PDA

View Full Version : Screen printing copywrite images or text



LRC
09-08-2017, 08:22 AM
Hi. Do any of you often come across request to print copywritten images or text.

Obviously you don't entertain the idea, but how do you ensure you avoid doing this?

I was thinking some kind of indemnity would help with this. Getting customers to sign to say that they own an image or text or have permission to use it.

socialgiraffe
09-08-2017, 11:03 AM
This has been discussed many times and there are two schools of thought.

My personal opinion is that if you clearly state in your terms and conditions that if you are offering a printing service then it is assumed the purchaser has copyright permission and that you accept no responsibility for copyright infringement. This is they way most personalisation companies operate as it is the most economical and easiest to administrate.

The other thought is that, as the printer, it is up to you to check that the purchaser has copyright permission, how you would do this is beyond me and it is not something I subscribe to.

All of the above assumes you are not selling a product that breaches copyright. i.e.

If someone pops in with a design on a USB stick that has "HAPPY BIRTHDAY LRC, LOVE FROM MINNIE MOUSE" with a picture of Minnie Mouse, it is my opinion that while this obviously breaches copyright it is not down to you to enforce it and you are perfectly entitled to print it.

However, if you advertise a mug with Minnie Mouse on it and a statement along the lines of "personalise this mug here" you are in breach of copyright.

pw66
19-09-2017, 12:24 PM
This is a question that those of us who print workwear face regularly.
To a certain extent you need to use some common sense. Is the customer likely to be entitled to use the trademark, and what is the end use likely to be?

For example-
If the local Volkswagen dealer wants you to print some branded workwear or some t-shirts for staff to wear in a local fun run then you are probably have grounds to believe that the use is legitimate. If not legitimate, you will still have a reasonable defence, if prosecuted.
If the local Volkswagen owners club ask you to print some branded merchandise to sell to members then you could well be counterfeiting. Just because they own a VW doesn't entitle them to use the trademark.

I can virtually guarantee that no one will ever walk into your shop with a legitimate use for Minnie Mouse. The trademark is obviously not theirs to use.

Trademark owners and Trading Standards Officers are just as interested in the producers of counterfeit goods as they are the sellers.

GoonerGary
19-09-2017, 12:49 PM
A big professional photographic printer in London has terms and conditions which places the onus on you the customer. So they assume that you have permission to use the copyrighted works, but you will also pay their (astronomical) legal costs to defend any copyright claim made against them.

A local ink stamp maker will not produce company logos unless it comes on headed notepaper and he can verify that you have permission to do so. I could have company merchandise printed and then use that merchandise for illegal purposes. Log book fraud for a garage logo; logo on a polo shirt to commit a robbery using a fake uniform.

socialgiraffe
19-09-2017, 03:22 PM
I can virtually guarantee that no one will ever walk into your shop with a legitimate use for Minnie Mouse. The trademark is obviously not theirs to use.

But that is not the point, while there is probably no doubt that the customer does not have copyright permission, it is not down to you as the printing service to administer it. No where in law does it state you are.


Trademark owners and Trading Standards Officers are just as interested in the producers of counterfeit goods as they are the sellers.

Again, that is very different to what I am saying.

pw66
19-09-2017, 04:28 PM
But that is not the point, while there is probably no doubt that the customer does not have copyright permission, it is not down to you as the printing service to administer it. No where in law does it state you are.
You are selling a product with some ones trademark on it. To claim you are just fulfilling a customer order is not a defence, no matter what disclaimers you rely on. The more high profile the trademark, the more obvious the breach and the less defence you will have. You might get away with infringing an obscure TM.
You are being very naive if you think that you are covered because you are just supplying a printing service. Ask your local Trading Standards department to clarify matters for you.

socialgiraffe
19-09-2017, 04:44 PM
Ask your local Trading Standards department to clarify matters for you.

I don't need to. Sorry, but I am right with this one. I have a website that is very closely linked to Disney Products. It is not officially endorsed and it is not offering counterfeits, it is a perfectly legitimate business where customers can upload their own artwork to be printed on a Disney product.

We had this checked by our own legal team and even met with Disney in Florida to discuss the site. None of them raised the issue of copyright as it is not relevant when offering a service. Trading Standards have never approached us and to be honest, never will as there is no infringement.

pw66
19-09-2017, 05:10 PM
It is not officially endorsed and it is not offering counterfeits, it is a perfectly legitimate business where customers can upload their own artwork to be printed on a Disney product.


