Question about artwork.

[Gene Hobbs]

We have a little league baseball team. We paid a artist to create the logo we wanted for our team and let him print our jerseys and hats. Now I told him I need the logo in the format it was made which was corel. I need the logo for sponsor plaques and car tags. Well it boils down to he does not want to give us the file because he said we could take it and go somewhere else with it. He was told it does not matter he was payed good money to create that logo for us. If we wanted the file we should be able to get it. Am I wrong with this thinking?

[Scott Shepherd]

Gene, for the most part, yes, you are wrong. Doesn't matter what you paid him. If matters what you paid him for. If you paid him to design a logo for shirts, it does not give you the rights to use that image for anything other than shirts. He owns the logo, period.

You can purchase all the rights to the logo and use it for anything you want, but that usually runs in the 1000's of dollars.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if he designed it, he owns it, unless stated in writing otherwise.

[Martin Boekers]

Gene,

If you read through this forum about copyrights you'll see that yes he does own
the artwork and can refuse to give it to you. You may try to negotiate it for a fee,
but he may refuse.

In the future you may ask for your rights to use the image during the "quoting stage" (get it in writing)
and make sure you are covered for what ever future use.

Copyrights extend to any graphic, keep that in mind if someone shoots pictures
of the team, designs programs, flyers etc. It will save you trouble in the future.
Keep a standard release with you at events.

Sometimes you can go to a local college and hire an art student at a cheaper rate
and more than likely they'll let you have what rights you want as long as they can include
it in their portfolio. Just remember though it is a student and quality will vary, but it may
be a viable alternative.

[Bill Stein]

From your post: "We paid a artist to create the logo we wanted for our team and let him print our jerseys and hats"

If you *truly* paid him to create a logo it is yours regardless of whether you gave him the job to print the apparel or not. BUT if you went to him and said something like "we want to buy jersey's etc. from you but we don't have a logo, can you work up something to print on them" and you didn't SPECIFICALLY pay him for designing the logo (in other words you just paid for jerseys) he owns the logo.

Summary: If you had two transactions (documented on contracts and/or invoices):
1. Design a logo
2. Purchase jerseys and hats
you own the artwork and he needs to provide it to you.

If you had one transaction
1. Purchase Jerseys and hats using vendor supplied artwork (even if it is your logo)
he owns the artwork.

[Martin Boekers]

[QUOTE=Bill Stein;1549108]From your post: "We paid a artist to create the logo we wanted for our team and let him print our jerseys and hats"

If you *truly* paid him to create a logo it is yours regardless of whether you gave him the job to print the apparel or not. BUT if you went to him and said something like "we want to buy jersey's etc. from you but we don't have a logo, can you work up something to print on them" and you didn't SPECIFICALLY pay him for designing the logo (in other words you just paid for jerseys) he owns the logo.


If you got in writing that you have the rights to to the logo, then you
have the rights. If there is no paperwork saying who owns it and what
rights are relinquished then the creater owns it.

The creater can give you certain rights are none at all. Just because
you pay for them to do the work doesn't mean you own the rights.

It's a concept that, yes I agree can be hard to understand, but infact
the shop does own the rights unless specifacally stated what rights
they relinquish to you.

If you purchase rights from them for use on a 100 shirts, if you want to
use it for shirt #101, or a letterhead, christmas card etc you don't
have those rights and the shop can take action against you.

If they do give you full rights that's great! If they do they usually include
a clause that they retain certain rights themselves. Use as advertising,
stock imagery, to incorporate pieces are intirety in other work.

Best to define everything in writing when discusing the transaction not after.


Marty

[Scott Shepherd]

If you *truly* paid him to create a logo it is yours regardless of whether you gave him the job to print the apparel or not.

Bill, I disagree with that statement. If he did not give you the rights, you do not own it, whether you paid him or not. I paid someone to design me a logo several years ago. Up front I had to specify what I wanted to use the logo for. The logo designed for me could only be used in those manners. For instance, I said "Business cards, brochures, t-shirts". If I want to use the logo for anything other than those items, then I would have to contact him and see if he would allow it or if I had to purchase additional rights to use it in the new manner.

Just because you pay someone to design a logo does not mean you own it. Period. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If you pay someone to design a logo, THEY own it. You can purchase the exclusive rights, which will transfer complete ownership to you, but you'll pay big bucks for that to happen.

Most companies that know what they are doing always buy the logo design and the rights to it, then they can do what they want.

Without the rights, you have nothing. You can't bring me the logo the guy designed and ask me to modify it. I can't do it, legally. It's not yours to give to me to change, and it's not mine for me to change.

Like Marty, it all seems backwards and insane (because it is), but that's the way it is and that's the way that world works.

[Gene Hobbs]

Well that kinda sux. Because we have the logo on our shirts but nothing else. The coach went to the guy. Coach had the layout drew on paper what we wanted all the guy did was recreateded it in corel. I guess I will sit down tomarrow and design a new logo. Thanks guys

[Brian Fiore]

We have a little league baseball team. We paid a artist to create the logo we wanted for our team and let him print our jerseys and hats. Now I told him I need the logo in the format it was made which was corel. I need the logo for sponsor plaques and car tags. Well it boils down to he does not want to give us the file because he said we could take it and go somewhere else with it. He was told it does not matter he was payed good money to create that logo for us. If we wanted the file we should be able to get it. Am I wrong with this thinking?

Gene, In FL at least the magical term is "work for hire." Here if you ask an artist to create anything for you, you better get the term "work for hire" in writing. That means the buyer owns the copyright and not the artist. Generally, if you just pay an artist to create something for you, and you are not specific upfront and don't get anything in writing, then the artist has the stronger case to say that they retain the copyright to the work.

In your case, I might suggest offering the artist some amount of $ for the copyright to the logo (assuming you still want it) and let the artist know that if he does not sell it to you for a fair price, your team will go to his competitors with all future business, and you will be designing a new logo.

Remember, always get something in writing indicating that your commision of a work is a "work for hire" and/or the copyright of such work, is owned by you and not the artist. Note, most artists will usually charge a little more for this though, but for long term use, its usually worth it.

Good Luck.

[Gene Hobbs]

Sorry about that. Dadgum keyboard.

[Tom Rick]

Well that kinda sux. Because we have the logo on our shits but nothing else. The coach went to the guy. Coach had the layout drew on paper what we wanted all the guy did was recreateded it in corel. I guess I will sit down tomarrow and design a new logo. Thanks guys


So you brought an existing design to a draftsman and paid him to enter it into a software package so it could be used.

So you did not pay him to create the design (the design was already there) and I don't think he owns any rights to the work.

Take the same layout that pre-existed the work by the draftsman and have some one else enter it into corel so you can have things made up for your team.

[Brian Fiore]

So you brought an existing design to a draftsman and paid him to enter it into a software package so it could be used.

So you did not pay him to create the design (the design was already there) and I don't think he owns any rights to the work.

