posted 01-11-2006 12:51 PM            

My reference came from many areas. Auctions, books, actual lenses in peoples collections, items I own, etc.

I've stated this before in previous posts: Owning an original lens or decal or sign does not give you the copyrights to the image. The Copyright Office issues Copyrights. All you own is the item itself.

Anyone can create new art of vintage gasoline logos and send in an application for a copyright. But if the image is currently copyrighted, they will not receive the rights to the art they created.

It's my understanding that the Bearcat image(s) you are attempting to recreate are under copyright and you are negotiating with the holder for the rights to reproduce them. Is this correct or is my information wrong?

If it's correct - what's the difference between them and me? The people you are dealing with didn't create the original artwork, they have just retained the rights to it through inheritance law.

I'm not planning on squating on any of the art I hold copyrights to. If someone wants to create another product using the image, I'd be more than happy to talk to them regarding licensing. (In fact, I had a discussion with one of the major restoration houses on a couple of items. I heard that they decided not to proceed with their projects.) I'm just looking to protect my investment in time and energy that I spent creating the art used for my products.

As for me stealing artwork (your word, not mine) from you or anybody else. All I can say is that I have never knowingly infringed on another's copyrighted image, and I don't plan on starting now. All you have is your word in this world - and I plan on keeping mine.

I have made it a point to check with both of the major lens manufacturer's prior to working on a new lens design to see if they had planned on doing that particular image. If so, I did not proceded with the art or the copyright application. And I secure the copyrights to the image prior to going into production on ALL the lenses we at T-way's produce. Whether the image is a fantasy or a historical image.

Speaking of the major players in lens manufacturing. They retain all the copyright rights that I have on all the images on their sites - they just haven't physically registered their lens images with the Copyright Office. Remember, as soon as the image is 'published' it's covered. And they have nothing but historical images.

If push-came-to-shove, either of them could sue in U.S. Federal Court and prevail

Wes and Larry, I value your opinions and thank you for stating them here. I'm sorry that you feel the way you do.

Thanks for your questions.

Jim

[This message has been edited by T-way (edited 01-11-2006).]

posted 01-11-2006 01:28 PM            

It is my understanding that if you desire to make a Fyre-Drop sign using the black background with the lettering that appears on my image - yes, you would need to secure licensing rights from me. Your art would need to be substantially different from mine to not infringe.

If you design another image based on one of the other lenses Fyre-Drop used - then no, I have no claim on those.

As for the Powerlube. The Image I produced is registered to me via the U.S. Copyright Office. Their search (not mine) did not turn up a current copyright on any portion of the art I registered or the rights would not have been granted to me.

And my search for a Trademark registration for 'Powerlube' does not show any 'Live' trademarks. If, I did infringe on their image in any way, I'd be happy to pay them for the necessary licensing fees. Providing I receive documentation on the infringment.

Jim

posted 01-11-2006 01:35 PM            

RE: the powerlube... It seems that perhaps you can copyright things that are already copyrighted, as long as the current owner doesn't find out about it and go after you for it... The copyright office must not be very thorough...

posted 01-11-2006 01:41 PM            

I think I have about said my piece. I also will speak with my wallet by continuing not to buy from you.This by far takes the cake for the worst thing I have heard on this site.

posted 01-11-2006 04:26 PM            

Look forward to hearing where T-Way got the image to produce the globe. If it is as simple as lifting an image off of the internet and taking the risk of the image not having a copyright on it and then obtaining one if there is no existing copyright, I can see where owners of rare pieces will shy away from sharing their photos here. If things are that simple, I wouldn't even allow someone to view my collection (if I had a rare item) without first getting a copyright. Am I missing something on how all this works? If, for the sake of example, the image used to develop the Fyre Drop globe was in fact taken from a posted photo of a globe owned by another party (Roger), was Roger's rights infringed upon?

Interesting topic, look forward to more clarification.