You are talking about adding personalisation to a legitimate licensed product, which is not the original question. Most of us will print onto branded product at some time - it is no different to adding a name to a football shirt.

The original question was about printing a trademarked image or name. If you print a trademark without permission of the IP owner then you are in breach of trademark. Any disclaimer you have between you and the customer is not binding on the IP owner.

socialgiraffe
19-09-2017, 05:22 PM
You are talking about adding personalisation to a legitimate licensed product, which is not the original question. Most of us will print onto branded product at some time - it is no different to adding a name to a football shirt.

Correct, but that is because I did not explain it properly. The items I produce are a stand alone product. However I will point out that I have an online artwork creation tool so the buyer does all the work, I just print and dispatch.

The key factor here is that the law is black and white on copyright. While it continues to be so then a printing service can not be held responsible for any copyright infringement. It would be a fair assumption that you have to make sure that the purchaser signs a form of some description (I know its in our T&Cs), but because it is open to different interpretation then you can not expect the printer to make the judgement.

Otherwise trading standards etc, etc are reliant on the "opinion" of the printer which is not a black and white definition.

pw66
19-09-2017, 06:56 PM
The 'opinion' of the printer is of little relevance - Trading Standards are responsible for enforcing any criminal breach of the relevant laws. It is the responsibility of any business owner to ensure compliance with the law. Ignorance is not an excuse.
It only takes a few minutes to check a Trademark on the Patent Office website.
If you print an item with some ones TM on it, without their permission, you are manufacturing a counterfeit item for commercial gain. The fact that you are doing it on behalf of a customer makes little difference.
Infringement can lead to both civil and criminal proceedings.

GoonerGary
19-09-2017, 11:15 PM
Restricted acts:

It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:
Copy the work.
Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
Adapt the work.

https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

pisquee
20-09-2017, 12:17 AM
Gooner,
Could it be argued that if someone claims to be the owner, that it is not within your remit to investigate the claim?
And, from that, if someone asks for something to be printed with a company logo (or other IP) that in doing do, safe to assume, they are entitled to be able to print it.
?
You could ask for evidence of right or licence to use the IP - but if someone is willing to infringe IP, it is not beyond scope that they would also be willing to forge some kind of official looking document to say that they did have permit to use?

In saying that, I can also see the other side of the argument, that you are printing someone else's IP in exchange for monetary gain, and regardless of whether that customer is on wholesale/trade/business terms and not a retail customer only affects the amount of money per unit changing hands, but the infringement still occurs, and in the wholesale scenario, obviously is less money per unit, but much more money overall.

Is there previous legal case precedent to show which way the UK courts sided in this line of argument?

GoonerGary
20-09-2017, 10:40 AM
To answer your first part pisquee, I can only draw from experience. So when I worked for Jessops we would print for customers. A guy came in with a professional portrait which he wanted copied. Our policy was that the customer had to provide a written letter showing permission. If unsure, you would ring up the photographer and check.

With wedding photography; back in the day, no photographer would release their negatives/ digital files, so customers would never come in with original files to be printed. But as cowboy photographers started dumping wedding pics onto CDs without the finished prints, customers were then coming in with 'professional' looking wedding photos....professional wedding photographers now offer the same shoot/ no print service. Within that CD contains a release file to allow the reproduction of those photographs.

So permission letters have always been there for the printers to go ahead and print someone else's work. Covering their arses or legal requirement, my guess is the latter especially when someone walks in off the street and you know they are not in the business of photography.

In my youth, I wanted an obscure album cover printed onto a T shirt. The guy reluctantly printed it for me and told me never tell anyone where you got that printed! So I've never come a cross a situation where it is ok to print what you want, no questions asked.

If the law says, you cannot copy the work, that's black and white.

Quinsfan
20-09-2017, 10:44 AM
I think my best example is the local garage that specialises in German car repairs. They have a van that needs sign writing. Along with the name of the garage the wish to have the logos of Merc, BMW and Vw. The sign above their unit have these logos and they have certification , with logos, from these companies to say they are approved mechanics hanging on the wall. In fact they even want some some mugs to hand out to their customers.
I would quite happily produce these for them but reading this I may be open to prosecution.

Andrew
20-09-2017, 10:55 AM
When you go to P+P the software providers for the selling platforms of personalised products claim they had all of this checked. The onus is on the customer and not the printer so they said. At the end of the day this is exactly how ebay and amazon operate. They have endless dodgy gear on there but it is not their responsibility. Their terms and conditions cover their backs.

