Members BryanMichael Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 This is correct. If Fender really wanted to pursue it (doubtful), they could go after the tattoo artist for infringing on their trademark. You don't have to sell a competing product with their logo in order for it to meet the legal standard of trademark dilution or violation. Legally, a manufacturer has the final say over the use of their logo in any format and on any media (including the body of someone fool enough to get a corporate logo inscribed permanently in their flesh). Legally, an artist would need permission from Fender in order to reproduce their logo for any commercial purpose (charging someone to place the logo on their body would constitute a commercial purpose). The person getting the tattoo would not be liable for any violation of trademark (any more than they would be if they bought a t-shirt with the logo that came from an unlicensed source). However, to reproduce a trademarked logo for commercial gain would require the authorization of the trademark holder. Yes, I'm sure that Fender and Harley Davidson are going to pursue all the tattoo artists out there that have made tattoos of their logos While TECHNICALLY you are "correct" about what rights copyright holders have, the prosecution of these cases would cost more than anything they have "lost" by someone doing that- especially when the adequate remedy at law is a "cease and desist" letter. I go back to the statement "WOULD GET IN TROUBLE" and that is simply NOT TRUE. The statement "COULD GET IN TROUBLE" is more accurate, and about as useful as "I COULD WIN THE LOTTERY TODAY!" - indeed I could, but it is highly, highly, highly unlikely. Copyright laws exist to give the HOLDER of the copyright a legal recourse if they suffer loss. They have to demonstrate loss. The music example cited above is different because each song was looked at as a PRODUCT that was NOT SOLD and therefore resulted in LOSS OF INCOME for the copyright holder. Fender is not in the business of tattoos or arms, so they haven't LOST anything and it would cost a lot of money to try to prosecute that line of reasoning when a simple "cease and desist" letter would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RaVenCAD Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 Regardless of what a company uses to ignore or not ignore, the law exists and that's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BryanMichael Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 Regardless of what a company uses to ignore or not ignore, the law exists and that's that. But it's not a law in the sense you are using it. It is not a "crime" because it is up to the holder to pursue it, not for the police to enforce it. It's a "legal channel". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RaVenCAD Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 But it does exist if the company decides to use it.. A simple "yes, you're right, it does" will suffice here.. Ain't much wiggle room =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members etawful Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 Yes, I'm sure that Fender and Harley Davidson are going to pursue all the tattoo artists out there that have made tattoos of their logos While TECHNICALLY you are "correct" about what rights copyright holders have, the prosecution of these cases would cost more than anything they have "lost" by someone doing that- especially when the adequate remedy at law is a "cease and desist" letter. I go back to the statement "WOULD GET IN TROUBLE" and that is simply NOT TRUE. The statement "COULD GET IN TROUBLE" is more accurate, and about as useful as "I COULD WIN THE LOTTERY TODAY!" - indeed I could, but it is highly, highly, highly unlikely. Copyright laws exist to give the HOLDER of the copyright a legal recourse if they suffer loss. They have to demonstrate loss. The music example cited above is different because each song was looked at as a PRODUCT that was NOT SOLD and therefore resulted in LOSS OF INCOME for the copyright holder. Fender is not in the business of tattoos or arms, so they haven't LOST anything and it would cost a lot of money to try to prosecute that line of reasoning when a simple "cease and desist" letter would do. Tell that to all the small businesses who dared to use the word "Monster" in their company name. Of course the fact that you seem to think that "trademark" and "copyright" are the same thing tells a great deal about how much you actually know regarding the subject. You do not have to demonstrate actual loss to prevail in a suit for trademark violation or dilution. You merely need to show that the trademark was used in an unlicensed manner, as the mere use of the trademark without license is a loss in and of itself. If you reproduce a trademarked logo for profit (or even not for profit if used in a manner that could cause harm to the image of the trademark holder) and do not obtain written permission and pay any requisite licensing fee, the trademark holder has suffered a loss (to wit, the licensing fee you should have paid). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members etawful Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 But it's not a law in the sense you are using it. It is not a "crime" because it is up to the holder to pursue it, not for the police to enforce it. It's a "legal channel". A law is a law. Because it's part of the civil code rather than the penal code does not make it any less a law. Trademark dilution or infringement is often a civil matter. Copyright violation is often a criminal matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RaVenCAD Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 I bet ET could have gotten OJ convicted.