Copyright on posters (Satire / Parody)

[OnTheBranchline]

5 hours ago, beast66606 said:

Many years ago a forum member was threatened with legal action by a South Wales oil (iirc) company for using their trademarked images - can't remember if he contacted them asking for permission and they were a*sey at that point or if they discovered it and were then a*sey. The bottom line is they had a lot more money to duke it out in court so I'd be wary of taking advice from armchairs - you may well be in the right, but being in the right isn't always free to prove.

 

Conversely when we had the Ginsters liveried 158 running on Widnes I contacted Ginsters who were more than happy to allow us to use the livery and I even sent them a picture of it which they enjoyed almost as much as I used to enjoy their pasties. (cut out most pasties / pies etc these days)

The lawyers must have been pretty bored to decide to pick on a hapless modeller…

 

Or the lawyers’ Abersoch cottage needed some repairs and they need the money.

[Buhar]

5 hours ago, Cwmtwrch said:

Then the courts have to try and sort things out by interpreting the statute law in the light of the case before them; any precedent so created can then be overruled or modified by a superior court, but is otherwise binding.

Lower court decisions (eg County Court) are not binding on subsequent cases.  They may be argued as precedent but it is the decisions of Higher Courts which are binding.  However, in matters such as parody/satire/modelling, the circumstances of each case will likely differ enough to make deciding if there is a precedent pretty difficult.

 

Alan

[The Johnster]

On 11/10/2023 at 17:44, melmerby said:

I thought Guinness was the Liffey😄

 

No, Guiness is the Liffey watered down with porter...

[monkeysarefun]

I produce 3D files of Australian cars of the 60s and 70s for a local manufacturer who prints them in N scale and sells them commercially.

 

 A few months ago  a post appeared on  that manufacturers Facebook page going on how he  (the anonymous Facebook poster) hoped that the 3d printing guys had  got Holden's and Ford's  permission to print the models  because the car designs were owned by them etc etc and therefore could not be reproduced, even in miniature.  This led to a heap of people jumping in on both sides giving their opinions which varied between total agreement and that the 3d printing company was about to get sued for millions, to another that the design wasn't protected but any  blueprints or photos that  I'd used to draw up the CAD files were  the copyright of wherever I'd got them from.  The blue prints were freely available from several sites, the one I chose I ensured there was no limitations on commercial work, I did use many photo references from the web though and I'll admit that  I didn't ask  each of the photos owners if I could use their picture to make sure I got the door handle or whatever right. Oops!

 

 Still others reckoned that the  actual car design was ok but if I reproduced  any badgework or manufacturers emblems etc, THAT would be a breach of copyright. 

 

Then there were others who said the whole suggestion was ridiculous because in that case movie and  tv directors would have to ask the permission of every car manufacturer in order to be able to have  cars  appear in their work.

 

Obviously everyone on Facebook is a legal expert...

 

 

 

I spent quite some time looking for an actual answer online so I could shut at least half of  them up but could find nothing definitive. All I came away with at the end  was that I should seek specialist copyright legal advice, which seemed a bit over the top. 

 

I'd like to get an actual properly sourced answer one day because if you think about it, if  brought to it's actual nutty  conclusion ANY  commercial model built as a copy of an existing prototype would be in the same situation, from   0 scale Flying Scotsman's to N scale platform seats!

 

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by monkeysarefun

[The Johnster]

Ooo goody, my entire hobby is probably illegal, mean inner-city street cred kudos for Johnster...

[billbedford]

Nope. Not illegal, unlawful.  Meaning you can't get sent down for copyright violations but you can be fined, sometimes heavily. 

Edited October 14, 2023 by billbedford

[OnTheBranchline]

3 minutes ago, billbedford said:

Nope. Not illegal, unlawful.  Meaning you can't get sent down for copyright violations but you can be fined, sometimes heavily. 

 

But Johnster always wanted to go to Australia... 

[The Johnster]

Yeah, but not on a convict ship!

[Cwmtwrch]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

Nope. Not illegal, unlawful.  Meaning you can't get sent down for copyright violations but you can be fined, sometimes heavily. 

So far as I know, fines are only relevant in criminal cases. Civil matters are usually dealt with by (a) the court ordering one party to do, or not do, whatever the problem was, or (b) assessing damages and costs against the loser in the case, or sometimes both. However, copyright law does make provision for criminal prosecution in some cases, most commonly used, again so far as I know, in computer software piracy cases - see Section 107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988. Sanctions available to the court may include imprisonment, the length depending on the actual charge and which court tries it.

