I noticed that there is a Harley for sale on the Online Store.. what about the copyright for that model of bike? just a question

The way it's been explained to me is that, somehow, that's a non-issue because Harley won't care. It's still infringement, but everyone here just assumes that Harley doesn't give a golly gosh darn about that sort of thing.

Harley, like any other manufacturer care a great deal about unlicensed use of their logo and name, especially if someone is profiting by using that name and logo. Simple fact is they either haven't found out about it or they don't care. The only way to find out is by asking them. My experience of companies though is that they don't mind too much provided people are not trading on their name. The hog in the store isn't technically trading on the Harley name even though that is used in the advertising. It's trading more on the "style" of bike. It could just as easily (and more safely) be called a Hubawangula Hog. But heck, that's up to the vendor if they want to take the legal risk isn't it?

I don't know how they are now, but Harley used to be VERY hard core about protecting their copyright. Their web site used to have information about how to submit a product to become a licensed Harley Davidson product, but I couldn't find it. They do have contact information there. I would assume that they are still as protective of their copyright, and just haven't been told about their name being used here and at DAZ3D.

... and don't ask for permision. Even if they don't really care, if officially put on notice, it is likely that their legal department would be obliged to advise against it, just to maintain their legal protection status. Kinda "don't ask -- don't tell".

... and don't ask for permision???? No. Sorry. No way. That's not only illegal, it's also unethical. If you can't have the decency of asking a manufacturer for permission to use his product for a model that you're selling, then you have no business being in business.

shrug Real World. Most rights holders in a similar position seem to prefer to ignore the legal ramifications of "fan art". If asked directly , there is little incentive to bend the rules, and most frequently are advised to decline. Besides, ya gonna write to General Dynamics before you sell a model of the Shuttle? Or Boeing for a 757? Or Colt for a pistol or rifle? Or any maufactured item? Quite seriously, where would you have the line drawn? hmmmm....perhaps we're on different pages, ...I'm talking meshes here. As a trademark, use of the Logo is a much more protected item and I agree would be clearly wrong to duplicate and sell items which displayed it.

Wouldn't the model be a derivitive work? Under current copyright law, a derivitive work is fair game, no?

Duck!

Nance is close to the mark. THe hog itself being copyrightable is a non-issue. Just like the form of a F-16 fighter or heck, a Sears screwdriver for that matter. Look at it this way ... if you took a picture of your car, say a Corvette, and started selling the picture on Ebay to fans of Vettes, you'd every legal right in the world to sell that picture. Where you get into trouble is if you started marking things with the company's logo (or even the car logo in this case). OR, to another extreme if you started making your own Corvettes (if you had that capability) and selling them as Corvettes you would defintely have violated copyright law, as well as a few others. Simply making a image of an existing product or item is NOT copyright infringment. What you call it though is another story and that is where the line is really blurry.

Little known law... if you take a picture of the batmobile (example) and get it developed at a 24 hour or hour photo place, then Kodak becomes the copy right holder (and who said working at Kinkos when I was younger didn't pay off)

Whether the model is derivative is not really an issue. A design can still be copyrighted and some companies will pursue that. For instance the Paramount witch hunt when they started shutting down all Star Trek fan sites - they ended up with quite a battle and did eventually give up after realising they were hurting themslves but they started the process. Would Paramount stay silent if somebody started selling Star Trek ships based on the models from the series and with the series names etc? Ertl had to apply for a license to do that. The harley questioned by the first post could be called a derivative work as I doubt it is 100% accurate to the actual bike. The problem that might arise is with the company logo and name, not the model. Companies are extremely protective of these. As an aside though, as has been pointed out before by people like DAZ, if a company passes up a chance to chase down a copyright/license violation that it is aware of it loses the right to that copyright. So, say you make a boeing shuttle and add Boeing and NASA logo's to the shuttle to sell it. If these two companies know about the model being sold and take no action regarding the unlicensed use of their logos, they stand to lose the rights to them. That is not something any company will allow. As has been said though, if they don't know, it don't hurt them. But it's a risk anyone takes when making "named" works even if derivative of an item. This applies to people's images and names as much as it does a company product, symbol or name. Most companies will have a copyright statement and licensing schedule regarding the use of their name/logo/product. If in doubt, it's usually a damn good idea to check first before opening a can of worms that might just eat you. G As far as asking a company, I don't see a problem with that. If you intend making a series of Colt firearms and using the mustang logo in those weapons as well as the Colt name, then yes I think it's only fair that you ask Colt if you can do it - especially if you're selling the items as "Colt ****". Otherwise call it something else, leave the logo off and no problem. Saying why bother is like me making a hair file and saying it's a Vairesh hair even if it isn't. That's a direct comparison isn't it? I make some hair that looks like something Vairesh made, I give it the same name as hair Vairesh made, and sell it under that name. No different to selling a derivative Colt Peacemaker as a COLT Peacemaker. I'm using the Colt name, logo, blah... As someone once said while feeding fowl. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. But in that case, why bother asking anyone permission for anything. Not just big companies and "derivative" work, why not infringe on licensing and copyright for all the store people and the freestuff people, and... Oh wait, I'm off on a different subject here. g ::wanders off to find coffee::

Tymbo: I used to train people on copyright law--many of them Kinko's employees, in fact, right after the lawsuit. You're off base with that comment. The person/company who develops or prints the image has no "rights to copy", and must have permission of the artist to reproduce the work. Asking Kinko's to copy is in itself permission to reproduce, IF you establish that you are the artist (there's a two-page release, or was when I left Kinko's in 1997) Most likely, the "Harleys" could be legal if they are not advertised as Harleys and don't have any trademarked logos, no matter what they look like. Harley-Davidson has tried to trademark the "look and feel" (and sound :) of their bikes, with only some success. The sound thing didn't go over too well...

Whazat! I think I hear the giant sucking sound of a fourm move!