For the sake of argument. Lets say a person was to photocopy high quality examples of a sportscard in miniature to sell as novelties. Is this a big no-no?
I'm guessing this is probably viewed as copyright infringement as well but I've been laying out the design for a carved '53 Topps Campy and was curious as to how that would be viewed. It would be a 3D rendering in wood and just for my personal collection. Would this be illegal? Or only if I sold it?
Chris My small collection Want List: '61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7 Cardinal T206 cards Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
"...copyright law permits a copier to intentionally change an existing image sufficiently in order to avoid infringement. [FN54] Merely using an original work as a model, template or inspiration does not by itself constitute an infringement. [FN55] In fact, courts have suggested that, as long as the second work is not substantially similar to the original, it may be appropriate to permit those who copy visual images (as opposed to literary works) to make substantial modifications to an original in order to avoid infringement. [FN56] Nonetheless, the analysis of substantial similarity focuses upon the similarities between the two works, and not the dissimilarities. [FN57] Even if a derivative visual image does not incorporate any verbatim sections from the original, substantial similarity can be found if "the fundamental essence or structure of one work is duplicated in another." [FN58] Such situations are referred to as "comprehensive non-literal similarity," which, as applied to works of visual art, finds substantial similarity where the "total concept and feel" of the second work is the same as that of the original work. [FN59]
Copyright law (and the total concept and feel test) does not, however, provide the creator of the original image with any exclusive rights in the uncopyrightable aspects of his or her work, such as the general appearance of the persons and things depicted in the image. A copyright protects only the original, creative expression of the copyrighted work. For visual images, the creative expression of an artist includes the composition and posing of the subjects of the image, the lighting, the combination and editing of sequences of individual images into a motion picture, and the many subjective and technical judgments that go into developing a finishing print from a negative. [FN60] No artist can obtain an exclusive copyright in the appearance of a physical object created by nature. [FN61]
fair use..........
Determination of whether a particular use is a fair use requires analysis of four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the copier's use of the original; (2) the amount taken from the original; (3) the nature of the original; and, (4) the effect of the use upon the market for the original. [FN62] Many courts have held that the most important of these factors is how the use affects the current or potential markets for the original. [FN63]
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
I was too stupid to decipher all that mumbo-jumbo storm. So can I make miniature sportscards in high quality copies to sell as novelties for a profit? Or is that a sure way to grab a fast ride to the slammer?
I was too stupid to decipher all that mumbo-jumbo storm. So can I make miniature sportscards in high quality copies to sell as novelties for a profit? Or is that a sure way to grab a fast ride to the slammer? >>
/////////////////////////
There is no slammer involved, unless a court has told you not to do it and you act in contempt of such instruction.
So, maybe you can do what you want to do, AND maybe you cannot.
Alterations are critical, BUT as the module notes, the law looks FIRST and FOREMOST to "similarities and NOT to dissimilarities."
........
Since I KNOW you are NOT stupid, I would suggest that you read the module and search the footnotes for the safe way to accomplish what you want to do.
You can also hire an IP lawyer to help guide you. If you do that, make sure that you instruct the lawyer that you want to find a way to do what you want to do. If you simply ask him, "Can I do it?," his easy answer will be "NO."
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
This story was posted here a few months back, but I could not find it. It is related to the subject of this thread.
...........................
Topps files lawsuit claiming Upper Deck copies its cards
April 14, 2009
CBSSports.com wire reports
NEW YORK -- Baseball card maker Topps says it caught a competitor stealing and wants the rival product thrown out.
The Topps Co. Inc. made the accusation Tuesday against The Upper Deck Co. Inc. in a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
Topps said baseball cards published this year by Upper Deck and some cards about to be published should be tossed because they imitate the layout and design of cards it printed in the 1970s.
Topps, based in Manhattan, said the 2009 cards already distributed by the Carlsbad, Calif.-based Upper Deck copy the 1975 Topps cards in their layout and design. Other cards about to be sold by Upper Deck imitate the 1971 and 1977 Topps cards, the lawsuit said.
A spokesman for Upper Deck did not immediately return a call for comment.
In its lawsuit, Topps described how it believes Upper Deck mimicked its design with just a few variations.
It said similarities between each company's cards included the use of a colorful, divided two-tone border, the player's photograph superimposed on a thin white border, the player's autograph toward the bottom of the picture and the use of an image of a baseball on a bottom corner of the card.
Topps said its competitor's cards will confuse or deceive customers because each of the Upper Deck designs are nearly identical to the Topps cards.
Topps asked that Upper Deck be ordered to destroy the cards and turn over any profits, along with other unspecified monetary damages.
Copyright 2009 by STATS LLC and The Associated Press. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of STATS LLC and The Associated Press is strictly prohibited.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
How old are the cards? The Digital Millenium Copyright Act and Extension Act only goes back so far (approx. to the first Disney cartoons....its no coincidence, they have quite the lobby in DC). Specifically, to the life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier. (shout out to Wikipedia!!) There are certain renewal privileges too. There are also federal trademark/service mark considerations, as well as common law protections.