Take the same layout that pre-existed the work by the draftsman and have some one else enter it into corel so you can have things made up for your team.

Gene,

I agree with Tom here. If you or your Coach already created your logo on a sheet of paper, and brought it to the artist to re-create the exsisting logo in Corel, then you or your Coach are the ones who own the copyright (as originally drawn on your paper). Just find someone else to create a corel version of your paper drawn logo for future use.

AND, just to be cautious this time, get it in writing (signed by the artist) that all work he performs for you, is a "work for hire" and that you own the copyright to any work or derivitive work created by the artist regarding such logo.

AND, also don't forget to get a copy of the corel file from him, when you pay him.

Good Luck :)

[Dirk Lewis]

er..Gene..check spelling on SHIRTS

good snag, LOL!

[Dan Hintz]

If coach had it already designed on paper, coach owns the design. But unless you paid for access to the final file, the "artist" owns the file. You're free to have someone else recreate it, though... it may be worth it to ask the artist how much he would charge to give you the file. To determine if it's a reasonable fee, just look at how much he originally charged you to recreate it from paper.

[Scott Shepherd]

It's still not quite that clear. If it was a doodle or a concept taken to them, then the artist still owns it. If it was a full blown design and just needed to be digitized, then the guy that drew it owns it. My guess is that the coach had a doodle or a napkin drawing of a concept and the artist brought it to life and "created" it.

If that's the case, the artist still owns it and you're still stuck.

Personally, I'd go back to the artist and tell him you apologize for the confusion, you were not aware that by drawing it, he owned the rights. Apologize. Then move forward by calming explaining what you're trying to accomplish and assure him you want to keep the business with him. Tell him you want to make other products for the team and ask him how you can accomplish this and still keep him happy.

I'm sure once you calmly explain that you didn't understand how the rights worked, and what you are trying to accomplish, then he'll come to understanding which makes both of you happy. If he doesn't budge, you can politely tell him you are disappointed and it's a real shame because each of the kids have parents, parents that work and have need for design work and it's a shame you won't be able to recommend him to those parents or other teams for future work.

One thing you cannot do now is to take his work and have someone trace it in Corel. That would be illegal. You'd have to start over with a different artist and they would own the rights to that one too, so you'd be back to this same place.

[Joseph Tovar]

Or next time you can try taking your design idea online to someplace like 99designs. Make an offer, have artist create different designs until the time is up. Choose the artwork you like, and supposedly it yours to use for whatever you like.....

------------------
Who owns what, and when?

Intellectual property is a serious issue.
On 99designs, designers agree to upload wholly original artwork and, subsequently, they own the rights to their submissions. This is true all the way up until one of their designs is selected as a winning design entry. Then, and only then, do they agree to transfer their rights to that particular entry over to the contest holder. They do this via the Design Handover, and once done, the contest holder becomes the new owner.

If a designer creates several iterations of a single design, but the contest holder only purchases one of those iterations—then the rights to those other designs remains the property of the designer. The contest holder can, of course, negotiate with the designer for the transfer of rights to multiple designs.
If the contest holder does not purchase a designer’s work, it remains the property of the designer.

------------------

Personally for me, if someone asks me to design something for them, it's theirs. That's why they paid me. If they want me to make something from the design they arleady paid me to make, shirts, banners, etc, that's a different transaction. If they want me to make business cards, I'll happily hand over the design and tell them to take it to kinkos, that's not the business I'm in. And you know what...they next time they want some more work done, they'll come back to me. Treat you customers right.

[Martin Boekers]

Personally for me, if someone asks me to design something for them, it's theirs. That's why they paid me. If they want me to make something from the design they arleady paid me to make, shirts, banners, etc, that's a different transaction. If they want me to make business cards, I'll happily hand over the design and tell them to take it to kinkos, that's not the business I'm in. And you know what...they next time they want some more work done, they'll come back to me. Treat you customers right.

Joe,

A couple things to consider when you give them the rights to your work
is the value you put on it.

Would you charge the same price for a design for a little league team
that will use it in a very limited way or say Master Card wants a logo
that will be on all their products internationally? Say $200 for each?

That wouldn't be fair for your work. Can you imagine the little league
coach saying "I just want to make some shirts and hats, why am I paying
what Master Card is? They are doing much more than me."

When I do a commercial photo shoot I charge depending upon usage
plus I negotiate what rights I want to keep. If it's a magazine cover
that has a dist of 10,000 they pay less than a dist of 250,000, and a
neighborhood flyer pays less than a cover. A logo may pay more than
both. If a company is going to make great use, viewed by many and
generate a revenue stream it's only right that they pay more for the
creation. The graphic is the "vehicle" that is generating their revenue.

I also learned early in my photographic career if I charged too less "to
give them a better deal" I usually didn't get the job because they felt
I wasn't charging enough and and may not produce the quality they
were looking for. Most businesses are aware of rights and releases
and expect them, people who are newer to them can get "burned" not
understanding what their rights entail.

Make sure you are fair to yourself. There will always be someone out there
willing to do work for less, how long they last in business that way time
will tell. You don't want to place yourself in the position that they come
to you for design work because your cheaper, then take your creation to
another shop that reaps the benefits of your creation and gets an
ongoing revenue stream of product sales that you don't see.

The value you place on your work is the value clients place on your work.

Just some thoughts to think about.

Marty

[Doug Griffith]

I go as far as to say the guy is holding the file ransom, not the artwork. The artwork represents your baseball team and doesn't do him a bit of good. Just recreate it by copying the T-shirts and wait for a cease and desist. In that case, you've got prior art in your favor. He's got construction files used to create the final art based off your art. It's not worth his time or expense to go after you.

If he's your typical T-shirt guy, he's just trying to keep your T-shirt business because that industry is cut throat.

Also, there is a difference between a logo and artwork. Artwork has value to everyone and can be used in many different ways. It should be protected as such. A logo is really only valuable to the entity it represents. You can not print a Giclee of a logo, frame it, and sell it in a gallery. Nor can you use it for another baseball team.

Personally, once I create a logo, the customer can do with it as they please. It is theirs. They paid for it. It will look good in my portfolio when it becomes the next Coca Cola.

[Martin Boekers]

Also, there is a difference between a logo and artwork. Artwork has value to everyone and can be used in many different ways. It should be protected as such. A logo is really only valuable to the entity it represents. You can not print a Giclee of a logo, frame it, and sell it in a gallery. Nor can you use it for another baseball team.

Personally, once I create a logo, the customer can do with it as they please. It is theirs. They paid for it. It will look good in my portfolio when it becomes the next Coca Cola.

Hmmmm I think Andy Warhol made a name for himself when he did the Cambell's soup cans.
I wonder what he faced from Cambells at that time. We do live in a different time than then though.

Ahh but wouldn't it be nice to be paid "market value" for designing an international logo.