If a customer comes into the shop and asks for a print and states they have legal right to it even if it is Minnie Mouse, you can assume and guess they don't but that is all it is. You do not know for certain and the customer claimed he was certain. That would be enough for any court to not put responsibility on you. After all, the court would not be able to assume or guess that individual did not have permission to convict. They would have to prove beyond any doubt.

socialgiraffe
20-09-2017, 12:27 PM
What about this....

Pisquee prints some fantastic and beautiful patterns. Let say someone grabs that from wherever and pops into a shop and asks it to be printed on a phone case.

Shopkeeper asks, who owns the image and the purchaser replies that they do.

What else can the printer do?

No disrespect to Pisquee, but how would I, as the printer, know it really belongs to him?

Printers are not the Copyright police.

socialgiraffe
20-09-2017, 12:28 PM
I think my best example is the local garage that specialises in German car repairs. They have a van that needs sign writing. Along with the name of the garage the wish to have the logos of Merc, BMW and Vw. The sign above their unit have these logos and they have certification , with logos, from these companies to say they are approved mechanics hanging on the wall. In fact they even want some some mugs to hand out to their customers.
I would quite happily produce these for them but reading this I may be open to prosecution.

No you will not. It is scaremongering.

socialgiraffe
20-09-2017, 12:31 PM
If the law says, you cannot copy the work, that's black and white.

Correct, but you are suggesting the printer is copying the work. They are not, they are a service. There is a huge difference that I am not sure people are grasping.

GoonerGary
20-09-2017, 01:08 PM
The onus is on the customer and not the printer so they said. At the end of the day this is exactly how ebay and amazon operate. They have endless dodgy gear on there but it is not their responsibility. Their terms and conditions cover their backs..

But eBay and Amazon do police copyright content by removing the offending material once notified. If they didn't act they would also become liable for the infringement. I am quite certain that this is the law. They withdrew the service to the customer because it was illegal to reproduce the work.

GoonerGary
20-09-2017, 01:14 PM
As for the garage owners. VW sued the garage owners who used their logo without permission. Even if they hand out VW mugs out to customers, they don't have a marketing license to do so. Having permission to be an authorised dealer doesn't mean that you are VW themselves and can do what you please. Those mugs would have to come from 'head office'.

pw66
20-09-2017, 02:08 PM
If a customer comes into the shop and asks for a print and states they have legal right to it even if it is Minnie Mouse, you can assume and guess they don't but that is all it is. You do not know for certain and the customer claimed he was certain. That would be enough for any court to not put responsibility on you. After all, the court would not be able to assume or guess that individual did not have permission to convict. They would have to prove beyond any doubt.

So if I come into your shop and ask you to print the 'Superdry' logo onto a t-shirt you are going to take my word for it that I have permission? What if I ask for 50? At what stage do you stop offering a print service and become a counterfeiter?

JMugs
20-09-2017, 02:16 PM
I printed some polo shirts for the local branch of a political party, the second half of the order was cancelled because head office said they had to come from them and that I was not licensed to use the logo and title. "So much for supporting a small local business" was the local chairpersons response to head office, but towing the party line was demanded.

Janners

socialgiraffe
20-09-2017, 02:54 PM
So if I come into your shop and ask you to print the 'Superdry' logo onto a t-shirt you are going to take my word for it that I have permission? What if I ask for 50? At what stage do you stop offering a print service and become a counterfeiter?

Irrelevant whether is 1 or 1 million.

My point is, and continues to be, is that as the printer it is not down to you to police copyright infringement. If you carry out due diligence, which in this is is simply to ask them and possibly sign a form, then you are covered.

Let me throw it back....

If a customer comes in with a photograph (digital or flat) which they claim they have taken themselves. What else can you do except ask them if they own it?

Just to clarify, I am a B2B supplier and do not deal with the public, I doubt it is any different but it might be.

pw66
20-09-2017, 03:36 PM
If a customer comes in with a photograph (digital or flat) which they claim they have taken themselves. What else can you do except ask them if they own it?

Just to clarify, I am a B2B supplier and do not deal with the public, I doubt it is any different but it might be.

The copyright of a photograph automatically rests with the photographer ( or the person who commissioned the work, if so agreed). It is quite possible that confusion could arise in the use of photographs. In the case of obscure or run of the mill images any disclaimer you have had your customer sign would be your mitigation if there was any infringement.

But if the photo was a well known image, or a movie still, or something obviously professionally taken of a well known person then no disclaimer will cover you. If there is an infringement that the owner of the image or trademark wants to redress then you can still be prosecuted.

