Wallah done, perfect results.

[James Jaragosky]

Well I finely broke down and purchased some vector images. (I wanted the limited reproduction rights that came with the art.) Up until this point I have been doing the vectoring of an image myself with limited and mixed results.
Some images taking me mere minutes, and returning excellent results and others taking me hours and sometimes days with less than stellar results.
But I am officially spoiled. WOW how nice it is to just load an image, resize it send it through photograV then Pass it to the laser. Wallah done, perfect results.
Too bad vectormagic (http://vectormagic.stanford.edu/) is hit and miss, or I would run all my images through it just to have a vector copy of everything I own.


happy in Indiana
Jim

[Brian Robison]

Voila?:D
Where did you get your vector art?

[James Jaragosky]

·I got some from Sign torch (http://www.signtorch.com/) off ebay for around $50.
·And I bought some from a guy on eBay, sports logos & flags.
His name is Bryan C. Roberts’s. company name of Shock-me electronics
Bryans stuff came right away, but I couldn’t open it in Corel x 3.
I had a copy of adobe cs and that opened it just fine. It is what I used before I had to start learning Corel x 3 for the laser. This is the link to the auction I won (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160188002831).
Any way I needed the Florida gators logo for a friend for a Christmas gift and was uncomfortable filching the logo off the net, so I bought it for the limited reproduction rights.
So much for a cheap hand made gifts, after logo cost & lumber. o-well the loml just thought it would be cheaper to give hand made gifts from us this year.
well its not that cheap, and if hand made by us means, hand made by me, well she is at least half right.
Jim J

[Joe Pelonio]

James,

I took a look at that auction. The trouble is, he doesn't say whether he has the rights to all of those images. Even if he does, you cannot legally use them without written permission from each team and league represented. The way copyright law works, you should only buy images that a person created, is not copyrighted, or before buying see the written evidence that he owns the rights and has permission to sell them. otherwise these copyright owners can come after you with a lawsuit and sports leagues have plenty of legal staff for that. Even books of images to scan cannot be used in anything sold without written permission and that is often given with restrictions, like the permission I have from Dover Publishing to use their clipart is maximum 10 items made/sold per image.

[Larry Bratton]

James,

I took a look at that auction. The trouble is, he doesn't say whether he has the rights to all of those images. Even if he does, you cannot legally use them without written permission from each team and league represented. The way copyright law works, you should only buy images that a person created, is not copyrighted, or before buying see the written evidence that he owns the rights and has permission to sell them. otherwise these copyright owners can come after you with a lawsuit and sports leagues have plenty of legal staff for that. Even books of images to scan cannot be used in anything sold without written permission and that is often given with restrictions, like the permission I have from Dover Publishing to use their clipart is maximum 10 items made/sold per image.
Joe:
Do you seriously believe that a sports team or whatever would spend huge amounts of money on legal fees to come after someone using an occasional logo especially for a gift? I'm not being facitious here, I'm just asking do you know of any instances where this has occurred? I could understand that if someone had a thriving enterprise using pirated logos but otherwise it would surprise me. All products with a college logo being sold commercially have to be licensed by..who is it..Collegiate Licensing Co. right?

[Garry McKinney]

Larry ,


Do you seriously believe that a sports team or whatever would spend huge amounts of money on legal fees to come after someone using an occasional logo especially for a gift? I'm not being facitious here, I'm just asking do you know of any instances where this has occurred?

That is a simple yes. They are required by law to do so or lose their legal rights to the copyrights. I can tell you that Harley Davidson, the NFL, NHL, Ford, GM ,the other auto makers and the national goverment are all very active in doing so.

There is a man in Baltimore that made two Santa's with the Harley logo on them , he received a letter informing him to stop or find himself in court.

Copyright laws are tricky.
Garry

[Joe Pelonio]

Joe:
Do you seriously believe that a sports team or whatever would spend huge amounts of money on legal fees to come after someone using an occasional logo especially for a gift? I'm not being facitious here, I'm just asking do you know of any instances where this has occurred? I could understand that if someone had a thriving enterprise using pirated logos but otherwise it would surprise me.
Yes, they will come after anyone if they find out about it. As you suggest, if they don't find out then people get away with it, but it's still illegal.

