[idjeff]

I'm sure you've seen Tshirts with silkscreened illustrations of Corvettes and Camaros on the front. The question is, what type of legal hoops did the creators of these shirts have to jump through if any to use the image of someone else's creation...ie. copyright issues or what not?

The reason I ask, is that I'm currently doing a similar Tshirt project where I've taken the image of a product (lets just say it's a camaro...an old camaro) and have created linework based on the original design. Would I be stepping on any toes or breaking any laws by using this new artwork on a tshirt?

[production_coordinator]

There is a fine line between fair use and copyright infringement. You need to ask yourself... is the car a component of the design... or IS it the design.

[idjeff]

Well, it's a graphic representation of the "car", but of course, it's just an illustration...but you can tell what it is.

[CanadaRAM]

If it was your original graphic rendition of Mickey Mouse, would Disney sue? -- you bet.

Now whether an industrial design of a product is protected as to it's distinctive shape... more interesting of a question. Keep in mind the name Camaro may be protected by trademark.


http://www.bmrstudios.com/Copyright.pdf
http://www.bereskinparr.com/English/...utip_id_1.html


"In Canada, registering industrial designs affords 10 years of protection: an initial 5 years, with an option to renew for another 5 years." http://www.mcgill.ca/ott/faqs/industrial/

If that is the case in the USA, then a 21 year old Camaro design may be free of industrial design restrictions

In any event, if you are contmplating commercial production you should visit an intellectual property lawyer.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by CanadaRAM

If it was your original graphic rendition of Mickey Mouse, would Disney sue? -- you bet.

Now whether an industrial design of a product is protected as to it's distinctive shape... more interesting of a question. Keep in mind the name Camaro may be protected by trademark.


http://www.bmrstudios.com/Copyright.pdf
http://www.bereskinparr.com/English/...utip_id_1.html


"In Canada, registering industrial designs affords 10 years of protection: an initial 5 years, with an option to renew for another 5 years." http://www.mcgill.ca/ott/faqs/industrial/

If that is the case in the USA, then a 21 year old Camaro design may be free of industrial design restrictions

In any event, if you are contmplating commercial production you should visit an intellectual property lawyer.

See, there's still a lot of gray area there. Mickey Mouse was an illustration to begin with. A "Camaro" was not (unless you count the original sketches and renderings). I fully understand the issues with using the name of a product though. Looking at Wikipedia's definition of Industrial Design rights, it states that...
An industrial design consists of the creation of a shape, configuration or composition of pattern or color, or combination of pattern and color in three dimensional form containing aesthetic value.

Here's the link...
Industrial Design Rights

I guess I should talk to an attorney regarding this.

[tpicco]

Well I dunno... The Dead Milkmen had a song called "Bitchin' Camaro" and no one sued them...

[art_director]

An interesting discussion.

I'm no lawyer so individual mileage may vary but...

Mickey Mouse is the product that Disney put out. The Camaro, as in the car, is the product, not an image of it. If you intended to build a car that looked like the Camaro you'd be in hot water. However, since you're just using an illustration of the Camaro, you should, in theory, be fine. It may be illegal but I doubt you'd get in trouble because you're paying homage to the car, which, technically, could be seen as free support of the product. You also need to consider how it's used. Is it parody? Then you're free and clear.

Does all this make sense?

[art_director]

I should add that Urban Outfitters has been selling shirts along the lines of what you describe for over 15 years. To my knowledge that hasn't been a problem.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by art_director

I should add that Urban Outfitters has been selling shirts along the lines of what you describe for over 15 years. To my knowledge that hasn't been a problem.

Yes...this is where everything gets fuzzy. I don't think that you'd be breaking any copyright laws since the "product" falls under the industrial design category---a three dimensional form. By creating a two dimensional graphic illustration of a three dimensional form, I don't feel there'd be any problems. Using the trademarked name though, might cause some problems. I still need to talk to an attorney though. Thanks again

[CanadaRAM]

Originally Posted by idjeff

Yes...this is where everything gets fuzzy. I don't think that you'd be breaking any copyright laws since the "product" falls under the industrial design category---a three dimensional form. By creating a two dimensional graphic illustration of a three dimensional form, I don't feel there'd be any problems. Using the trademarked name though, might cause some problems. I still need to talk to an attorney though. Thanks again

The 3-D vs 2-D argument doesn't hold up. It is whether you are using someone's protected and distinctive image. If a sculptor made a 3-D carving, and you made 2-D teeshirts of the carving, or postage stamps, or mousepads and sold them, then you would be infringing the sculptor's rights. It also doesn't matter that the original thing was an illustration. If you drew a picture of Britney Spears to sell, or made a 3-D stuffed animal in the shape of Calvin the Tiger, it's still infringing. The keys are: is the original item distinctive, is it protected, and is your thing recognizably their thing.

One classic case was the Native American in Headdress image that Corel used on their CorelDraw packaging. It was the winning entry in an illustration contest. Turns out that although it had been entirely drawn by the contest winner, the drawing was a copy of a photograph made by a commercial photographer. Because the artistic conception of the photograph was the photographer's original creation (as opposed, for example, to a photo of a public thing like Niagara Falls which anyone could take on any day), the concept was protected by copyright and Corel got their @$$ handed to them on a platter by the judge.

Having said all that, I don't think there is any problem with you drawing a Camaro, even if it is recognizably a Camaro. Using the Chevy logo may not be a good idea though.