Fyrespiryt: You got it, though the copyrightability of an individual logo drawing can easily come into question depending on the complexity/originality/etc of the work in question. For instance, no one could successfully protect a copyright on, say, a big '+' in black on a white canvas (if they could, no one could use a period due to some 60s pop art that was done with a black dot on a white canvas, and the guy who did that would have one wealth estate form all the dots in web addresses). Additionally, many copyrights on the original art have expired. I'd guess that the Harley eagle hasn't but, for instance, the Yuengling Lager crest would have long since expired if it was ever eligible for copyright. Finally, one cannot copyright a typeface or a word in a specific typeface (you can copyright a font file, and you can trademark a name for a typeface, like Times New Roman, but the typeface itself is always fair game per legal precedent). Therefore, one can not protect a trademark that consists solely of letters by copyright. In other words, Microsoft could claim a copyright protection on the little Flying Windows logo as well as a trademark for computer software and peripherals, electronics goods, books and publications, but they couldn't stop someone from trademarking Microsoft Veterinary Ear Cleaning Solution using the same Verdana typeface they use. There have been cases where people have been stopped with a cease and desist and recall requirement outside of the product or service thus protected, but in all of those cases that I've seen the actual finding was one of fraud, and was caused because there was no other representation of trademark associated and the name in question was deliberately used to create the impression that, in fact, the other company had branched out and was responsible for the product thus considered fraudulent. THis would not happen in the case of DAZ products, as these products are explicitly either stated as DAZ Original Creations or Brokered For (whoever). In theory, if DAZ had listed the EU sportscar as 'Brokered for BMW' they could be in trouble for fraud and deliberate misrepresentation of the product. Of course, then it would be only suitable if a purchaser could reasonably argue that they expected some additional capability from the model that a reasonable individual would expect BMW to provide with such and that wasn't provided by the actual creator. Joey says: Despite what Dodger may say You know, I am really getting sick of this . I am quoting trademark law. This is not 'what I may say', this is what the USPTO says. Of course, I suppose your little arguments which seem to indicate that you firmly believe that your own inpressions somehow cnostitute law would look awfully silly is you had written 'Despite what the United States Patent and Trademark Office may say...' Why don't you try it that way? I dare you.