Chiefs Logo (License)

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That may be the criteria they use to crack down on such things, but it is not a legal criteria. Someone can go after a hobbyist or a fan if they wanted to enforce their rights to that degree. Of course, they may not but that's a voluntary choice—not a legal requirement. Same with copyright.

Also, if they do, usually companies have a letter from an attorney asking you cease what you're doing before suing.

No they can't. The only way you would ever run into legal trouble is trying to sell products using their logo/trademark. For that you have to pay a licensing fee.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fish

No they can't. The only way you would ever run into legal trouble is trying to sell products using their logo/trademark. For that you have to pay a licensing fee.

NOPE! Completely false. I happen to be in a field where I have to know about such things; have taught it to artists and designers and have been hired by art schools and colleges with such programs to give talks about so artists/desigbers stay out of trouble. Making money off of it is NOT a criteria—at ALL. There's even a minimum amount of a fine if one wanted to enforce.

The idea behind a trademark is to prevent confusion between brands.

There was a day care center that had some Disney characters painted on the windows for the kids and Disney made them take it down. So Hanna-Barbera sent over their cartoonists to paint their own characters on the windows. That's a voluntary move that Disney decided they did not want to do but to enforce their rights.

Quit talking out of your arse-hole or back up your urban legend.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

NOPE! Completely false. I happen to be in a field where I have to know about such things; have taught it to artists and designers and have been hired by art schools and colleges with such programs to give talks about so artists/desigbers stay out of trouble. Making money off of it is NOT a criteria—at ALL. There's even a minimum amount of a fine if one wanted to enforce.

The idea behind a trademark is to prevent confusion between brands.

There was a day care center that had some Disney characters painted on the windows for the kids and Disney made them take it down. So Hanna-Barbera sent over their cartoonists to paint their own characters on the windows. That's a voluntary move that Disney decided they did not want to do but to enforce their rights.

Quit talking out of your arse-hole or back up your urban legend.

A daycare center is a place of business, and they can't use Disney's trademark to help sell their business. If the daycare was not a business, that never would have happened.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fish

A daycare center is a place of business, and they can't use Disney's trademark to help sell their business. If the daycare was not a business, that never would have happened.

I knew you were going to say that, which is why I used it. You're making another one of your famous strawman arguments. My point, if'n you read it correctly, was that Disney had the option to enforce and did; whereas Hanna-Barbera went beyond the ordinary and offered their services to allow use of their's. In effect offering permission even though the day care center never asked to use their images.

It doesn't matter if you're not a business, an individual, a church or a non-profit. Just google it and you'll find the constant line of — no one can use it without your permission because it's a form of property. You can't come on my property and use my lawnmower, without asking either just because you're not going to make money cutting your own lawn.

This is usually the very first myth I have to clear up when I give talks on it. No, I am not a lawyer, but as a creative professional and sometimes adjunct instructor it is my job to give students a basic understanding of copyright.

What you may have it confused with, as Austin once used, is the Fair Use exemptions but not making money is one of those exemptions, which are actually very narrow. Such as educational use where snippets of copyright material can be used and satire. There's one or two more but it's narrow. And of course something has to be considered copyrightable and not in the public domain. Neither of these things apply. There is a minimum amount one can sue for even if the guilty party didn't make money from using it. You own something, someone needs to ask permission to use. PERIOD.