A BCM reader is looking for the issue than ran an article on Johnny Cash and his bus. He's looking to mirror the exterior paint scheme on his MC9. Does anyone have this magazine and/or know the month and year it was published?
Thanks,
Treasure Hunter
Chad
BCM Editor
this doesn't help with the issue you are looking for but might help in finding the bus in question ,http://www.imcdb.org/ cash's bus was used in a few movies and will be located on this site,hope it helps.
Van
or you can go to the Rock and Roll hall of fame where it lives
Also doesn't help find the issue, but Google image search has quite a few pictures located:
http://images.google.com/images?q=%22Johnny%20Cash's%20tour%20bus%22
quick answer .... 6' under. I often remember pay toilets when I hear him sing. great aritis.. rip :o
Quote from: JeromeBettis on March 07, 2009, 08:46:38 AM
... He's looking to mirror the exterior paint scheme on his MC9. ...
Just finding the article or some pictures will not be enough.
Paint schemes on coaches are nearly universally copyrighted works of the original artist. In order to "mirror" the paint scheme of such a coach, you would need permission from the original artist (or his or her estate, if deceased). Copyright protection in such works lasts for the life of the original artist plus 70 years.
In some cases, the artwork is considered a "work for hire" and the copyright then vests in the purchaser, or the original artist may have assigned the rights to the purchaser. So, in the case of the Cash bus, it is possible that the design of the paint scheme may belong to the estate of Johnny Cash. In this case, you would need permission from them.
In the case of "tribute" art, it is generally up to the courts to decide how much re-use of design elements, colors, and overall arrangement constitutes "infringement."
Bear in mind that, in the case of celebrities, many have registered their "likeness" as a protected property. So if you are a Johnny Cash fan, even hiring someone to paint, say, a giant portrait of Cash on your bus may require written permission from the Cash estate.
This is all a very complex area of the law, and I am not an attorney. But I strongly advise anyone interested in "copying" any coach, especially a celebrity coach, to consult one before proceeding, or to obtain the required permissions.
-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
That MCI has been sold 3 times with the same paint scheme so who owns the rights to the paint scheme good luck
Quote from: luvrbus on March 07, 2009, 12:44:07 PM
That MCI has been sold 3 times with the same paint scheme so who owns the rights to the paint scheme good luck
The fact that it has been sold (any number of times) does not "release" all copyright interest in the work.
If you go down to an art gallery and buy a painting by say, Thomas Kincaid, what you own is the canvas and the representation thereon -- not the design, which still belongs to Kincaid. The fact that you bought the painting does not give you the right to, for example, copy it.
You do, of course, have the right to sell the painting to someone else. But, even after the sale, Kincaid still owns the design, and neither you, nor the person you sold it to, can rightfully copy the painting. The painting can be sold over and over again, but Kincaid, as the original artist, still retains the exclusive rights to the design -- only he can decide to make a copy of the painting.
A bus is no different than that "canvas" the painting is on. The original artist holds the original rights, unless it is a "work for hire," in which case the "employer" of that artist retains it. For example, John Stahr, now a fairly famous coach painter in his own right, used to work for Marathon Coach. All the designs he created at Marathon belong to Marathon. And, yes, those coaches have, in most cases, been sold many times over. But no one else can copy those paint schemes onto another coach without express permission of Marathon, no matter how many times the original coaches are bought and sold.
To answer your question, "who owns the rights" now, the answer depends on how the original work was done. Again, it will either be the original artist, the original converter, or the Cash estate, unless whichever of those three held them "assigned" them to the purchaser(s) of the coach (unlikely).
-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
So what you are telling me is that the design of my paint job done by John Starr and Mike Wilson the rights belong to me even with their names on the paint job. good luck
Quote from: luvrbus on March 07, 2009, 01:09:11 PM
So what you are telling me is that the design of my paint job done by John Starr and Mike Wilson the rights belong to me even with their names on the paint job.
No, what I said was that the rights continue to belong to the artist, unless they have assigned them to you, or you were their "employer" as that termed is defined in the law.
-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
I was the one that parted with the cash so that would make me the "employer" good luck
Man don't ya'll have anything better to do than to always find a way to discourage another from doing what he wants to do?
Sean the local bus shop just had a customer bring in thier XL for repaint and along with it, they brought in a picture of a bus with a particar paint scheme to copy it exactly onto thiers! Guess what? Job done and they are happier than 2 pigs in the mud!