[BR60103]

Some US railroads have clamped down on models. I think you may find little TM letters on locomotves that don't appear on the prototype.

I have also seen models labelled "authorized" -- Go Transit double decker coaches.

 

We went to a talk from a Disney expert.  He talked about some peanut butter commercials that featured a little flying fairy. He said they hadn't been copyrighted because nobody expected anyone to do anything with them again.

 

[SteveyDee68]

Disney … the corporation behind the extension of all copyright so as to keep “Mickey” copyrighted for as long as possible, and thereby extend their income for official licensing of said image for production of toys/pajamas/tea towels/cushions/mugs/trains you name it.

 

As an educator, one of the joys of a website/music notation program called MuseScore was how many musicians had created simple arrangements of well known Disney songs/tunes to inspire young musicians; nobody had done this to make money, and yet a couple of years ago the website  got a lovely “cease and desist” notice from Disney lawyers, and so all those little arrangements - which could be used as is or used as a basis to create another arrangement for a different group - all disappeared!

 

Does Disney publish such arrangements? I want “King of the Swingers” for trumpet, violin, trombone, recorders, ukulele and piano; does anyone publish such an arrangement to buy? No, because there’s no money to be made writing an arrangement for such an esoteric group! Could I have previously adapted - for free - an arrangement for brass quartet from MuseScore, thereby saving hours of my time? Yes! Am I selling such an arrangement? No! Are my students enjoying playing familiar music? Yes! If they’ve never heard of “The Jungle Book” but enjoyed the music, are they likely to seek out the film, maybe even buy it on DVD or download it? Possibly! In other words, I might be creating revenue for Disney but the lawyers don’t want anyone using Disney owned music without first paying them for the privilege!

 

I know someone who tried to do that - they were asked how many sales of their arrangement they expected to sell (er, none?!) and how much money they expected to make from performing the arrangement (er, again, none - it’s a school concert), and were then told the MINIMUM sales was 10 at a license cost of X dollars each which added up to over $100 for a simplified and shortened melody. Result? The kids missed out on the Disney tune because the teacher didn’t want to pay a licensing fee and daren’t risk doing it without in case Disney ever got wind and decided to sue!

 

Another friend started running Frozen-themed children’s parties when Frozen first became a global mega phenomenon - she’d had costumes for Elsa etc made by a costumier that were far better than the “hire” costumes available, and had auditioned and trained several young ladies to act/sing as Elsa etc, and was indeed getting bookings left right and centre; I warned her that she was breaking intellectual copyright as the characters were “owned” by Disney, but she thought that there was no way Disney would be interested in her tiny little operation - where was the harm? She’d been running them for only a couple of months when she received a “cease and desist” letter from Disney! What she hadn’t counted upon was delighted parents posting photos online on FaceBook praising the events, their friends asking who did the parties and her company being tagged in (with happy customers thinking they were doing her a favour by recommending her!)

 

Give her credit, she then tried to negotiate a deal with Disney saying that she was providing a quality service that did not damage Disney’s reputation (to be honest, her actors were really good!) and furthermore was providing something that Disney were not doing. She expected quite a high licensing fee, or maybe even a franchise deal - she got nothing but a blank refusal and a threat that continuing would result in being sued! Needless to say, she stopped.*
 

There was a clear difference between the two - one for non profit educational purposes, the other as a for profit business, but the Disney stance was exactly the same - what belongs to us stays with us, and we ain’t sharing.

 

Copyright is a minefield, but if you want to know who has made it worse just look to your family friendly purveyor of all things Mickey!

 

<soap box mode off>

[Northmoor]

Sounds like Disney's lawyers have all the charm of the delightful Walt himself.

[DCB]

"Some folks have charm but Walt Disney"   say it in a Scottish accent.

 

How about this for a work around        Next plan pose car in front of enlarged  photograph of a country scene
I have had so much trouble measuring buildings and translating the measurement into photographs that I have taken to using a known photo as a template that way I can insert the name I want in place of an existing one and get a good fit.  See 2nd pic. All done in the best POSSIBLE taste    Superquick Bank is about to become a Pub.

Edited February 5 by DCB

[Cwmtwrch]

6 hours ago, DCB said:

"Some folks have charm but Walt Disney"   say it in a Scottish accent.

An Ulster one works well, too...