Quinsfan
20-09-2017, 03:54 PM
As for the garage owners. VW sued the garage owners who used their logo without permission. Even if they hand out VW mugs out to customers, they don't have a marketing license to do so. Having permission to be an authorised dealer doesn't mean that you are VW themselves and can do what you please. Those mugs would have to come from 'head office'.

The garage was sued not the company that produced them? If so then that means we can produce items for a third party as they are the person who is responsible for its use.
We are just the people who have the knowledge and equipment to place the artwork onto a substrate.
If I was to print it myself to sell it myself then I am in the wrong.
I hope that makes sense [emoji15]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

socialgiraffe
20-09-2017, 04:06 PM
But if the photo was a well known image, or a movie still, or something obviously professionally taken of a well known person then no disclaimer will cover you. If there is an infringement that the owner of the image or trademark wants to redress then you can still be prosecuted.

Totally irrelevant, as I said, the law is black and white, your comment relies on the printer having some knowledge of the subject area that he is being asked to "counterfeit". I could walk in to 1000 shops with a picture of Drake and they would not have a clue who he is. With the way you are interpreting the law it would be a very grey area whether the printer is liable or not. That is not how law works.


The garage was sued not the company that produced them? If so then that means we can produce items for a third party as they are the person who is responsible for its use.
We are just the people who have the knowledge and equipment to place the artwork onto a substrate.
If I was to print it myself to sell it myself then I am in the wrong.

Exactly

Quinsfan
20-09-2017, 04:19 PM
So if I come into your shop and ask you to print the 'Superdry' logo onto a t-shirt you are going to take my word for it that I have permission? What if I ask for 50? At what stage do you stop offering a print service and become a counterfeiter?

How are you to know what they are going to do with them after you have handed them over. It may by blindingly obvious in this case but who are you to police them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andrew
20-09-2017, 04:46 PM
So if I come into your shop and ask you to print the 'Superdry' logo onto a t-shirt you are going to take my word for it that I have permission? What if I ask for 50? At what stage do you stop offering a print service and become a counterfeiter?

I don't have a shop and if I did I wouldn't give them the time of day. That is irrelevant to where the legalities are though. If the guy came into the shop in a scruffy tracksuit and 50 garments in a Poundland bag then produced a signed contract showing he had the rights to produce his own suderdry garments, would you then think it is legal? Both trading standards and the courts have to prove beyond doubt. They have vast resources to do this. It is not up to a 1 man band to achieve the same. Doesn't mean you would not get caught if you were banging out regular quantities of fakes like this. There are many grey areas still, but when I have questioned this then it is the above type of answer I have had. If you try and abuse this though I am sure then you will get caught in the end.
How many items of Superdry are being offered for sale on amazon and ebay? The selling platforms do not judge if they have the right to sell them but trust the seller as they agreed to their terms. That is sufficient as far as I am aware.

GoonerGary
20-09-2017, 09:42 PM
The garage was sued not the company that produced them? If so then that means we can produce items for a third party as they are the person who is responsible for its use.
.... [emoji15]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In this case, it was use of the VW logo on their shop sign...reproducing the logo without permission. But I'm guessing the legal argument was implying that there was an association between VW and the independent garage.

GoonerGary
20-09-2017, 09:49 PM
I'm enjoying the debate and I can see both sides, but how about we find out for sure. If we can spare the time, how about contacting our local Trading Standards and ask them; when is it a printing service and when is it counterfeiting?

Quinsfan
20-09-2017, 09:50 PM
I'm enjoying the debate and I can see both sides, but how about we find out for sure. If we can spare the time, how about contacting our local Trading Standards and ask them; when is it a printing service and when is it counterfeiting?
No don't do that this is fun[emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

calvinabc
20-09-2017, 10:51 PM
We do a lot of work for a world wide licensee, we had to sign a lot of papers and we would be very much liable if they felt there was any infringement and if there brand was damaged by anything that we had produced. obviously a bit of common sense will prevail. but it is quite a scary prospect when a big can eat the tadpole just like that. and we are not aloud to disclose or publish/advertise any of the work we do for them which is a real shame.

socialgiraffe
21-09-2017, 10:07 AM
I think the original issue is getting lost in this thread...

As printers we can NOT produce items that contain copyrighted images or trademarks and sell them ourselves. We are not operating as a printing service when that happens, but are instead operating as a merchandiser. However, should a customer ask us to print something that has a logo on there that does not belong to them we can print it as long as we make it clear to the customer that any copyright permissions is solely their responsibility.