I think Willie Nelson sold the rights to "Crazy" for $50 to have a record sale. I think he undervalued the song:D

Doug, I take it though you consider their use for your creations and charge "fair market" for it. Then I agree
sell them whatever rights they want, make sure you address what
rights you want to reserve for yourself make sure you include various
forms of self promotion and define, print, video, internet and what ever
new media may arise in the future. If this isn't defined in writing then
you may have issues in the future. Even a basic statement on an order
form that the client signs stating your rights can help if a problem arrises.

[Gene Hobbs]

Thanks guys we got it figured out. He is a softball/baseball supply shop. Well come to find out he is also trying to build his own trophies for his tournements that he puts on, but has no way of marking them. He calls me all the time wanting me to engrave his plates for him or to engrave his plaques. I told him that he could go somewhere else to get his stuff engraved because I was not going to deal with him any longer. I also told him I was going to let my trophy dist. know that he was not a true awards shop. I really would not do this but I wanted him to think that I would. We came to an agreement and he sent me the logo.

[Dee Gallo]

I do what Doug does. When I create a logo, I give all rights to the customer with a written form to that effect for their future use. If they pay my fee, they get the rights.

They do not get any rights to my sketches, color comps or other logo drawings made during development, however. So if they want to use the logo they must use it as-is.

If they come to me with a pre-drawn logo needing tweaking, it's the same routine. BUT! If they come to me with a finished logo needing to be re-drawn, digitized, inked or whatever, I charge them for artwork time only. I would not consider that to be "my creation"... similar to prepping a photo for laser engraving.

2 cents from dee

[Doug Griffith]

I'm with Dee and...

My agreements for logo design aren't geared towards my ownership of the design - I don't really care. They are to protect myself for personal use and copyright infringement. I state that I am allowed to use the logo for any personal promotion that I choose and that I am released from any copyright infringement should it arise. You never know what will crop up. I do not have the time to do a thorough search to see if "my logo" is similar to another established logo. I leave that to the customer. I do a quick Google images search but that's about it.

[Joseph Tovar]

Joe,

Would you charge the same price for a design for a little league team
that will use it in a very limited way or say Master Card wants a logo
that will be on all their products internationally? Say $200 for each?

That wouldn't be fair for your work. Can you imagine the little league
coach saying "I just want to make some shirts and hats, why am I paying
what Master Card is? They are doing much more than me."

Marty

Hi Marty,

Thanks for the info, but I do have a question. Do you charge more just because you know someone can afford it, or do you charge a simple hourly or flat rate for a project?

I calculate my time and material and come up with a cost. I don't charge them more just because they are a bigger company or I think they can afford it. If someone paid me to make them, lets say a plaque for $20, and they resold that plaque for $5000, good for them. If they made money off of something they paid me to do for them, that's fine.

I feel the same way about the artwork I create. If I create a logo and they make shirts for their team, that's cool. If they win a state championship and become popular and sell merchandise with that logo, that's fine too. I'm happy to be the vendor/artist who created it. All I ever ask ahead of time is that I can display it on my website and in my portfolio.

Why would you charge more just because the buyer plans on using the logo on advertising and merchandising as much as they can? Why wouldn't it be they same if it took you just as long to make the baseball teams logo?

I understand what you're saying, I'm just not seeing that justification for charging more.

Here's one last, real-life example. I'm creating a display case for a client. I'm calculating the cost of my time and material just as mentioned above. Their intent is to put them in different stores and sell their products on the display case. I could say, "why not charge more, they are going to sell a lot of their products which will easily cover the cost of the display"...but I don't. I charge them just like would charge anyone else. If they make a lot of money with the item they bought from, that's great. Hopefully they'll come back for more.

[Dan Hintz]

I'm with you, Joseph... size of the company or how much money they may make off of the product is none of my business. They are paying me for a job, and if they can turn that around into an amazingly fat profit, more power to them.

I once went into a sign shop to have some vinyl windshield stickers made up with my company website. Long story short, they charged me more than the typical rate because I wanted so many (10). The reason? I was obviously making them to sell (no, I was going to a car show with friends and they all agreed to sport my logo), so they wanted a larger piece of the pie. I picked up the original order (what choice did I have?), but I also never went back to them.

[Chuck Stone]

I'm with you, Joseph... size of the company or how much money they may make off of the product is none of my business. They are paying me for a job, and if they can turn that around into an amazingly fat profit, more power to them.

Some places charge according to what they think the benefit to you will be.
It makes me crazy! I've been trying to find someone local to do some
cutouts in a piece of wood. I want to make boxes, but I'll be making them.
I just want the insides routed out in a particular shape.
I want to supply one long piece of wood and a file .. they'll rout out a bunch
of holes. I'll cut them apart, sand, finish, add the hardware etc.
They want to start the pricing with what they would get for a finished box
and then deduct a little here and there for the stuff that I'd be doing.
Most quotes start with 'We sell a similar box for $30" .. and it goes downhill
from there. I could buy finished boxes for $4.50, but not in the woods I
want.. and I need them unfinished.

Most of the time they'll ask 'what will you be doing with this?' and I'm
getting close to answering 'none of your business' .. I just want the holes!

[Joe De Medeiros]

Some places charge according to what they think the benefit to you will be.
It makes me crazy! I've been trying to find someone local to do some
cutouts in a piece of wood. I want to make boxes, but I'll be making them.
I just want the insides routed out in a particular shape.
I want to supply one long piece of wood and a file .. they'll rout out a bunch
of holes. I'll cut them apart, sand, finish, add the hardware etc.
They want to start the pricing with what they would get for a finished box
and then deduct a little here and there for the stuff that I'd be doing.
Most quotes start with 'We sell a similar box for $30" .. and it goes downhill
from there. I could buy finished boxes for $4.50, but not in the woods I
want.. and I need them unfinished.

Most of the time they'll ask 'what will you be doing with this?' and I'm
getting close to answering 'none of your business' .. I just want the holes!

Chuck this is the reason I ended up buying my own laser and plasma cutter, and am shopping around for a cnc machine table now. I agree with Joseph, Dan, Dee, and Doug.

[Martin Boekers]

I'm with you, Joseph... size of the company or how much money they may make off of the product is none of my business. They are paying me for a job, and if they can turn that around into an amazingly fat profit, more power to them.

I once went into a sign shop to have some vinyl windshield stickers made up with my company website. Long story short, they charged me more than the typical rate because I wanted so many (10). The reason? I was obviously making them to sell (no, I was going to a car show with friends and they all agreed to sport my logo), so they wanted a larger piece of the pie. I picked up the original order (what choice did I have?), but I also never went back to them.


WOW Dan, I have never seen a company that charged more for quantities
than an individual piece. That's an interesting business practice. They
actually told you that they thought you were selling them and wanted to
charge more?

As for charging more for graphic usage (not product) that is the territory
for commercial graphics. Sure we handle things differently in the engraving
shop end as typically what we do is make products with a smaller audience.