When I was machining aftermarket race parts for our race cars, there were plenty of other racers that copied my pieces only to find that mine were better! Why? They only copied from a piece! They didn't have the actuall program to get them "exact" which brings up my point. Although copied, it will NEVER be EXACTLY the same!
Take counterfiet money for instance!
Looks good, feels good, and sometimes spends good but, there is ALWAYS that one little thing that keeps it from being EXACT!
Ace
Ace, that is the way my Prevost was done I took a picture of a Marathon I liked and Vogue did the same paint job colors and graphics good luck
Careful Ace ,other wise this copy right enforcer will start splitting hairs over something on your rig LMAO ;D
Sean,will you please let it go,and quit pissin on some one's parade already.Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,and copying a deceased music stars bus paint job is an example of that! Unless there is some form of criminal intent associated with the copied paint scheme ,all that legal B.S you just posted ain't got a leg to stand on,and belongs some where else !
Quote from: van on March 07, 2009, 02:00:37 PM
Sean,will you please let it go,and quit pissin on some one's parade already.Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,and copying a deceased music stars bus paint job is an example of that! Unless there is some form of criminal intent associated with the copied paint scheme ,all that legal B.S you just posted ain't got a leg to stand on,and belongs some where else !
That's absolutely not true. Many, many people who copied another artist's work as a form of "flattery" found themselves in trouble over it -- a quick search of the Internet will reveal thousands of cases.
As I wrote in my original post, "tribute art" becomes a case-by-case judgment as to whether it infringes or not. The same goes for "fair use." And it has nothing whatsoever to do with "criminal intent" or even "commercial use." A copyright holder has complete and undeniable control over what is done with his or her work, period.
If what you wrote was true, then anyone could make copies of, for example, a Thomas Kincaid painting, or a best-selling book (and I am not talking about, here, those allowed under "fair use").
Quote from: Blacksheep on March 07, 2009, 01:37:39 PM
Man don't ya'll have anything better to do than to always find a way to discourage another from doing what he wants to do?
I'm not "discouraging" it, Ace, I'm "informing." I'd hate to see anyone spend ten to twenty grand on a paint job, only to find out later that they'll need to pay the piper for the copyright infringement. If, after reading my post, and possibly conducting whatever research they choose on their own (up to and including consulting with an attorney, as I recommended), this person chooses to go ahead and copy the paint job, I'm not going to be the one to stop him or turn him in. But he deserves to go into it with his eyes open, and full knowledge that he may be infringing on a protected work.
The fact that
you choose not to enforce your intellectual property rights when someone, say, copies your part designs (when such designs are protectable -- copyright clearly applies to works of art, but works of engineering are a more complex matter), does not mean that no one else will. Again, history is replete with cases where the artist chose to pursue enforcement, often at great expense to the infringer. In many of those cases, the infringer did not even realize, at the time, that they were infringing on a protected work. Courts have ruled that such ignorance does not preclude the copyright holder from being justly compensated for the infringement.
Quote from: luvrbus on March 07, 2009, 01:31:43 PM
I was the one that parted with the cash so that would make me the "employer"
Not necessarily. It depends on how your agreement, whether written or not, was worded. In most cases, when you contract with an artist to produce a work of art, the artist still retains the original rights, and the purchaser does not. For example, in quite a number of public and private buildings, even the city of Chicago, you will find mobiles and stabiles by famed artist Sandy Calder. Generally speaking, Calder produced those works for the buyers on contract. But that does not endow, say, the city of Chicago with the right to reproduce the famous stabile there, or Stevens Tech to reproduce the mobile hanging in its library. Calder (now his estate) still retains the exclusive rights to those works.
If these guys were "working" for you in the sense that you paid them wages (reported on a W-2), paid employment taxes for them, etc., then, yes, they were your employees and you retain the rights. Otherwise, they retain the rights, although they may choose to assign them to you, for example, if you had agreed to that in the contract. Generally, when I commission a work, I insist on having the rights assigned to me. I had a hell of a time, at my first wedding, finding a photographer who would agree to that (try it yourself -- tell a professional wedding photographer that you want the negatives and the rights to all the photos when she's done, and see what she says).
