Free Patterns

[Jon Jantz]

Well, a bunch of you wanted to know when I was gonna do it, so I'm putting a note in here... I finally have had time to put up a few patterns on the website... have a bunch more coming, but this will get things kicked off.

From the main page, click on Free Stuff...

www.AllCW.com

Later,
Jon

[Ron Smith]

Thanks for all of your work Jon.

[GIZMO1D1]

thanks a bunch !! nice work!! great page!

[mobident]

That canadian nickle sure looks like a dime...

[Jon Jantz]

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

*OK, I'VE BEEN TOO BUSY AND I'M LOSING MY MIND*

Happy now, Mobi???

:D :D :D

((BTW, for those of you that download the keyboard... if you're carving it in 3/4" plywood.. increase the depth to about .7 and increase the height to the max.. you can actually make almost a life size keyboard...))

[John]

Well, a bunch of you wanted to know when I was gonna do it, so I'm putting a note in here... I finally have had time to put up a few patterns on the website... have a bunch more coming, but this will get things kicked off.

From the main page, click on Free Stuff...

www.AllCW.com

Later,
Jon

Since you have posted copyrighted images, logos, etc. for anyone to use, I will assume you feel it is fine for someone to copy your instructional videos and pass them around at no charge (or even charge for them without your consent.) My apologies if you have made arrangements to pay royalties to GM, NFL, etc.

[Jon Jantz]

Well, John, since you want to be a jerk about it, here's how it is.

I AIN'T SELLING THOSE LOGOS.

I am in the sign business and have been to many trade shows. Now at these trade shows there are always several large companies that sell Logo Clipart disks that have every major corporation in the world's logo all ready to print or be cut in vinyl.

They aren't authorizing you to take the Harley Davidson logo for example, make decals and start selling them... BUT if you need to make a sign for Harley Davidson, you have their logo already digitised...

So if a person is selling carved items with these logos without getting authorization from the proper owner, that is illegal. To provide clipart in the format that will load in Carvewright Designer, is not...

For example you can go to www.brandsoftheworld.com and find about any logo available, already vectorised. They are not an illegal website or providing an illegal service. But if you download those logos, print them on a t-shirt and sell them, you are in violation of many of these company's policies and breaking copyright laws...

Also, making an item for your own use that you are not selling is different as well. If I want to print out the Ford logo on an 8.5"x11" sheet of paper, and hang it on my wall, Ford Motor Company is not going to care.

So, I will put a disclaimer on there, specifying that NO MONEY is being exchanged, and that the logos may only be used with the express permission of the rightful owner...

And if I start selling items with these logos on them, I will personally send you copies of the royalty checks. And, by the way, as yet I haven't PROFITTED the first dime on the videos, I'm still way in the hole with the money and time I've spent to be able to do them, and I'm glad everyone is not like you or I wouldn't be spending time every day reworking patterns for people on here, working on the new tutorials, and posting on these websites...

Well, I think I'll work on some of my own patterns and projects for the next couple of weeks.

Thanks.

[Aaron B]

Jon, thanks for all your hard work.

I for one am glad you offer the service of doing Custom Created Patterns, I will not have any problem paying for them. I have bought Vector Art 3d patterns and had to pay for them and if you made one specifically for me I would definetly pay.

Again thanks for everything you have shared.

[Kenm810]

Jon, your hard work and time spent helping so many of us as not gone unnoticed here!

Thank You
Ken

[Jeff_Birt]

Just a note about nEtiquette: If you have a question or concern about propriety of something, someone is posting, it seems the proper place to start is a direct question to them and/or one of the moderators. An accusatory general post is both out of line and just plain rude.

BTW, the new forum will make getting in touch with the moderators easier.

[jspringertx]

I have seen many of the logos or various items sold at flea markets and Trade Fairs and yes, the people can get into trouble selling them. The Walt Disney Company is particularly sensitive about their characters and I wouldn't attempt to sell anything with a Walt Disney character.

I noticed on my CompuCarve TM box that Sears has applied for a trademark for the name CompuCarve TM so it will soon be illegal to use that name on any products.

TM indicates that they have applied for a trademark ® indicates that they have a registered trademark.

Colleges especially A&M and Texas are sensitive about their logos too. No one says you can't use them...just don't sell them.

[wallyign]

Jon
I would like to say thanks too for your time, patterns and the excellent training video's. They are better that regular CorelDraw video's because yours show us exactly what is needed to make patterns for the CW and others are more general in nature.

I have learned a lot from them and I always look forward to the next one. It is too bad that one bad apple can spoil the whole basket.

Please keep up the good work

Wally

[dpowli]

Jon,

Just wanted to add my 2 cents worth that I am very grateful for all the work you have done. You have raised my abilities to do things with the CW 1000%.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

[menewfy]

well I guess it is time to break my silence;

I would like to say that I have enjoyed and learned from the videos and as far as logo's go or images that might be posted on this site, we are all here to share as we do in the shared pattern files section so if you do not want to use them don't! If you would like to then by all means do!

we are all here to help each other and no one (in my opinion ) has the right to try and mess with that. it will only help us all in the future I can appreciate that if someone buys one from vector art it does not get shared, but I have also learned something else and I may be corrected on this point.

