disc of rasterized trademarks is not illegal, however the way that an end-user uses them may be. The disclaimer mentioned in John's post above is there because the seller of the rasterized images is not an agent of the company owning the trademark, and therefore cannot transfer the right to use the trademark.

Always trying to muddy the waters.

-Eric

[mobident]

Hahahaha.. mobi...

That's what happens when you're naming a file at 2am...

Actually, I was just going by the U.S. exchange rate... it's about 50% right??? lol

Well, we wouldn't want to offend Menewfy!

[Jon Jantz]

Eric, I agree totally with all that... BTW- OCA Enterprises is one of the companies that sell the huge logo collections. All the major nation-wide sign supply companies like Signwarehouse, Grimco, etc. carry their collections... which ironically contain THEIR logos...

So you're right, I don't think it's illegal to sell those. If it was, how hard would it be for 10 of the 27,000 companies whose logos are in this collection, to get together and sue these distributors? It would have been done by now, I bought my first OCA collection back in 1996.

Anyway, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. If I get an email from one these companies expressing displeasure with my depiction of their logo, I will take them off, simple as that...

[CallNeg151]

...Anyway, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. If I get an email from one these companies expressing displeasure with my depiction of their logo, I will take them off, simple as that...

Yeah, the horse has been dead quite a while. I just felt that some of the discussion arose due to the common tendency to confuse trademark and copyright. It's a pet peeve of mine.

John does make a good point in noting that the ease with which this machine allows for copying of other's material is a concern. Woodcarvers are creative artists, so duplicating their work without permission could violate their copyright in their creative expression. The exact limits of "fair use" in this area will eventually need to be explored (i.e. my best guess is that replacing a decorative element on a piece of antique furniture you own is probably fair use if it is not otherwise available for replacement, while copying someone else's relief carving so you can decorate your own carvings for sale is not fair use, with the gray area falling inbetween).

[Ron]

Jon,any idea why when I go to the patterns page on your site the page is blank?I've changed my security settings .but cant view them,hmmm

[HandTurnedMaple]

Because there is nothing there. Click on Free Stuff next to the title.

[cajunpen]

The CW and CompuCarve machines ARE NOT intended for use in Production shops - They are intended to be used as hobby machines by those of us lucky enough to be able to afford them. Since nobody here is probably intent on selling "logo work" why are we wasting so much time on the subject AND why are we attacking the one person, Jon, that has gone above and beyond trying to help those of us that appreciate and benefit from his efforts.

If I make a sign for my son, who owns a Porsche, and use the Porsche logo - who am I hurting? I'm not selling him the sign - I'm making it as a gift. Porsche has already made money on the deal - they sold him a car. So to all of the self righteous "copyright cops" - please give us a break and back off - or try another forum. Just my opinion.

[CallNeg151]

... why are we attacking the one person, Jon, that has gone above and beyond trying to help those of us that appreciate and benefit from his efforts. ...

...So to all of the self righteous "copyright cops" - please give us a break and back off - or try another forum. Just my opinion.

I hope that I'm not the one that riled you up, because the whole point of my post is that I agree with Jon, and believe that he is not suggesting in any way that people infringe on other's copyright, or misuse trademarks.

I also agree with you that the CompuCarve CW is not intended to be a production level machine (it's just too slow), and that there is no harm in your example.

Nonetheless, I think that the copyright issue is worth discussing, because it is (hopefully) only a matter of time until a home-use tool in the future exceeds the capabilities of today's production-grade equipment. Keep in mind that we are designing our woodshop projects on computers that are more powerful than the multi-million dollar supercomputers of the not-too-distant past, and even at our pioneering stage in the game we are able to share and re-create three-dimensional tangible objects by transferring a file, inserting a board, and pressing a button (Gene Roddenberry would be proud!).

Right now is an ideal time to begin the discussion about the future of intellectual property, because, like it or not, we are creating that future. Who would you rather have make up the policies about this new world we are exploring? Us, or lawmakers, lawyers, and judges that have never experienced it?

[Ron]

thanx
Hand Turned Maple