Think of it in these terms if you buy a an ad in Times magazine you will
pay more for it than a local magazine, same as super bowl ads they charge
more because of the size of audience or distribution side.
Covers of magazine cost more than interior pages, it's about exposure. If
I have a photograph in Sports Illustrated they do pay more than STL Today.

No I don't charge more because a company has bigger pocket books, it is
very competative out there even more so than engraving. Each job is different
and that is factored in on the bid, Graphics are different than production pieces,
Graphics are used over and over and may cover many products or media
for many years, in the case of the logo that may be the single most
important part of a companies marketing, it is the face of the company.
A trophy or award is a product that is used for typically a single event.

It difficult to run a business these days so. yes we are entitled to make
our own decsions and as our industry gets more involved with graphic
production and rights we should verse ourselves on industry practices,
First to make sure we are legally covered with what we do, then to
get paid fairly for our products whether it's design or a production piece.

[Joe De Medeiros]

WOW Dan, I have never seen a company that charged more for quantities
than an individual piece. That's an interesting business practice. They
actually told you that they thought you were selling them and wanted to
charge more?

As for charging more for graphic usage (not product) that is the territory
for commercial graphics. Sure we handle things differently in the engraving
shop end as typically what we do is make products with a smaller audience.

Think of it in these terms if you buy a an ad in Times magazine you will
pay more for it than a local magazine, same as super bowl ads they charge
more because of the size of audience or distribution side.
Covers of magazine cost more than interior pages, it's about exposure. If
I have a photograph in Sports Illustrated they do pay more than STL Today.

No I don't charge more because a company has bigger pocket books, it is
very competative out there even more so than engraving. Each job is different
and that is factored in on the bid, Graphics are different than production pieces,
Graphics are used over and over and may cover many products or media
for many years, in the case of the logo that may be the single most
important part of a companies marketing, it is the face of the company.
A trophy or award is a product that is used for typically a single event.

It difficult to run a business these days so. yes we are entitled to make
our own decsions and as our industry gets more involved with graphic
production and rights we should verse ourselves on industry practices,
First to make sure we are legally covered with what we do, then to
get paid fairly for our products whether it's design or a production piece.

I understand what your saying, I have been working as a designer for 30 years, and still am in my 9-5 job, but it's unrealistic to charge someone for artwork (generally a small logo) and hold it ransom, unless they pay you more, as it relates to an engraving business. I can understand if all you do is graphic design/photography it's a different animal and priced differently. A large company is not going to come to a lowly engraving shop and ask them to design a corporate logo, generally it's a small organization or group that wants some basic artwork engraved/printed and it's implied that they have hired you to do it, they may have the wrong impression.

I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to retain the rights to their artwork, but it should be stated in writing what those rights are, and after having worked with local engravers, those rights are never spelled out. That's just my experience.

[Martin Boekers]

I understand what your saying, I have been working as a designer for 30 years, and still am in my 9-5 job, but it's unrealistic to charge someone for artwork (generally a small logo) and hold it ransom, unless they pay you more, as it relates to an engraving business. I can understand if all you do is graphic design/photography it's a different animal and priced differently. A large company is not going to come to a lowly engraving shop and ask them to design a corporate logo, generally it's a small organization or group that wants some basic artwork engraved/printed and it's implied that they have hired you to do it, they may have the wrong impression.

I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to retain the rights to their artwork, but it should be stated in writing what those rights are, and after having worked with local engravers, those rights are never spelled out. That's just my experience.

I agree I think we are on the same page if I designed a basic logo for a
little league team and they want the art work and typical rights
(shirts, hats, poster, letterhead etc.) I think probably a $100 is fair.
(depending upon time and artwork changes)

If it's a small business opening up and they want graphics for multiple use
maybe $800-$1500 is fair. Being a designer you know what the company
you work for charges for different usages, so you understand that structure.

More and more engraving shops trying to stay viable are branching out
into areas they never did before. It's easy to get caught up with the
"rights" territory and either face legal issues or allienate a customer base.
With the internet now it has opened up so many new things that the
laws haven't had a chance to catch up with.

Typically I don't charge seperately for graphics I create, so I don't hand
them over to the client. If the clients requests the files then we work
out a mutualy agreeable price.

As this industry evolves and we move into new areas it's best to get
a handle on the "overlap" in others industries, such as photography
and creating graphics.

Each of us can and are entitled to make our choices in how we handle
these issues, but make sure both you and the client understand up
front just what rights their purchases cover. Then everyone will be happy!:)

Marty

[Gary Hair]

I agree with those that are (confused, confounded, etc.) with the idea that usage dictates the price of something.

Using that logic, I should charge more for an award that will be seen by 1,000 people than one that would be seen by 10 people. Are you friggen kidding me? I have an hourly rate, a markup from cost, "perceived value" markup, PITA markup, but I don't have a "usage" markup. I'm pretty sure I would be out of business if I said to my customers "before I can give you a price, I need to know how many people will see this award. the more people who see it the more I charge" I'm pretty sure they wouldn't hear the next thing I said because they would be laughing their a$$ off while walking out the door...

Just because "that's how they do it in this industry" doesn't mean it makes sense.

Gary

[Doug Griffith]

...and when designing a logo for a small Ma-And-Pa shop, we get to go back and bill them again should they become big dogs.

[Martin Boekers]

I agree with those that are (confused, confounded, etc.) with the idea that usage dictates the price of something.

Using that logic, I should charge more for an award that will be seen by 1,000 people than one that would be seen by 10 people. Are you friggen kidding me? I have an hourly rate, a markup from cost, "perceived value" markup, PITA markup, but I don't have a "usage" markup. I'm pretty sure I would be out of business if I said to my customers "before I can give you a price, I need to know how many people will see this award. the more people who see it the more I charge" I'm pretty sure they wouldn't hear the next thing I said because they would be laughing their a$$ off while walking out the door...

Just because "that's how they do it in this industry" doesn't mean it makes sense.

Gary

An award is made and given, job over. As I said a graphic is used over and over
on many things product, letterheads, magazines etc. A physical award
isn't an ongoing generater of revenue.

Only we dictate what we charge clients, not industries, industries do
set guidelines (as any industry) does. Look at the upheavel that happens here
when someone (part-timer I'm not going to use the "h" word:D) under cuts greatly the cost of his work.
He is entitled to charge what he wants, but it does up set us
with our perception of a more vested interest.

I think most of us when hired by a company the more knowledge we
have and the more versitile we are (can be used in many different aspects)
do expect to get paid more for our services than a one dimesional co-worker.

Some industries pay royalties.

Have you ever hired a professional photographer? Did the give you the negs or files?
You hired them and agreed to there terms.