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members etawful Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 I bet ET could have gotten OJ convicted.. LMAO . . . nah, the glove didn't fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Guitar Heel Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 Too soon? I don't think it's ever too soon for poncho, YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RaVenCAD Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 He still dun it though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zemmy Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 Too soon? I don't think it's ever too soon for poncho, YMMV. you forgot the {censored}sauce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BryanMichael Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 De Minimis Non Curat Lex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Guitar Heel Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 you forgot the {censored}sauce Oh, wait. That's the wrong kind of sauce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jkater Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 talk to the buyer, get a sense of how he'l deal with it, but if he wants it, its his now +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zemmy Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 De Minimis Non Curat Lex. this is whats on the back of a $2 bill right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RaVenCAD Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 this is whats on the back of a $2 bill right? nah, sumthin about his mama I think.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members turdadactyl Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 De Minimis Non Curat Lex. Only half true. Small claims court exists for a reason and some of the crap that shows up there is certainly in the "de minimis" category. Not necessarily saying that reason is even remotely connected to the topic of this thread...but it does exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members drivelikejoewho Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 I bought a guitar on eBay a while back and the guy decided he wanted $50 more for it when the auction ended and that he wouldn't take any less than that. He was relatively new so I explained that if he would only sell for $x at minimum, he should have set a reserve or made that the minimum bid. I told him I wouldn't pay him a dollar more than I bid because I wouldn't have bid an additional $50. A few days later he advised the guitar was on its way and I did receive it. I wouldn't have minded if he refunded my money but I would have been a little disappointed. It was also a little disconcerting that the guitar wasn't in the condition described or his description was a bit ambiguous so I bare part of the blame there but it was a good deal so I didn't compain. I mean really.. if you are going to put your item up there for $1 and it goes for $2, you are supposed to sell the item. That isn't fair to the bidders. They have a thing called a reserve if you want sell something for less than a certain dollar amount and DON'T PUT IT UP THERE IF YOU DON'T REALLY WANT TO SELL IT. Often times people (like myself) get involved in the first place because you find you are on the verge of a good deal. Then by changing your mind you are baiting and swtiching. Bottom line is do whatever you want. If you don't care about your eBay repuation (which has been dilluted by 12 month feedback scores) then reject the sale. If you talk to the guy, he might be fine with it and you can move on and learn your lesson. If he isn't, I'd send him the guitar and chalk it up as a life lesson. I've gone to great lengths to please people on eBay when I've sold stuff because I feel that is the right thing to do. Usually when I put something on eBay, I'm trying to get rid of it anyway. Not make a buck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members etawful Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 nah, sumthin about his mama I think.. He thinks that spouting cliche Latin terms will somehow prove his point. Translated it means that the law doesn't concern itself with trifles (he's saying that trademark violations are too small a matter for a court to get involved with). Of course, as has been the case all the way through this thread, he's a bit confused as to reality vs. his perception thereof. It's a legal principle that is is used more in cases where, for example, a local ordinance requires you to build 6 feet from the property line, but you build 5' 11.5" from the property line. Technically, you are in violation of local building codes, but it's unlikely that any court would entertain an action regarding the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Ratae Corieltauvorum Posted July 28, 2010 Moderators Share Posted July 28, 2010 This thread reminds me of the intimate link between sand and vaginas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveAronow Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 One the one hand, I like honesty and integrity, . I dont see how you are able to play guitar, because it seems that that "honor and integrity" hand of yours must have got chopped off somewhere down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zemmy Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 This thread reminds me of the intimate link between sand and vaginas you got sand in your vagina?...that HAD to hurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveAronow Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 I think a surprising number of people on this thread forfeit their right to complain about bad deals or buying counterfeit. If you can condone breaking a deal so easily where do you draw the line? If you deliberately break a deal your 'word' is useless forever. Or it is where I was brought up. ( Camden Town, London) Completely agrre. I dont do a ton of business on this forum , but I DO do occasional business. I will now be adding a bunch of names to my list of people never to even consider doing business with after seeing their responses to this thread. Some of those people supprised me, some of them didnt. All I can say, is thanks for the warning, scumbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lp_junkie Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 this thread is exactly why I avoid Ebay like the plague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Oaksong Posted July 28, 2010 Members Share Posted July 28, 2010 I dont see how you are able to play guitar, because it seems that that "honor and integrity" hand of yours must have got chopped off somewhere down the line. Yeah, and I reconsidered.... But your ability to judge people completely based on a few forum posts is still completely working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.