Kiss me once, shame on you. Kiss me twice.....let's party.
You could always just go ahead and do it and see if a Cease and Desist Letter shows up on your door steps. Of course, if it turns out that you profited [too handsomely] from the venture, you might have to deal with Disgorgement later on.
Comments
Authorized wholesale dealer for BCW, if you need any supplies let me know and I will get you a quote
My small collection
Want List:
'61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7
Cardinal T206 cards
Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
Harvard Study Module
link
///////////
small excerpt..........
"...copyright law permits a copier to intentionally change an existing image sufficiently in order to avoid infringement. [FN54] Merely using an original work as a model, template or inspiration does not by itself constitute an infringement. [FN55] In fact, courts have suggested that, as long as the second work is not substantially similar to the original, it may be appropriate to permit those who copy visual images (as opposed to literary works) to make substantial modifications to an original in order to avoid infringement. [FN56] Nonetheless, the analysis of substantial similarity focuses upon the similarities between the two works, and not the dissimilarities. [FN57] Even if a derivative visual image does not incorporate any verbatim sections from the original, substantial similarity can be found if "the fundamental essence or structure of one work is duplicated in another." [FN58] Such situations are referred to as "comprehensive non-literal similarity," which, as applied to works of visual art, finds substantial similarity where the "total concept and feel" of the second work is the same as that of the original work. [FN59]
Copyright law (and the total concept and feel test) does not, however, provide the creator of the original image with any exclusive rights in the uncopyrightable aspects of his or her work, such as the general appearance of the persons and things depicted in the image. A copyright protects only the original, creative expression of the copyrighted work. For visual images, the creative expression of an artist includes the composition and posing of the subjects of the image, the lighting, the combination and editing of sequences of individual images into a motion picture, and the many subjective and technical judgments that go into developing a finishing print from a negative. [FN60] No artist can obtain an exclusive copyright in the appearance of a physical object created by nature. [FN61]
fair use..........
Determination of whether a particular use is a fair use requires analysis of four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the copier's use of the original; (2) the amount taken from the original; (3) the nature of the original; and, (4) the effect of the use upon the market for the original. [FN62] Many courts have held that the most important of these factors is how the use affects the current or potential markets for the original. [FN63]
Authorized wholesale dealer for BCW, if you need any supplies let me know and I will get you a quote
<< <i>Harvard Study Module
link >>
I was too stupid to decipher all that mumbo-jumbo storm. So can I make miniature sportscards in high quality copies to sell as novelties for a profit? Or is that a sure way to grab a fast ride to the slammer?
<< <i>
<< <i>Harvard Study Module
link >>
I was too stupid to decipher all that mumbo-jumbo storm. So can I make miniature sportscards in high quality copies to sell as novelties for a profit? Or is that a sure way to grab a fast ride to the slammer? >>
/////////////////////////
There is no slammer involved, unless a court has told you
not to do it and you act in contempt of such instruction.
So, maybe you can do what you want to do, AND maybe
you cannot.
Alterations are critical, BUT as the module notes, the law
looks FIRST and FOREMOST to "similarities and NOT to
dissimilarities."
........
Since I KNOW you are NOT stupid, I would suggest that
you read the module and search the footnotes for the
safe way to accomplish what you want to do.
You can also hire an IP lawyer to help guide you. If you do
that, make sure that you instruct the lawyer that you
want to find a way to do what you want to do. If you
simply ask him, "Can I do it?," his easy answer will be
"NO."
It is related to the subject of this thread.
...........................
Topps files lawsuit claiming Upper Deck copies its cards
April 14, 2009
CBSSports.com wire reports
NEW YORK -- Baseball card maker Topps says it caught a competitor stealing and wants the rival product thrown out.
The Topps Co. Inc. made the accusation Tuesday against The Upper Deck Co. Inc. in a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
Topps said baseball cards published this year by Upper Deck and some cards about to be published should be tossed because they imitate the layout and design of cards it printed in the 1970s.
Topps, based in Manhattan, said the 2009 cards already distributed by the Carlsbad, Calif.-based Upper Deck copy the 1975 Topps cards in their layout and design. Other cards about to be sold by Upper Deck imitate the 1971 and 1977 Topps cards, the lawsuit said.
A spokesman for Upper Deck did not immediately return a call for comment.
In its lawsuit, Topps described how it believes Upper Deck mimicked its design with just a few variations.
It said similarities between each company's cards included the use of a colorful, divided two-tone border, the player's photograph superimposed on a thin white border, the player's autograph toward the bottom of the picture and the use of an image of a baseball on a bottom corner of the card.
Topps said its competitor's cards will confuse or deceive customers because each of the Upper Deck designs are nearly identical to the Topps cards.
Topps asked that Upper Deck be ordered to destroy the cards and turn over any profits, along with other unspecified monetary damages.
Copyright 2009 by STATS LLC and The Associated Press. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of STATS LLC and The Associated Press is strictly prohibited.
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
/s/ JackWESQ
Ya I'd go with just do it. Unless you go really big, no one will notice.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.