I'm not trying to change anyones minds are justify how the graphic end
of business runs. We all run our own shop (deservedly so) and are entitled
to charge and run the how we want, win, lose or draw. Whether we agree
or disagree what and how other industries run was not fully my point.
It was more to provide some insite to those who haven't dealt with graphic
much before to realize some of the grey areas that ought to be research
at least at a minimal level so they can address them as they come up.

I don't blame the Gene for being upset with the shop for not giving him
the artwork. It was the shops fault when they took the job in, they
should of gone over it with him at the start just what he was purchasing, then gene could have made a
desicion before he commisioned them to do it. That is the area that
wanted to address maybe I went about explaining it the wrong way:o

As a shop owner if we are giving all rights to someone fine, if we want to
retain some rights for promotional work than that should be explained and
signed off on upfront. Either way both parties ought to informed what
they expect from each other. The shop owner is this case probably
could of said when Gene asked why, "Well, you didn't ask"

This shop owner really gets low marks for that. If he told Gene upfront give me camera ready artwork, I can do that if you prefer, but if you want the files they will cost ....

No problem then, deceptive on the printers end.

Ok enough here onto the next thread!:D

[Joseph Tovar]

Martin,

How do you handle photography?...for example a wedding. If someone hired you to take pictures, do you charge them for the time, and them hand them a CD or flash drive full of pics to do what they want, or do you charge them for the time and tell them it'll be more if they want copies of the files?

I have seen some photographers "sell" their services as a package and NOT tell the buyer that they don't get the files. For example, I had a friend who had a wedding and the photographer said that their "package deal" was $xxx amount of dollars. X number of 5x8s, x number of 8x11s, etc. Totally understandable. They bought the package assuming that he would also get the files afterwards, but all he got was the photo shoot time and the prints. When he asked the photographer for the CD, the photographer said...Oh, that' be $XXXX amount of money more.

What really sucked was that he paid for the time and the package as expected, but didn't realize that he wasn't going to get the files. He just wanted copies to post on his website, send emails to friend/family, etc. He knew he didn't have to buy the package, but thought he'd give him more business by doing that also. He figured if he wanted, he could have just gone to Walmart and printed them up, but decided to give the "print" job also to the photographer.

So if a photographer "owns" the rights to the photos, what prevents them from selling the usage rights to others to use them for whatever? For example, someone hires you to take pictures of a little league baseball game, but since you physically still have them, what prevents you from selling them to Sports Illustrated also? It seams like once the photos are taken, they should be handed over to the buyer.

Anyways, if this ever comes up for me, I'd just tell them straight up. I'm paying to you take the photos and hand me the flash drive.

[Bill Churchwell]

Gene, I'd be glad to look at your original, and maybe do it for you. No obligations. If you still need it anyway.

[Dan Hintz]

Bill,

You may be stepping on legal toes here... you're committing to a job that you do not know the necessary details on.

[Scott Shepherd]

So if a photographer "owns" the rights to the photos, what prevents them from selling the usage rights to others to use them for whatever? For example, someone hires you to take pictures of a little league baseball game, but since you physically still have them, what prevents you from selling them to Sports Illustrated also? It seams like once the photos are taken, they should be handed over to the buyer.

Joseph, the photographer does own the rights to the photos of that wedding, however, unless they had all people in the photographs they are selling sign a model release, then they cannot sell the images to Sports Illustrated. While you don't own the rights to the photos as a customer (unless you specifically bought that), you do still have rights. Using those photos for commercial purposes cannot be done without the model release. Also, if I recall correctly, they cannot even use those photos on their website or advertising without your permission.

There's 2 things going on in this thread, in my opinion. It's what's right, and what's legal. I agree with most of the "what's the right thing to do" crowd, however, there's a huge difference between what's right and what's legal. My opinions expressed so far are what I perceive as legal from my understanding.

There are many arguments against the current system, but it's not changing. There was a video clip showing the how clothing manufacturers don't use copyrights, and how they steal everything from each other, and how that model has been much more creative than any design process that involved copyrights. It was very interesting. Clothing people don't care. They design something new today and it can be copied by the end of the day, but graphic designers want to keep all their rights and in some people's views hurts creativity.

It took me quite a long time to really start to understand what's legal and what I can and cannot do without infringing on people's legal rights.

A huge site for vector graphics used to be brandsoftheworld. Go there now and try to download something. You have to have an account and you have to agree that you have the permission to use the logo. If not, you are agreeing that you are breaking the law.

[Scott Shepherd]

Here's the video clip :

http://wimp.com/freeculture/

[Robert Walters]

...they charged me more than the typical rate because I wanted so many (10)...

I would have asked/expected a volume discount, not a higher rate.

Just curious, how do you know they charged you higher than "normal" rates?

[Doug Griffith]

There's 2 things going on in this thread, in my opinion. It's what's right, and what's legal. I agree with most of the "what's the right thing to do" crowd, however, there's a huge difference between what's right and what's legal. My opinions expressed so far are what I perceive as legal from my understanding.

I see 3 things. What's legal, what's practiced, and what's ethical. If the designer/artist/photographer chooses to release all rights to their creation then no "laws" are broken no matter how it is used. If they practice retaining some rights and it is used by the customer outside of an agreement then "laws" are broken. The ethics aspect is subjective and seems to be where there are different opinions in this thread. I personally think it is unethical to hold rights or files ransom for future gain. The creator knows what they are doing and is more or less playing on the ignorance of their customer.

It is a digital world now where people share everything online. Files are more important than print. The practice of holding on to files is a carry over from the days of film negatives and is antiquated. It is time to move on.

[Robert Walters]

I think there are a few different crowds here...

One that see's graphics as something that drives our lasers. Without some sort of graphic being involved, the laser doesn't move and no revenue is generated. They just want to be compensated for the time it took to create the graphic. Anyone of us could create this and probably would feel guilty for charging for it:

http://deals.sweethype.com/files/stick%20figure.jpg







There are those that place a high value on the artwork itself.
Even without any English text, this is still recognizable:

http://creativebits.org/files/images/Coca-Cola_logo3.gif




Then there are some that sit somewhere in between.


The fact of the matter is photography is art. Be it a wedding photo or this (description of photo intentionally left out):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg



Why is the value of a wedding photo any less than that of a artist that paints a portrait to hang over your mantel?

Because it's creation is done at the click of a button? That it's easily reproducible or duplicated? That weddings photos are commonplace?

If you want digital copies to share with your friends, why not get your friend to take the photos and as a bonus go down to the local drugs store and get prints made for much cheaper than hiring a photographer?

Maybe I don't care what someone does with a fairly simple graphic I create for someone (such as a little league team). But what if one of the people in the crowd likes the artwork so much that he wants to use it in a new product line? So if I haven't limited the use of the artwork, I could be be out future revenue/royalties as well.

I feel that because many see placing text in little boxes (name tags) day after day, that it just becomes "every day life" and don't see any artistic value. But yes, just placing text in a box on the screen *IS* art (not saying that everyone couldn't do this, or that it's good, just that it is art).