Look, folks, I don't make this stuff up. I am just reporting to you the facts, facts which you may not have thought about (and with which I am intimately familiar through a career dealing in protected works). You can choose to ignore them -- I won't stop you (right up until it happens to be my own intellectual property that becomes infringed). I am not here to debate whether the laws are right or wrong, or whether or not they will be enforced. But just as I won't sit quietly when someone proposes to do something dangerous with their electrical system, I felt I had to at least inform the (currently nameless) individual involved here what he
might be up against.
-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
Sean is right on the mark about copyright law here folks. I used to have a specialty printing business and we had to be very careful when somebody brought us an obviously professional piece of artwork and wanted it printed onto something. I had several customers take the project elsewhere and somebody else would do it. But I was still much more comfortable that we had declined it.
As always, folks often "can" get away with it. You can also drive 85mph down a 65mph highway 364 days in one year and get busted on the 365th day. The ticket will still stand and still take just as big a bite out of the wallet. When you do have to answer for such an infringement, if the copyright owner chooses to go easy, they may only require destruction of the infringing artwork - a new paint job to cover it. But if they choose to, they can pursue substantial damages from both the person commissioning the copy job and the person(s) that actually did it.
The Cash family may consider it flattery, but as Sean pointed out, they may not be the ones owning the copyright. That could be a "starving artist" tired of people copying his work without him getting royalties. In which case you can guess how that would go.
Whats so "special" about Johnny Cash's bus paint job .There doen't appear to be any graphics an artist would do. Looks pretty plain consisting of a few different color stripes.
If that is copyrightable then anyone who paints anything may be in trouble.
Fred. M
Just curious, do you have to file some kind of paperwork with some gov'ment agency to make a copyright "official" or it an automatice thing? If it is automatic, does that means that anything I write cannot be reproduced without my permission (such as using the "quote button" on this BB)? If someone decided to paint their bus using the same design that I used on my bus (I have no idea who would want to), I could sue them? Somehow this just doesn't seem reasonable.
I recall a musician telling me years ago that up to a certain number of bars of a song (I don't remember the number) could be used without infringing on the copyright. I also recall a professional photographer telling me that if he signed a photo he took, it could not be reproduced (legally), but unsigned photos could be legally reproduced. Jack
None of this makes any sense to me you are not copying a book,song or a painting on canvas but painting a bus look at the murals on some of these rigs. Sean's bus was painted by 2 different people who owns the rights to it Mike ,John or Sean it would be like buying a new car and sue because somebody had the same paint job.
Not trying to get a you know what contest going here...however...I took it as Sean providing good and true information to a question posted. Now the person asking the question probably never thought about the copywrite part of it...now he knows and can do as he pleases. Had he gone on and done it...then got busted by the 'copywrite police' it would not be pretty.
I worked for John Deere...they have a bunch of folks that go around to flea markets, and such looking for this type infringement...and they prosecute!
If you want to talk about copywrite problems look up George Harrison's fight about "My Sweet Lord"! Cost him tons in lawyers and he lost the case which cost tons more!
I have lots of friends with patents and copywrites...most will defend them to the max!
My two cents.
Jack
I'm still not buying into it,no one has the patent for a straight line or even a simple curly cue incorporated into a paint scheme.This is all absurd to think I could not paint my bus or any other vehicle the same colors with the same pattern as any one Else's, so long as what was achieved is not being represented as the original artists work.This whole notion of legal doom and gloom because I used the same colors and strips is ridiculous .Mommy,Mommy ,johnny next door has a bicycle like mine (sobbing)make him get rid of it ,I want to be the only one on the block that has that color (sobbing).Should some one come to me and tell me to remove my paint from my bus cause it looks similar to their colors,then you are right there Sean ,It will most likely end up in court but not for the reasons you stated.LMAO ,again.
Van
To set the record straight,I do agree with the copy right infringement aspect of your statement,Sean ,no argument there.Nothing but good info here,If the individual was uninformed as to the legality of copy right violations,I'm sure they are now.Have a great evening,Ya'll
Van
Which bus are you talking about, he had one with a signature worked into the swirl, that one is definently copywrited, he had the same pattern on his stationary but that is the only one that i remember that was unique in any way.
Quote from: JackConrad on March 07, 2009, 03:25:20 PM
... do you have to file some kind of paperwork with some gov'ment agency to make a copyright "official" or it an automatice thing?
It is automatic, as soon as the work is created in "tangible" form. This question, and many others, are answered on the U.S. government's copyright web site: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork)
Quote
If it is automatic, does that means that anything I write cannot be reproduced without my permission (such as using the "quote button" on this BB)?