I used to work with former Raider John Vella on some local youth sports groups in Castro Valley, CA. He had a store that he called "Raiders Locker Room" where he sold memorabilia. The NFL sued him, and he had to agree not to use the word "Raiders" on his signs, advertisements and Web site.

Here's an example where a little league got into trouble with both
MLB and NCAA:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CRYING+FOUL+BALKING+AT+MAJOR+LEAGUE+BASEBALL'S+HIG H-FLYING+LICENSING...-a0161529325

There was a case where Disney was suing someone for putting Winnie the Pooh on the headstone of a deceased baby, and they only dropped it after a huge public outcry.

[Larry Bratton]

Yes, they will come after anyone if they find out about it. As you suggest, if they don't find out then people get away with it, but it's still illegal.

I used to work with former Raider John Vella on some local youth sports groups in Castro Valley, CA. He had a store that he called "Raiders Locker Room" where he sold memorabilia. The NFL sued him, and he had to agree not to use the word "Raiders" on his signs, advertisements and Web site.

Here's an example where a little league got into trouble with both
MLB and NCAA:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CRYING+FOUL+BALKING+AT+MAJOR+LEAGUE+BASEBALL'S+HIG H-FLYING+LICENSING...-a0161529325

There was a case where Disney was suing someone for putting Winnie the Pooh on the headstone of a deceased baby, and they only dropped it after a huge public outcry.
Sigh...complicated world ain't it?

[Mike Hood]

I can tell ya from personal experience...

I had John Deere come after me when I used to do eBay. I was selling a pretty looking "Country Girl" decal in a metalic vinyl... sold tons of them for a few weeks. I was using a "jumping deere" which they have copyrighted.

Next thing I know I've got a really official letter from their head legal counsel. Hand signed and certified... "Cease and Desist" ... and I did.. :)

Be very careful. Many companies protect copyright very aggressively. I learned a bit from the guy who came after me. Apparently, many have whole teams of young interns searching the Internet for folks abusing their copyright. Finding the little guys like me was just part of working their way up the ladder she said. Nothing personal, just business. It was actually quite informative... a bit scary... but informative... :)

[Micheal Donnellan]

The whole copyright thing is too open to abuse at times by the bigger corps. Like the evil mouse and mad bikers. The mouse is one Id like to put in a mousetrap, way too much power and influnece where it matters. I think copyright should be eased a lot. I make a sign (my design), I sell the sign I am considered selling the copyright of said sign to the buyer. I know graphic designers who charge manytimes what I would charge and still refuse to hand over the copyright. You got paid $$$$$ now hand it over.

[Garry McKinney]

Michael ,
That isn't quite right. If you sell the sign you sell the product, not the design. The design is your's unless you agrreed to give up the design rights.
The design , and the pattern used are yours as the designer.

You give up no rights to use that design over and over again.

If you purchase the rights to a pattern, you have the right to use the patterns to produce a product from those patterns. Then you have the right to sell the finished product.

The pattern is still owned by the orginial copyrighter. You do not sell the pattern. To give, or to say you sell the pattern is an infringement of the copywrite.

Some work is given with restriction, Logo's, trademarks and peoples faces, are all restricted. Reproduction of any of these without the premisson to use them is a violation of copyright.

But a legally made design , made by you, is instantly copywrited to you with all rights. If you registered it or not. The same as all photographs , if you take a photo you own the copywrite on that photo.

[Chris Padilla]

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=71757

Check this thread out that I just posted. This guy is creating a picture of, I believe, Leonardo da Vinci, out of nothing but nails. What are the 'copyrights' involved in doing something like this? I've also seen pictures of the Beatles' faces done in tiles at some art display museums. How do those work? Just curious.

[Garry McKinney]

Wow , That is awesome.