Sidenote...
In regards to taking photos of public events (little league game, or wedding party in a park) no model release is required. If it's on private property, that's another story. Having a model release is always a good idea of course.

Technically, a church (as example) could retain ownership of copyright of the photos a photographer takes if the photographer didn't obtain a release from the property owners. But I'm not sure where that falls under the whole public/private property issue as a church "serves the public" besides it being so commonplace for having wedding photos taken, that they might go "Huh?" if ever asked to sign a release.

[Scott Shepherd]

The ethics aspect is subjective and seems to be where there are different opinions in this thread. I personally think it is unethical to hold rights or files ransom for future gain.

I agree with you Doug. I have also designed many a logos for people's lobby's that are legally now my property, however, when asked, I always provide the file and never ask for more money. I think the entire system is one of the stupidest things I have spend any time studying.

If I hire you to photograph my wedding, what exactly did you think I wanted? To be held hostage to you for the rest of my life if I want reprints? No. I hired you to record a special moment. I didn't hire you to create a masterpiece of a photo that I would never been able to use without your permission. I hired you to take photographs. To me, at the end of the job, you should hand me all negatives or digital proofs and you should never have to see me again and I should never have to see you again, unless we both desire.

Let's see, you are the "master artist" capturing photos of us. Well, let's see, how great would those photos be if it didn't have the people in it? Without you, we have no photos, without us, you have no one to photograph. He's a deal, you tell me a price, I'll pay it, we'll both be happy. Instead, I pay you, you own the photos, I can't even reproduce a photograph of my OWN wedding because some stranger owns it. That stranger may select to never do anything else for me ever again, in which case, I have no way to have photos created of an event that has passed because someone else owns them :mad:

Dumbest thing I have ever heard. But, it's the law.

[Martin Boekers]

Joe,

I don't shoot weddings, more commercial product an interiors. (although
not as much as I used to, it has become very competative an tight budgets
have excepted a "this is good enough" cheap product)

I have had quite a few experiences with wedding photographers and have
worked together with them on commercial shoots. Not speaking for all of them
but typically there are two types. One charges a flat fee and gives you the
results on a DVD, no corrections no cropping, just the raw files. Some like that
as money is tight and they can deal with the images themselves or have them
professional printed when the can afford it. They do have their wedding
photographed though. That comes with all inclusive rights.

Wedding photographers have you sign a contract read it thoroughly and ask questions.
The contract is to protect both of you, them for you not paying, and you to make
sure that you have it defined in writing what you are purchasing as well
as the if there is non-performance on the photographers end. It is VERY important
to read through this and make sure you have a clear understanding of what it means.
Typical of these contracts the photographer will retain some rights as to make
samples and use in marketing. It SHOULD be clearly stated in the contract.
If you don't want them to do that then ask for it to be removed from the contract.
If they don't have a contract and say you don't need one find another photographer!

When I do a commercial shoot I write up a contract expressing what rights
each of us has, i always have a marketing use at as a minimum, sometimes
more if I feel I want some additional rights. Sometime the more rights I get the less
I get paid, the more rights they get the more they pay. So I think you can see the trade offs.

The other you pay for their time to photograph it, the files, printed photographs,
style of book etc are like options when buying a car you can take as many or as
little that will fit your needs. Again this will be define in the contract. Many
have sites up now that post the images and allow anyone to order them. Again
that should be clearly stated in the contract, it not ask!

As for publishing images of people you don't always need a release, it's best
if you have one then there are no questions about it later with an editor.
Typically if a person is in a public place the do relinquesh some rights.
I take Sports Illustrated for example, I'm sure you have seen many photos
of a picture, batter and catcher, but behind them is a crowd of people.
They don't have have releases on everyone to use the shot. The problem
would arise though if you got a great shot of someone drinking a beer or
soda and used that in a beer or soda ad, that is a no - no! More tickets to
events are actual licenses and have a "contract" on the back saying what
rights both of you have.

Again with the advent of new tools, internet being one the laws have not
kept up with this, so there is a lot of grey area about assumed or implied rights.

I did an event with SI, the Olympic Commitee, Kodak and Nikon. I photographed
events and the Olympic Committee retained all rights and if applicable I
would be given a credit line (no other pay) In return for them allowing
me to photograph the events I was given "media usage" rights. That
to me was vague so I asked questions about how I could sell them.
I was told I could use them in various venues such as a resturaunt, bank
library self promotion etc, but I could not sell them to say Nike without
their permmision and maybe the permission of the athelete.

OK I couldn't use them for a published ad, I questioned, say I got a great shot of a
runner with the Nike logo prominent could I sell that to Nike HQ to display
in their building. The people I asked became uncomfortable and I could see
the didn't want to be responsible to be answer that question themselves.
I was told that would be a case by case basis and to be safe to contact the
Olympic Committee first. So even the pros deals with areas that aren't clearly defined!


The things we are addressing here are coming into the engraving business
as the style and use of engraving has transended more markets. It no
longer involves just putting a name on a watch, gift or jewelry. It 's has evolved
to signage, design work, ad-products all sorts of things. So the thing we want to
make sure is both the client and us don't assume things and are discussed
before hand.
We are getting more and more people in the industry that are purchasing things
with just an assumption of what rights they are buying, it's our job to make sure they
understand that we provide full scale artwork in a usable format within
our pricing or that it won't be available to them.

I sure I addressed this wrong earlier, it's not about whether we charge extra
for a file, don't charge give it to them for free, but we as a shop owner must make
them aware of our policies.
A client may have purchased shirts before from a different shop and was given
a DVD without even asking, so he assumes that is standard practice. Next shop
doesn't inform him up front that they don't do that and now he's upset
because he was expecting it.

We can handle this senario any why we like, just make it clear to our clients
and it will help our industry as a whole.


One last thing (I know FINALLY!:D)

In the days of film the photographer had a safer way to store and handle it
plus, just as today he was involved with the quality control the prints. If we made
terrible prints on our own and someone sees them he thinks
"what a bad photographer" I would never hire them. Even a
large portrait place will give you a release to make as many copies or what ever you want to do (Olin Mills)
with there prints all you have to do is ask. In return they tell you to remove
their logo off the bottom of the print, basically they don't have control of the
quality you produce so that is why they handle it that way.


We can address these issues anyway we want, the problem arise when both sides ASSUME something different.

[Doug Griffith]

I agree with you Doug. I have also designed many a logos for people's lobby's that are legally now my property, however, when asked, I always provide the file and never ask for more money. I think the entire system is one of the stupidest things I have spend any time studying.

If I hire you to photograph my wedding, what exactly did you think I wanted? To be held hostage to you for the rest of my life if I want reprints? No. I hired you to record a special moment. I didn't hire you to create a masterpiece of a photo that I would never been able to use without your permission. I hired you to take photographs. To me, at the end of the job, you should hand me all negatives or digital proofs and you should never have to see me again and I should never have to see you again, unless we both desire.