Yes... "but." There is a doctrine called "fair use" which allows for things like the "quote" button. You are permitted to quote small excerpts from a copyrighted work for the purposes, of say, answering them or providing more detail, so long as the quote is properly "attributed." The software here on the board does the attribution for you automatically -- that's the part with your name in it above the quote I excerpted above.
Now, if I went to, say, a long post you made here on the board about how to build a set of bus ramps, for example, and I copied that post and put it over on my web site, without asking your permission first, then I have, indeed, violated your copyright, and you'd have every right to tell me to take it off, and you could pursue legal remedies against me if I didn't. That sort of copying is not covered by the "fair use" doctrine.
Note that many BBS's ask you to sign over the rights to anything you post; usually, you have to agree to this before membership is granted or you are allowed to post. Most web sites that operate BBS's, for example, Yahoo Groups, have a terms-and-conditions page wherein you acknowledge that once you post there, they will redistribute that material, and you grant them the explicit right to do so. I have to confess, I don't remember the T&Cs here at MAK.
Quote
If someone decided to paint their bus using the same design that I used on my bus (I have no idea who would want to), I could sue them? Somehow this just doesn't seem reasonable.
Whether or not all the paint on your coach constitutes a protected work is open to interpretation by the courts. There is no question that the Cash bus does, or a Marathon. But if you have, say, plain white paint with no design, that can't be copyrighted. If you add, say, a 4" red stripe all the way around, that probably can't be protected either. You have to add unique design elements that you created yourself in order for the work to qualify.
Once it qualifies as a copyrightable "work," yes, you could sue someone for copying it. Whether or not that is "reasonable" is a philosophical debate.
Quote
I recall a musician telling me years ago that up to a certain number of bars of a song (I don't remember the number) could be used without infringing on the copyright.
There are special rules for music based on case law. The statement above is correct.
Quote
I also recall a professional photographer telling me that if he signed a photo he took, it could not be reproduced (legally), but unsigned photos could be legally reproduced. Jack
That would have been a personal decision of the photographer -- he is granting an implicit right to use his photographs if they are not signed (if that's what he told you).
There is no such requirement in the law. When a photographer takes a picture, it is immediately his copyrighted work. He is entitled to charge for its use. Here again, if the photographer is an employee, the rights go to the employer, therefore many photographs are copyrighted by, for instance, Associated Press.
Quote from: Fred Mc on March 07, 2009, 03:18:40 PM
Whats so "special" about Johnny Cash's bus paint job .There doen't appear to be any graphics an artist would do. Looks pretty plain consisting of a few different color stripes.
If that is copyrightable then anyone who paints anything may be in trouble.
Again, how much artistic discretion is used will influence whether the work qualifies for protection. Most one-off and commercial graphic coach paint jobs qualify.
Consider the following scenario: Country Coach comes out with a new motorhome model (and yes, I know they are in Ch. 11), and gives it a "distinctive" paint job. Like most such paint jobs, it consists of a few swooshes, lines, and a couple of different colors. What most of us would look at and say "all these coach paint jobs look alike."
Now Monaco (also ch. 11), just down the street, comes out with a new coach, and, rather than make up their own unique scheme, they simply copy, more or less swoosh-for-swoosh, the Country Coach paint scheme, with almost (but not quite) identical colors.
Can CC sue Monaco for this? You bet they can, and I can guarantee that they will.
Again, people, I don't make this stuff up. You can look it up for yourselves. The government copyright site I linked above has a wealth of information.
-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
My employer considers its color (UPS Brown) to be a trademark. There is a trash company that had a white and brown paint scheme and UPS considered the brown part to be too close to the UPS Brown color. UPS won and the trash company repainted their vehicles. I believe you could get away with a Jonny copy, but it could get costly if there was an issue with it.
Quote from: Sean on March 07, 2009, 12:58:40 PM
Quote from: luvrbus on March 07, 2009, 12:44:07 PM
That MCI has been sold 3 times with the same paint scheme so who owns the rights to the paint scheme good luck
The fact that it has been sold (any number of times) does not "release" all copyright interest in the work.
If you go down to an art gallery and buy a painting by say, Thomas Kincaid, what you own is the canvas and the representation thereon -- not the design, which still belongs to Kincaid. The fact that you bought the painting does not give you the right to, for example, copy it.
