Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[petrofinder]

I just found this forum and have been trying to research the legalities of using and old trademarks. I collect lots of gas and oil memorabilia and there were many many companies through the years. Recently some artist have been recreating exact artwork that was used but the old companies and threatening to sue anyone who uses trying to reproduce the artwork. Keep in mind many of these companies were bought out by big oil giants like Mobil, Conoco, Phillips etc. Do these artist have a leg to stand on? I had thought that you could not take images out of the public domain and copyright/trademark them? Any thoughts?

[Isaac]

What leads you to believe that those old images are not protected by copyright?  It seems likely to me that those images are not in the public domain.

[petrofinder]

Well I am not certian but I know that they have not renewed the copyright or trademark since 1954. Don't they expire after a length of time?

[Isaac]

In theory, copyrights do expire.  However a couple of extensions to copyright term have been granted over the last couple of decades, and there is no reason to think another one won't happen in 15 years or so.

Further there is no longer a requirement to renew copyrights.  I think 1978 was the date of the change in law.  If so a copyright renewed in 1954 would have been in effect at the time the law changed and would not need further renewal.

If the pictures are published works copyrighted after 1923 then the copyright is potentially still alive.

[petrofinder]

Most of the art was create pre-1923.

Are you saying the since the original copyrights/trademarks are most likely still in place that the artists who are creating the new art are most likely mistaken with there claims of ownership.

After reading through this site it seams that there are multiple ways to search for copyrights/trademarks but most of the work is manual and that a search of the online registries is not a good basis to say an image/name is not found therefore available to be trademarked.

[Isaac]

Artwork published pre 1923 should be in the public domain.   I don't know how easy it would be to establish that, but if you confirmed that in the renewal registry, you should be in good shape.

I'm a little confused concerning who is doing the comlaining.  Are you talking about the original artists complaining about copiers or about copiers complaining about people copying their recreations?   I cannot rule out the possibility that the recreations contain some new and original expression supporting a new copyright.

[petrofinder]

sorry for the confusion-
an artist recreating logos from pictures or signs and then claiming to own the copyright/trademark. The new art replicates the old art. Nothing new in the new art.

[Isaac]

If the artist is photocopying then perhaps there is nothing new.  But if the artist is drawing, painting, sketching, old artwork, or even photographing a 3D object, there are bound to be some differences that might well be the basis for copyright even if a quick glance reveals nothing all that different.   I have not seen the pictures in question, but in general, artistic means of reproducing art do not generate the kind of slavish copy that we can say unquestionably generates no new copyright.

You would of course be free to recreate from the source material...