Let's see, you are the "master artist" capturing photos of us. Well, let's see, how great would those photos be if it didn't have the people in it? Without you, we have no photos, without us, you have no one to photograph. He's a deal, you tell me a price, I'll pay it, we'll both be happy. Instead, I pay you, you own the photos, I can't even reproduce a photograph of my OWN wedding because some stranger owns it. That stranger may select to never do anything else for me ever again, in which case, I have no way to have photos created of an event that has passed because someone else owns them :mad:

I agree with you Steve.


Dumbest thing I have ever heard. But, it's the law.
It is only the "law" if the creator chooses to enforce it. I never would.

Robert, photographs are art. I don't think anyone here is contesting that. It's the act of restricting usage rights that rubs people the wrong way. As long as a customer goes into it knowing exactly what they get, then the photographer can do business however they choose. The customer can go elsewhere if rights are retained.

This post has gone off topic a bit. I see a logo as a completely different animal. It is a form of branding and should be treated as such. The customer is buying the brand and not the physical artwork or file. It should be given to the customer in whatever format they need with no restrictions.

As for myself, I'm first and foremost a freelance designer/product engineer. After that, I'm a freelance programmer. The laser is just a tool in my toolbox. I've given away so many photos, logos, designs, CAD, programming, etc... with no rights restrictions over the years that I can't even count it all. Now, I've got so many jobs thrown at me, I have to turn a lot down because there aren't enough hours in the day. Most of it repeat customers. I don't think this would be the case if I had restrictions in place.

[Martin Boekers]

We purchase things everyday that our are rights
are limited in use. Music for example why after I purchase a CD I can't
play it in my workplace (see ASCAP BMI) without paying additional fees?
We are limited in how we can use or listen to it, can't copy too many times,
Shoot if I have a band I can't even play my own rendition of a song
without paying a fee! (see Springsteen)
can't share it with friends. Same with movies and DVDs or cable.

Look at software we use similar restraints. I buy the software why can't
I use it on two, three or more machines? Because they only sold us certain rights.


There are many things that we buy and use everyday that have similar
constraints. So this is not unusual.

We can make the choice in our purchases, we have that right. We were
informed at the time of purchase what our limitations to do with the
product. If we agree fine if not we can choose not to purchase it.

I used to see a rock group called the Morells quite a few years back,
on the outside cover of their album "Shake N Push" they put this
disclamer; It is expressly forbidden to copy this album unless you use
really good tape" I always got a kick out their humor with this:D

[Joseph Tovar]

Sidenote...
In regards to taking photos of public events (little league game, or wedding party in a park) no model release is required. If it's on private property, that's another story. Having a model release is always a good idea of course.



Good to know...

I was wondering how photographers go into clubs and such, take a bunch of photos of people hanging out and dancing and the post all the photos online for them to purchase. This wasn't something the people asked for or sign waivers for. It reminds me of a theme park, where you walk in and they take your picture and hand you a ticket. Later on you can walk over and buy the picture if you like.

[Martin Boekers]

Here's the video clip :

http://wimp.com/freeculture/


Great clip worth watching! I did realize so many industries reject copyrights!

Definatetly worth looking into.

[Chuck Stone]

I think there are a few different crowds here...

One that see's graphics as something that drives our lasers. Without some sort of graphic being involved, the laser doesn't move and no revenue is generated. They just want to be compensated for the time it took to create the graphic. Anyone of us could create this and probably would feel guilty for charging for it:

http://deals.sweethype.com/files/stick%20figure.jpg




Do you have this in Version X3? :p

[Dee Gallo]

Forget it Chuck, it's copyrighted

[Chuck Stone]

Oh. ok. then can you just PM it to me so nobody will know?

[Robert Walters]

Do you have this in Version X3? :p

Chuck,

Yes, but since you are in violation of copyright infringement as well as distribution of copyrighted works (1200+ and last thread read count), you are so screwed!

You will me hearing from my attorneys...
From the law offices of Larry, Moe, and Curly!

yuk yuk yuk

[Martin Boekers]

Chuck,

Yes, but since you are in violation of copyright infringement as well as distribution of copyrighted works (1200+ and last thread read count), you are so screwed!

You will me hearing from my attorneys...
From the law offices of Larry, Moe, and Curly!

yuk yuk yuk

Hmmmmm just wondering if there are laws about conspiring to violate
copyright laws, or crossing state lines or using the Post Office:eek::D:D:D

[Chuck Stone]

Hmmmmm just wondering if there are laws about conspiring to violate
copyright laws, or crossing state lines or using the Post Office:eek::D:D:D

Yes.. especially if the stick figure is underage

[Joseph Tovar]

I just received an email today from Impressions magazine and one of the articles talks about Intellectual Property and who owns what. What I found interesting were these 2 lines:

2. What the law says: U.S. copyright law says whoever creates it, owns it — unless rights were transferred as part of a sale or agreement, or the artwork or digitizing was clearly performed on a “work-for-hire” basis.

3. How the paperwork is written: If you write on your invoice “Art Charge” or “Digitizing Charge,” your customer owns it. If you, however, write “Art Preparation Charge” or “Digitizing Preparation Charge,” in most cases you own it, especially because you’ve clarified the matter with appropriate written policy. Said policy clearly states who owns what.

So if I get this right. If you are soley hired to create the artwork or digitize it..."work-for-hire", the artwork belongs to the customer?

And on the second part, how does the "Art Preparation Charge" vs the "Art Charge" change who the owner is?

You can read the Part 1 of the article here:
http://www.impressionsmag.com/impressions/business-resources/Off-the-Cuff-Who-Ow-981.shtml

[Robert Walters]

how does the "Art Preparation Charge" vs the "Art Charge" change who the owner is?


"Art Charge"
This is you being paid for the commission of artwork.


"Art Preparation Charge"
This is you getting paid to prepare the artwork you created for running on the laser. It could as simple as entering each players name and the logo you created in the middle. The artwork is yours. They are paying for ONLY the tangible good you created for them.

[Martin Boekers]

"Art Charge"
This is you being paid for the commission of artwork.


"Art Preparation Charge"
This is you getting paid to prepare the artwork you created for running on the laser. It could as simple as entering each players name and the logo you created in the middle. The artwork is yours. They are paying for ONLY the tangible good you created for them.


That is it in a nutshell, Art Prep Charge can also include the conversions that we do to get it to engrave properly such as converting to B&W,
adjusting color and contrast, Photograv conversions.

I do have clients that have asked me for those conversions in rare events I will provide them with it. Typically I don't and I explain to them that it's not our policy not only that but the conversions are
geared for our set up and systems and may not work properly with others setups.

[Bill Cunningham]

I have this statement on my 'terms' webpage

"All dies, tools, molds, film, artwork produced by us, etc., are proprietary and are for the exclusive use of the original customer. All dies, tools, etc. are kept for five years. After five years dies, molds, artwork, etc. deemed "inactive" may be destroyed.