You do, of course, have the right to sell the painting to someone else. But, even after the sale, Kincaid still owns the design, and neither you, nor the person you sold it to, can rightfully copy the painting. The painting can be sold over and over again, but Kincaid, as the original artist, still retains the exclusive rights to the design -- only he can decide to make a copy of the painting.
A bus is no different than that "canvas" the painting is on. The original artist holds the original rights, unless it is a "work for hire," in which case the "employer" of that artist retains it. For example, John Stahr, now a fairly famous coach painter in his own right, used to work for Marathon Coach. All the designs he created at Marathon belong to Marathon. And, yes, those coaches have, in most cases, been sold many times over. But no one else can copy those paint schemes onto another coach without express permission of Marathon, no matter how many times the original coaches are bought and sold.
To answer your question, "who owns the rights" now, the answer depends on how the original work was done. Again, it will either be the original artist, the original converter, or the Cash estate, unless whichever of those three held them "assigned" them to the purchaser(s) of the coach (unlikely).
-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
I disagree. If I pay someone to perforn a job for me I own the rights not them, unless stipulated in contract otherwise. The man who invented the xerox machine does not have his name in the patent office xerox does, as the company that was employing him. The same is true of copyright law.
However all you need to do to copyright something is send a copy of it in a letter to yourself and leave it sealed untill the court date. Now if you purchased a piece of art that was made before you compensated the individual this is indeed a frog of a different colour.
Okay guys, first off I don't have a dog in here (it's not a fight ;D ;D ;D).
Sean has been right on. Our laws of the land are exceedingly complex. I know a lot about copyright laws (still not as much as I need to know).
There has been some question about whether if a person pays a artist or photographer, for example, has the rights to the work. The answer is yes and no. It all depends on how the contract is written. If the contract states that the rights go to the buyer (like my brother wrote a book for a national publishing company and in the contract the company got the rights to the book), then the buyer has the rights. If the rights aren't given, then the maker of the art, book, letter, whatever, owns the rights. Example, I know a guy that does wedding photography. A couple will pay thousands of dollars for him to take pictures at their wedding. Unless signed over (which rarely happens) the photographer owns the photo's, even though he was paid to do it, even though the pics were taken of the couple, the pics are still the photographers.
Even if you pay somebody to make something for you, unless spelled out in the contract, you don't own the rights.
Somebody mentioned music. There are specific laws about that too. Portions can be used fine, some can't...
Movies same thing, can use certain portions.
And about written. One usually can use portions as long as there is proper credit given.
I would assume that there is just as much issue with paint jobs, but then again who will be checking. The biggest problem would be if somebody does check...
HTH
God bless,
John
Oh, and I am not saying whether they should paint their bus with that scheme. I was just informing about some of the laws.
It's all bs about the paint you can take a photo of a bus you like to any of the bus painting guys like Wilson, Starr, Starjet or the guy in Mexico and tell them that is what you want go back in 2 weeks and that is what you get no question asked been there done that.Ace has a problem his is the same color as Wille Nelson's bus lol
Looking closer at the sides views available, what I thought looked like there might be some artistic work on the driver side looks more like reflections from something else nearby.
If all there is to it is just the two plain stripes on a solid color, that might be a little more open to copy. The copyright protection case would certainly be tough to win in that case since they would have to prove they were the first to do that stripe pattern/color combination. Not likely possible nor worth the legal expense.
Copyrights are automatic. Filing for a formalized copyright just makes it easy to prosecute infringement, but any creative work is automatically copyrighted by the artist/author. If they end up taking a case to court they have to prove the date they produced it. Essentially, the court will base its decision on whether there is adequate proof that one person's production of it predates the other(s).
On the issue of "work for hire". If a creative person (artist, author, etc.) is contracted to do a job, the contract dictates ownership of the rights, but if it fails to address it, the artist/author retains the rights by default even though they are being paid for the work. If the contract defines it as a "work for hire", then the rights go to the party specified in the contract. If a person is in full employ of a company for the purpose of creative work, their employment contract will address the rights to their creations. If it doesn't, there are legal criteria that a court will use to make a judgement if the issue comes up.
Sean is right, not that my endorsement will make any difference to those who think he is wrong.
The point is, you have the ABILITY to do whatever you want; you may not, however, be legally entitled to do whatever you want. And, if you do something you are are not legally entitled to do, you MAY get away with it; BUT, if the proper people find out and wish to take issue with what you have done, you will probably lose in court.