If you use an image from the internet and it is changed so not exactly the same as the one that is tm or copyrighted it is not breaking any laws. Now while I know this is a fine line it is what I know at this point take from it what you wish.

JON KEEP UP HELPING US OUT AND IF ONE TWO OR EVEN THREE PEOPLE DECIDE NOT TO PARTAKE SO BE IT!!!!!!!

[Hanna]

I will add my two cents. Just in case anyone may not appreciate Jon and all his hard work and dedication to this site, us and the CNC thing, just for one moment, imagine what all this would be without him.

Ok, now that you have done that..........be thankful!!! This guy has made all the difference in the world to every single one of us in one way or another. Now go buy a video with a copyrighted logo in it;/ Sheesh:)

[John]

I wrote one sentence questioning the content on Jon's site, wondering aloud (in print) if it was okay to treat his original images, content, etc. the way he is treating others. For that I am a JERK?

It's not legal to buy one sheet of music and then photocopy it for the whole band, even though it's for your personal use. (The music industry has had an ongoing battle with the duplication processes for years, ie. tape recorders, copy machines, cd burners, napster, etc.) It's not legal to take an image off the internet and print it for your own use. Why do you think those taking wedding pics, for example, watermark their internet proofs.

Even Carvewright says you can install only two copies of their software. If you want more, then buy them. With the growing popularity of the CW, soon, if not already, there will be a hack so you can install it on all the machines you want. Many will do it and think nothing of it. Using Jon's argument, the users, using it for their personal use, are doing so quite properly. And the enabler, the hacker, if he/she puts in a disclaimer that you the user are responsible for any fees, they are off the hook as well.

BTW, for those that interpreted my original post to mean something else, ie. not appreciating his talent, I apologize. It is obvious that Jon has spent numerous hours trying to be as helpful as possible with general information and specific problems CW owners have had. I think we are all thankful for that. I hope he is rewarded appropriately for his endeavors.

John

[DougM]

Well I just recently bought my CW (sears brand) and have been spending my time trying to figure out which way is up as it were :)

I just today found your website and loved it! not only for the great videos (I'll be buying your main on tomorrow!), but also for the files..if nothing else to open them up in designer and see how they are made, etc...

So thank you and everyone else for all the ideas, thoughts, tips, tricks, files, and help you offer to us all.

Doug

[Jon Jantz]

No problem, John... I'm sorry that I perceived it as being antagonistic, rather than a merely tactless way of asking a question...

Again, let me re-explain this. You can legally obtain vectorised (.cdr, .eps, .ai and other formats) copies of almost any logo that is in existence, without ever contacting the owners. So having them available in .PTN format is no different. I am not producing or even condoning producing items to sell without having permission from the owners of these logos.

What you do with these logos is what determines whether you are doing something illegal... selling items that contain copyrighted images is against the law, and absolutely wrong in my books.

This is completely and totally different from downloading a hacked program, making illegal copies of games, artwork, movies or music, or any other kind of piracy. Having any of these items in your possession benefits you because you are getting the intended use out of a product that you didn't pay for... it is the same as stealing... selling decals with copyrighted logos or images out of your store or at the flea market is just as wrong.

In my business, I have done hundreds of banners and signs for companies that contain corporate logos. These were done within the guidelines of the corporate use and permission from a authorized agent of these companies. Now how can it be against the law for me to have these company's logos on my computer in CorelDraw format? How could I produce these signs for them if I did not have the logos on my computer? I didn't reproduce all of them myself, I obtained them from a variety of sources, including the corporations themselves, logo cd's I've purchased, and online sources like BrandsoftheWorld.

So, for example, if I have the Boy Scouts logo in .PTN format on my site, and you download it to carve plaques for the Boy Scouts that were ordered by a person authorized to do so... how is it wrong for me to provide the logo in the correct format for you to do your job?? How does this logo magically appear as a .PTN file, if you are not capable of reproducing it?

According to your theory, if you have a Ford logo in .jpg format off Google images as your Windows (ooops, I typed a trademarked word) wallpaper, you're breaking the law. The news paper article that writes about the condition of Ford's stock and displays their logo in the article, is breaking the law... if I download a Re/Max logo to do a car-wrap for the local real-estate agent, I'm breaking the law...

That's just insane...

Again, I'm sorry I called you a JERK... I just would have preferred a private message expressing your concerns in a decent manner, without the "well, I guess if you're gonna STEAL, it's okay for everyone to STEAL from you" kind of crap...

[cajunpen]

Jon, could not have said it better myself. Keep up the good work!!!! Having been a Police Officer for the past 39 years (working on my second pension) I know what stealing is and what you are doing ain't it! Thanks again, the rest of us appreciate your efforts.

[SpiffyDog]

Jon,

Great work! :) It is obvious from everything you've provided in this forum that you're intentions not ill willed. I, as many others, enjoy your contributions and always anticipate what you're going to come up with next. Which is going to be what?

Anyway...Start collecting everyones "two cents" so that you have some return on investment!!! I'm throwing in mine, too.

[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

[h_kench]

Hi John,
Just made a good use of your free Kokopelli pattern.
A new sign for my camper!

Thanks!

Hal49579