This was mostly for the customer that was charged a 'die' charge for hot stamping, and thinks that because he/she paid a die charge, the die belongs to him/her. It does not. However, it will not be used by anyone else. I.E. the original customer goes to another dealer who I do trade work for, and wants to buy the product through the other dealer, the other dealer is a new customer, and will have to pay another die charge because he is not the original customer and has no rights to the original tooling or designs.

TRADEMARK, COPYRIGHTS, PATENTS AND REGISTRATION MARKS
We assume clients are authorized to use the Trademark, copyrights, registration marks, etc., presented to us for reproduction. We assume no liability in copyright, trademark or patent disputes. The Customer agrees to assume all liability resulting from any actions or demands brought against us in trademark, copyright, registration marks, patent infringements or disputes. There are also many common logos and other copyrighted designs that we will not reproduce without written permission from the copyright owner.

The first part hopefully covers us for most logos/artwork/etc.. The second part is for the 50 times a year I get asked to reproduce the Harley Davidson logo, or something from Disney. I've never seen a customer who has received permission from either of these companies. Most of the beer companies don't seem to have a problem with one-off items, for someones personal bar, but I still have the customer supply me with a letter giving the customer permission for the clearly identified use. If I have any doubts what-so-ever, I refuse the job, and I've refused plenty over the past 21 years.

[Chuck Stone]

The first part hopefully covers us for most logos/artwork/etc.. The second part is for the 50 times a year I get asked to reproduce the Harley Davidson logo, or something from Disney.

While you and probably the rest of us here understand what the second
clause means, I wonder if you might be opening yourself up to some trouble
by using it.

although it seems (on the face of it) that you are making EXTRA sure that
you won't do anything illegal, the fact that you specifically mention not
duplicating copyrighted works for SOME companies without written consent
might make it look like you really WILL duplicate other works that you
shouldn't.

In other words.. even though you have this limitation of liability, the law
says that you are responsible for due diligence. By separating the items
into two groups and assigning the responsibility to the customer, you
are in effect saying that you pretty much KNOW that the customer isn't
getting permission for most of the work .. but you'll probably never get
sued over it so you're not worried.
But the other 50 or so .. on those, you're going to insist on having the
proper paperwork because you know you'll need it.. which could be seen
as a tacit admission that you are violating copyright on the others.
(otherwise, you'd insist on this written permission from everyone, not just
the people known to have more lawyers than relatives)

Just playing Devil's advocate here ..

[Dan Hintz]

TRADEMARK, COPYRIGHTS, PATENTS AND REGISTRATION MARKS
We assume clients are authorized to use the Trademark, copyrights, registration marks, etc., presented to us for reproduction. We assume no liability in copyright, trademark or patent disputes. The Customer agrees to assume all liability resulting from any actions or demands brought against us in trademark, copyright, registration marks, patent infringements or disputes. There are also many common logos and other copyrighted designs that we will not reproduce without written permission from the copyright owner.
Bill,

A couple of points...

Your first and second use of the word "assume" have drastically different meanings. In the second case, "assume" means to "take responsibility of" and is perfectly acceptable in its use there. The first use, however, means "believe without proof", and that will get you into all kinds of trouble... I highly suggest changing that one. Going into court, you don't want to tell the judge "we assumed the work was legal."

Your last line, "There are also many common logos... that we will not reproduce..." is non-committal and can be read as "There are some copyrighted logos we will reproduce...". I suggest changing that, as well, to something more like "We will not reproduce any copyrighted materials without written permission from the copyright owner."

[Larry Bratton]

Bill,

A couple of points...

Your first and second use of the word "assume" have drastically different meanings. In the second case, "assume" means to "take responsibility of" and is perfectly acceptable in its use there. The first use, however, means "believe without proof", and that will get you into all kinds of trouble... I highly suggest changing that one. Going into court, you don't want to tell the judge "we assumed the work was legal."

Your last line, "There are also many common logos... that we will not reproduce..." is non-committal and can be read as "There are some copyrighted logos we will reproduce...". I suggest changing that, as well, to something more like "We will not reproduce any copyrighted materials without written permission from the copyright owner."
There is an old saying about the word assume...break it down...you assume..you make an ass (out of) u and me. Holds true most of the time too.

[Bill Cunningham]

Bill,

A couple of points...

Your first and second use of the word "assume" have drastically different meanings. In the second case, "assume" means to "take responsibility of" and is perfectly acceptable in its use there. The first use, however, means "believe without proof", and that will get you into all kinds of trouble... I highly suggest changing that one. Going into court, you don't want to tell the judge "we assumed the work was legal."

Your last line, "There are also many common logos... that we will not reproduce..." is non-committal and can be read as "There are some copyrighted logos we will reproduce...". I suggest changing that, as well, to something more like "We will not reproduce any copyrighted materials without written permission from the copyright owner."

There 'are' some copyrighted logos I 'will' reproduce. These are usually the beer company logos, that come with permission on their letterhead for the 'one off' use the customer has requested. Stella Artois is one that comes to mind, and has on several occasions given this permission for personal home bar decorating use. However, the two most requested, the Harley and the Disney Corp are two that will not, so the customer should not even ask and if they do have permission, it's probably fake.. It's all a pretty moot point anyway, because 'customers do not read'. If you think I'm kidding, send your customer to a web page that explains in simple lay terms what is required in artwork, to do the best job. Then, sit back and wait for the clipart they 'right clicked' off the web someplace, to come your way with the question "will this work?" My terms page is up there, but only gets about 1 or two hits a year. My site gets 3000+ page loads a month. Customers in most cases are the same as students. My personal experience with many students, is if you want to keep a secret from a student, write it down and hand it to him, because he will never read it! Reading and reading comprehension is becoming a lost art, so I'm not really worried. Most will just wait for the video :D

[Chuck Stone]

My personal experience with many students, is if you want to keep a secret from a student, write it down and hand it to him, because he will never read it! Reading and reading comprehension is becoming a lost art, so I'm not really worried. Most will just wait for the video :D

Ah .. has the day finally come where all "Terms of Service" must be Tweeted?

[Bill Cunningham]

Ah .. has the day finally come where all "Terms of Service" must be Tweeted?


Ahh there see!!! I would never even have thought of that.. My kids think it's a real hoot watching Dad take 30 minutes figuring out the keystrokes to poke up a one line text message on my seldom used cellphone.. :D I think I now have a $350.00 balance on it, and they keep adding 25 bucks every two months..

[Chuck Stone]

My kids think it's a real hoot watching Dad take 30 minutes figuring out the keystrokes to poke up a one line text message on my seldom used cellphone.. .. just tell them you're typing out your will

[Bill Cunningham]

.. just tell them you're typing out your will

Ya!! I'll leave them my phone, it'll be worth more than any thing else I own..