Not to mention, even if you win, it will cost you.
That said, do whatever you like. Your bus, your money, your behind if you get caught.
TOM
Quote from: luvrbus on March 07, 2009, 06:42:50 PM
It's all bs about the paint you can take a photo of a bus you like to any of the bus painting guys like Wilson, Starr, Starjet or the guy in Mexico and tell them that is what you want go back in 2 weeks and that is what you get no question asked been there done that
Rarely pursued, absolutely. But not bs in the slightest. If I commissioned an artist to do a mural on the side of my bus and contracted it as a "work for hire". Then a year later saw another bus on the road with the same mural, I could hire a lawyer and sue the other bus owner (I personally wouldn't even consider doing it, but legally could and would on solid legal footing). During discovery it would be determined who did the paint job and they could be added to the suit.
There again, if it just a couple stripes, it would be much harder to win. But duplication of murals would be a slam dunk in court and unique creative patterns would probably depend on the mood of the judge and the tenacity of the lawyers involved but could be pursued.
As the economy goes deeper in the tank, and more people/companies become desparate I think we can expect to see more civil suits over things that previously weren't pursued. It doesn't always go well for the plaintiff, but it is costly for eveyone involved no matter who wins. Google SCO Linux lawsuit to see a good example of that.
I agree with what has been stated. Just because you can get somebody to do something, doesn't mean that it is right or okay, or that it won't get you in trouble.
I could get somebody to deliver a load of drugs, doesn't mean that it is okay or legal...(not that I would I am just making a point)
God bless,
John
Well guys I just talked to Mike Wilson he said bring any photo of a bus you like from Marathon (he painted there for 10 years) or any of the coaches manufactures as they all use the same software for graphics and he will paint it he needs the business it is slow in Oregon now.For the mural it has to be a original and very few are original on the buses he knows of one and the guys wife done it. I had END OF THE TRAIL on mine for years.BTW I asked why he and Starr signed my paint job he laughed and said he was hoping for a little business from the job which he said he did get.FWIW he said I paid for the paint job him and Starr have no rights to it good luck
Quote from: circusboy90210 on March 07, 2009, 06:05:24 PM
I disagree. If I pay someone to perforn a job for me I own the rights not them, unless stipulated in contract otherwise. The man who invented the xerox machine does not have his name in the patent office xerox does, as the company that was employing him. The same is true of copyright law.
You are confusing patent law with copyright law. Two separate things, that work very differently. I am well-versed in both, although, as I have already stated, I am not an attorney.
And you are just plain wrong about the man who invented the Xerox machine, or anything else for that matter. Patents, by law, can only be issued to individuals, not companies. Every patent filed in the patent office has one or more names of specific people attached. What Xerox (and everyone else in the intellectual property business) does is to make everyone who works for them sign a contract "assigning" the rights to all patents granted during the course of their employment to the company.
I have had to sign such an invention assignment agreement at every company I have ever worked for, starting with Bell Laboratories, which, in that day, had more patents to its credit than any other entity in existence. Every one of those patents was issued to an individual or individuals.
When you "hire" an artist, such as a photographer or a painter, unless you have it in writing that he or she is assigning to you all rights in copyright, he or she retains them. Period -- that is how the law is written, and there are thousands of cases tried in the courts that back it up. It is only when that artist is your "employee" (and there are specific tests for that) and the art is created "in the performance of duties" as part of that employment, that you as the employer automatically retain rights. And this applies only to copyright, not to patents, which must be explicitly assigned.
Again, folks, all of this can be verified by reading the relevant statutes and court cases.
my only area of real knowledge is copyright but do remember a few things about patent. corparations are just as much of an individual as a real live breathing person for legal reasons. :o
Quote from: HighTechRedneck on March 07, 2009, 07:02:06 PM
... If I commissioned an artist to do a mural on the side of my bus and contracted it as a "work for hire". Then a year later saw another bus on the road with the same mural, I could hire a lawyer and sue the other bus owner (I personally wouldn't even consider doing it, but legally could and would on solid legal footing). During discovery it would be determined who did the paint job and they could be added to the suit.
....
Of course when dealing with an unethical artist situation, you might discover your mural isn't the original either, and you haven't got a copyright to enforce! Only person you can sue then is the artist, and you might have to destroy your OWN mural to be legal!