For the copyright laws, The law would fall to the orginial photo used. If it was in public domain.. which since the orginial was done by Da Vinci it could easily be or taken from a goverment photo, that fits into public domain, the piece would be consider an orginial. The finished work would be copywrite protected by the artist.

If someone else wanted to do the samething, as long as the public domain image was used and not the newly created piece was used there would be no infrigement on the using of the new work produced. But if the artist made a pattern to place the nails , and that pattern was used to make a copy of the nailed finished piece then an infrigement took place and is a against the law.

[Joe Pelonio]

Wow , That is awesome.

For the copyright laws, The law would fall to the orginial photo used. If it was in public domain.. which since the orginial was done by Da Vinci it could easily be or taken from a goverment photo, that fits into public domain, the piece would be consider an orginial. The finished work would be copywrite protected by the artist.

If someone else wanted to do the samething, as long as the public domain image was used and not the newly created piece was used there would be no infrigement on the using of the new work produced. But if the artist made a pattern to place the nails , and that pattern was used to make a copy of the nailed finished piece then an infrigement took place and is a against the law.

To put it another way, if you go to an art gallery you will often find students sketching the work of the great masters. They are allowed to do that because it's their interpretation of something on public display. What they do with that is up to them because they will own it, as long as they don't try to pass it off as the original, which is forgery.

Some galleries even allow the use of cameras, for their perm. collection (not for loaned art). I wonder if that gives the photographer the right to publish the photos or use them for laser work, since he owns the photos?

[Garry McKinney]

Joe,
Yes it does, because he would be using his photos. If he want to make them into a book it would be his right to do so. Like going to a zoo and taking photos of animals , take the photo and turn it into a pattern, it becomes copyrighted work of the one that took the photo and made the pattern. I will add to this, with one concept that is often missed, basically everything on the internet is copyrighted. Unless the site gives up the rights. The reason being there is nothing on the internet that is old enough to be in public domain by age. Often items are copied without permission of the owner, then spread acroos the net. The copyrights are still in effect, unless the owner releases them.

[Scott Shepherd]

Like going to a zoo and taking photos of animals , take the photo and turn it into a pattern, it becomes copyrighted work of the one that took the photo and made the pattern.

Unless it's the Smithsonian Zoo, which permits the use of photos of their animals in any way to make money, unless I'm misunderstanding their policy. I go up there and take pictures a couple of times a year, but you can't do anything with them, other than enjoy them and display them in your own home.

[Micheal Donnellan]

I am on about signs I design and make myself the logos and styles are usually created by self. The normal assumption is when you sell the piece you are selling all claims to the copyright as well. This is assumed to be the norm. I might make the design and their logo but to the company, they paid you for "their" sign and you design and make it that’s the end of it. Next sign they make they might go to your rival and he will use your design as its theirs now. This is very annoying when you do a design mockup for approval and see the sign made by another company after you being told it "wasn’t right" or they simply never get back to you.

-----
Working with logos and trademarks is a pain as you have to assume they have the permission to use the blasted things. I don’t do work of the evil mouse or the bikers due to them being nuts
-----
Chris
The guy is a genius and screwing with his creativity over copyright is not something I approve of. The guy has the skill to make it which should be appreciated and not stomped on.
-----
The evil mouse would try to take the guys house from him instead of just paying him for the work (mouse related). Better to get someone like that working for you instead of being the ogre and getting people against you. Childs gravestone and other harmless stuff come to mind.
-----

[Garry McKinney]

Micheal,

Assumption is a good wood. But they assumed incorrectly. You own the design unless they gave it to you. Which they did not. As such the bad news the only way to correct the issue is to go to court, which cost money. The good news is if you win in court, you are intitled, to payment for the design use, still retain ownership and they have to pay all court cost and lawyer fees.

And yes we actively go after design copyright infringement.

I think I spend half my life asking for permission and I get turn down a lot or asked to pay fees , which we often pay.

Scott,
I have not been there is a long time. But I did find out that policy only became effective in 1985. So pre 85 photos are not under the fee agreement. I wonder what the fee is , amazing that a goverment park can encouarage photo and then restict them like that.