As an example, I recently did some work for the Rolling Stones.

I could print the RS logo and supply the goods to the customer as he had supplied the artwork and assumed copyright responsibility

I can NOT take the RS logo, print it on some "stuff" and then sell it on Ebay, likewise I can not advertise the RS keying as being available for purchase bulk or individual.

Where it might get grey is if I advertise my services and include an RS image. There could be an case for me inciting counterfeit trade. But it would not be Trading Standards who would follow that up, but the RS management.

This work is 100% legitimate, but if Trading Standards were to visit I would respond with, a customer came in asked me to print these and I did. If pushed legally then I would supply their details, but only if pushed. I have done nothing wrong and it is not my job to carry out their work. I am sure this position sucks for those of you who create their own designs, to be honest, it's not great for me when I see so many knocks offs for my customers on ebay, but this is how the law sees it.

pw66
21-09-2017, 11:31 AM
In this case, it was use of the VW logo on their shop sign...reproducing the logo without permission. But I'm guessing the legal argument was implying that there was an association between VW and the independent garage.
'Honest referential use' of a brand name or trademark is a legitimate defence under section 11 of the Trade Mark Act 1994. It allows businesses to advertise that the services they offer are compatible with a branded product ( in the case of an independent VW specialist ). It also allows retailers to advertise the brands they stock without fear of being prosecuted for TM infringement. It also allows us printers to advertise the brands we print onto.

The use has to be both 'honest' and 'referential' - it shouldn't imply that the business is in anyway associated with or endorsed by the brand owner.

'Honest referential use' is unlikely to apply where the protected brand is used too prominently relative to your own brand. In practice, if the use gives the impression of a greater commercial connection with the protected brand than exists in reality, then the defence should fail. Maybe that was the case with the independent garage.

'Honest referential use' in no way applies to merchandise, but if a customer came into my shop wanting some workwear ( not for resale), signwriting to a vehicle or shop signage then I would consider it. If in doubt I would check with trading standards.

GoonerGary
21-09-2017, 12:04 PM
@pw66
It may differ from country to country, but any use of the trademarked VW logo was prohibited when offering a 'compatible service'. You can say we fix Volkswagens, but you can't print the logo on your sign/ advert.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=92eee806-dbd6-4b7f-b516-eea448a54e69

But then, selling an Apple iPhone phone cover on your product title and using just words is an infringement if not wording correctly. Names and logos are to be used with extreme caution.

In your case Social, you know that you are dealing with the Rolling Stones, just as the professional printer knows the professional photographer, they have a trusted relationship. It's when amateurs walk in off the street is the legal minefield for everyone.

pw66
21-09-2017, 01:33 PM
@pw66
It may differ from country to country, but any use of the trademarked VW logo was prohibited when offering a 'compatible service'. You can say we fix Volkswagens, but you can't print the logo on your sign/ advert.



A logo is usually covered by copyright, if it is a distinct or substantive artistic work. It will probably also be registered as a trade Mark. The laws regarding the use of copyrighted material differ from those regarding Trade Marked material. There are certain 'Fair Dealing' defences to unlicensed use of a copyrighted work, but advertising isn't one of them.

So in that respect you are correct. A logo that is covered by copyright ( even if it is also trademarked ) cannot be used. But a word mark TM can be used under the 'Honest Referential Use' defence.

In the case of the VW garage you mentioned, 'the Logo is a no go' (:wink:), but use of the text mark could be legitimate.
It is worth mentioning that in some circumstances a specific font may constitute a logo and be covered by copyright.

socialgiraffe
21-09-2017, 04:32 PM
In your case Social, you know that you are dealing with the Rolling Stones, just as the professional printer knows the professional photographer, they have a trusted relationship. It's when amateurs walk in off the street is the legal minefield for everyone.

Fair point Gooner, but what happens for a new customer, I don't ask for their CV :-)

I recently printed a load of logos for a member on here, they were for a recognized brand who I would imagine are very protective of their logo. I did not ask about copyright and nor was I interested as it is none of my business. Trading Standards could probably ask me for the customer name and I may reluctantly give it to them, but as far as them taking me to court they couldn't. They could certainly ask my customer who would probably have to provide the necessary paperwork as they are actually selling items as merchandise but not me as someone who is offering a printing service.

I appreciate it's a minefield, but as a good rule to go by, if you are asked to print something, then it is down to the customer to seek the correct permissions.