Quote from: Nusa on March 07, 2009, 09:47:30 PM
Of course when dealing with an unethical artist situation, you might discover your mural isn't the original either, and you haven't got a copyright to enforce! Only person you can sue then is the artist, and you might have to destroy your OWN mural to be legal!
Very true. That sort of scenario is very similar to the SCO vs. IBM suit. The judge's last ruling prior to SCO filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy was that Novell actually was the copyright holder of the programming code in dispute.
Quote from: circusboy90210 on March 07, 2009, 08:48:13 PM
my only area of real knowledge is copyright but do remember a few things about patent. corparations are just as much of an individual as a real live breathing person for legal reasons. :o
Financially, perhaps, but there are lot of things corporations can't do. They can't learn to drive, they can't get married, they can't have octuplets, and they can't invent anything, since legal fictions have no minds or bodies. Patents require filing in the name of one or more "inventors". But as Sean said, the corporations own the patent rights of employee inventors, so it doesn't matter much in the end. But there are real human names on EVERY patent.
Quote from: circusboy90210 on March 07, 2009, 08:48:13 PM
my only area of real knowledge is copyright but do remember a few things about patent. corparations are just as much of an individual as a real live breathing person for legal reasons. :o
That is true in many areas of the law, however, a patent, by law, can only be issued to a named individual person or several individual persons, it can not be issued to a corporation. Again, this is easily verified. In part, the reason why patents can only be granted to individuals is that all the individual inventors must swear an oath under federal law. If you look here:
http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/dct_new_app_tutorial.pdf (http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/dct_new_app_tutorial.pdf)
and scroll down to "oath" you will see that all the individuals must be named -- a company name is not allowed.
An individual(s) to whom a patent has been granted is free to "assign" the rights to that patent to a corporation. But the inventor's name stays on the patent, and it is the inventor who has sworn the legal oath about prior art and advancement thereof. As I wrote earlier, most companies employing persons creating intellectual property have those individuals sign an agreement pre-assigning any and all rights in patents granted during the course of employment, or resulting from work done during said employment even after termination. These agreements are legally enforceable.
One of the things that frosted me (and many others) when I worked at Bell Labs was that, if I invented something in my spare time at home, unrelated to telephones, they still had the rights to it, based on the way their assignment agreement was worded.
More patent (and trademark) questions can be answered on the PTO FAQ page:
http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/index.html (http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/index.html)
Copyrights, in contrast, can be issued to companies without a specific author or artist having to be named.
-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
Sean, thanks for answering my questions. It looks like a lot of this is a "grey area" that would have to be resolved in a courtroom. I have one final question, I see some of the fancy paint jobs on the newer coaches (both Conversions & S&S that are towing a matching enclosed trailer or vehicle. Does this mean that if they did not have have the trailer/vehicle painted by the same place that painted their coach they are quilty if copyright infringement? Jack
Quote from: JackConrad on March 08, 2009, 07:03:57 AM
Sean, thanks for answering my questions. It looks like a lot of this is a "grey area" that would have to be resolved in a courtroom. I have one final question, I see some of the fancy paint jobs on the newer coaches (both Conversions & S&S that are towing a matching enclosed trailer or vehicle. Does this mean that if they did not have have the trailer/veheicle painted by the same place that painted their coach they are quilty if copyright infringement? Jack
The trailer issue would definitely be a grey area. Due to differences in the shape and surface area, it might possibly fit under the term "derivative work". That would be splitting the hair mighty thin, but it might hold up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
In any case, if a person just spent all that money with them on a new one, it is very unlikely they would choose to enforce any potential infringement involving the trailer. The exception again would be if an individual third party artist held the rights to it. But in the case of the major RV companies, that is not very likely.
Some of those graphics are stick on, hard to fathom. We thought about matching our truck to the Flagstaff graphics, however they are glue on vinal, if they would have been the good stuff I would have done it.
Jack
Seems to be few on here that have ever created something as part of their income.
Copyright and intellectual property concerns are just as important as employment law, immigration law, import and export law, union contracts, and every other law that happened to protect YOUR way of earning an income.
If there is a right to compensation involved, stealing ideas is no different than stealing a tradesman's tools, failing to pay a worker for his/her labour, outsourcing work to a low pay foreign land, or every other way you can harm a person's ability to earn their pay.