[Bill Cunningham]

I can tell ya from personal experience...

I had John Deere come after me when I used to do eBay. I was selling a pretty looking "Country Girl" decal in a metalic vinyl... sold tons of them for a few weeks. I was using a "jumping deere" which they have copyrighted.

Next thing I know I've got a really official letter from their head legal counsel. Hand signed and certified... "Cease and Desist" ... and I did.. :)

Be very careful. Many companies protect copyright very aggressively. I learned a bit from the guy who came after me. Apparently, many have whole teams of young interns searching the Internet for folks abusing their copyright. Finding the little guys like me was just part of working their way up the ladder she said. Nothing personal, just business. It was actually quite informative... a bit scary... but informative... :)

I guess John Deere will be pee'd off at the Canadian Post Office then Eh!

[James Jaragosky]

DRM attachment for my laser?:rolleyes:

[Micheal Donnellan]

Going to court seems to be the answer to everything in America. I want to keep what customers I have and not get Blacklisted by businesses in the area for being so “badminded” as to sue someone over a design. American is in my view obsessed with suing people left right and centre for stupid reasons 99% of the time. I believe this “culture” is starting to mess with our “you got screwed live with it” culture in a bad way. I will stop now as If I aired my views on a lot of copyright and corps I probably be on a watched list for what I would love to happen to them. Dongle/Softdogs are except to a degree from copyright, it buried in the paperwork. I hate them as I have several and they take my ports up. Horrid things that cripple software you are paid through the nose for. If I buy any more crippleware I will have to build a doghouse to but them in. Cost of copying these things is a rip as well especially for older software. “we don’t have that model anymore, you will have to upgrade” I hate those words.

DRM is robbery

[Scott Shepherd]

I was under the assumption that if you created it, it belongs to you, unless you have agreed to sell the rights to it. So if "ZetaTech Software" asks you to create a logo for them, it belongs to you unless they agreed to pay to take ownership. Sounds crazy, but if I recall my photography rights correctly, if you hire a wedding photographer to photograph your wedding, then he/she own the rights to those photos. Of course he/she can't publish them without your written consent (which you probably gave by signing the contract), but the photos, even though of your wedding, do NOT belong to you.

I've seen many a discussions about this on photography forums and from what I recall, it's very clear. If you take the photo, it belongs to you, even if you were hired to take the photograph, unless you agreed to transfer ownership to them.

Does all sound crazy, but it's the way I understand it.

[Joe Pelonio]

I was under the assumption that if you created it, it belongs to you, unless you have agreed to sell the rights to it. So if "ZetaTech Software" asks you to create a logo for them, it belongs to you unless they agreed to pay to take ownership.

That is correct, and important for sign makers. A graphic artist will charge thousands to create a logo. When I had them as employees I would offer the service at $100/hour and give the employee a bonus since it was well beyond the scope of what I paid them for normally. Most of them ended up leaving my employ to become graphic designers eventually and this gave them some good experience.

If the customer wants it to be given to them in a form they can use for other media that I don't do, then they have to pay additional for that too. Once that's done, I figure they own it and would not sue them to use it, since I gave them the files.

[Micheal Donnellan]

back to topic
Signtorch guy seems to have good it whats the overall opinion on the quality of the images for cutting engraving.
I bought vector outilnes a while back of vehicles (european) a few hunded paid for the "industry quality" outiles as I wanted to have professional mockups made with nice cleans lines. Guess what customers dont like it. The quick paintshop photo mockup works better for them as they can see their van/car with the sign/logo/graphics, the simple lines seen I think too abstract for them. I have played with texture mapping 3D models but the simple photo seems to do the job.
Getting "good" vectors for cutting with a plotter my masin machine is a pain. As sometimes you are supplied with webimages or a vector made for printing with hidden lines all over the place. Still nothing like getting a 1 inch square crap printout and converting it into big custome work that pus a big smile on customers face and cash in your pocket.