Just because you don't understand a body of law, or it doesn't apply to your income, let's show a bit of respect, shall we?
happy coaching!
buswarrior
Quote from: JackConrad on March 08, 2009, 07:03:57 AM
... I have one final question, I see some of the fancy paint jobs on the newer coaches (both Conversions & S&S that are towing a matching enclosed trailer or vehicle. Does this mean that if they did not have have the trailer/vehicle painted by the same place that painted their coach they are quilty if copyright infringement?
That's a great question. I like the answer already posted, which is that it most likely qualifies as a derivative work. I also agree that, as the purchaser of the original paint job, it is unlikely any artist would want to pursue you for "adding on" to their work by extending it with a trailer.
My observation is that most artists in this industry are willing to relinquish their rights in the work to the original purchaser -- witness what Mike Wilson said, passed along in an earlier post. I also asked John Stahr for his thoughts on this discussion; while acknowledging that it would be his legal right to enforce his copyrights, he feels that it would be nearly impossible to do so, and does not pursue it:
Quote
... It is mostly the dignity of a bus owner to want to be an original bus owner, or the bus painter to not want to copy someone else's design, but the insistence of a paying customer is often more of an incentive to just do what the customer wants to pay for. However, these days, anyone can sue anyone for anything if they want to find an attorney to take on the case, and see how they can contribute to the lightening of everyone's wallet within their district of influence.
There is legislated law that regards any original creative work by an artist becomes the intellectual property of the creator. The challenge becomes defending it. A typical shop could just say we used different colors and so it is an original on it's own. So I tend to just try to design without copying others, and often try to create some hand painted elements that are just too much trouble to try to copy by others. ...
John is pretty much out of the coach painting business -- he mostly does airplanes now (and anyone who has not seen some of his fantastic oil paintings of aircraft is truly missing something). And, yes, John gave me permission to share his comments here.
So, given all that, I would think doing a trailer would not likely get you in trouble. And, to be clear, I don't really think the OP will get in trouble for doing a "tribute" coach in Cash's colors -- but he
could. And here's really the clincher: How hard is it to just ask? I mean, really -- if someone truly believes that the original owner of a work that they wish to copy won't mind (or will, as someone suggested earlier, see it merely as flattery), then why not call or write that owner and ask for permission? If you were right in your supposition that it would be OK, the permission is likely to be granted with no further fuss. And if you were wrong, and the original artist or owner either says no or asks for compensation, well, then you'd know where you stand if you were to go ahead and do it anyway.
As the Copyright office says, it is always better to secure permission, especially if there is any doubt about whether a work is protected or whether your use of it falls within the doctrines of fair use, derivative works, "tributes," or any other mechanism that does not require permission.
-Sean
http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com
Wow, and this was the original question.........A BCM reader is looking for the issue than ran an article on Johnny Cash and his bus. He's looking to mirror the exterior paint scheme on his MC9. Does anyone have this magazine and/or know the month and year it was published?
Thanks,
Treasure Hunter
Chad
BCM Editor
I probably have the issue, but it's in storage............someplace............. ;)
I'll dig into it when I return April 4th, unless someone has found it for you. Can't you look it up in your archives?
~Paul~
I'm rather bemused by this thread because I cannot figure out what damages the original artist could possibly sue for. Unless you are 'passing-off' the recreation, or otherwise trying to make money out of it, I struggle to see any likelyhood of getting sued by the original rights-holder, even in a clear-cut case (exact reproduction of a work with unambiguous ownership). As an example, there are thousands of replicas running around of famous cars used in movies - General Lees, Bullitt & Eleanor Mustangs, Mad Max Interceptors, Herbies, Kowalski Chargers, S&H Tornios etc etc. In each of those cases the original copyright is presumably owned by huge and litigious movie corporations, but I've never once heard of the builder of such a replica getting sued - unless for example they tried to sell their car as being genuine.
Jeremy
Much to do about nothing.
True, this thread expanded into a broader discussion of copyrights on creative artwork. With regard to the Johnny Cash bus, like I mentioned before, since it appears it is just basic colors and wide band stripes I doubt there is any risk for an individual copying it to their bus. At first glance it looked like a mural on the side but on closer inspection it looks like a reflection of something nearby.
Copying unique creative works is what would get more risky. Still I would agree a suit is unlikely. Just like it is unlikely that a music label will choose you to make an example out of you for downloading unlicensed music downloads. But when they do ...
Also, if a person is considering copying a unique creative work without permission, like buswarrior point out, whether you get caught and challenged or not, it is a moral issue as well.