Logo Design Stolen

[ezaro]

Hello,

Need some advice. Here’s the story.

I created 3 logo concepts for a plumbing company in my town. It was for a friend of a friend. We never wrote anything up since I trusted this guy. I knew him, I even had a couple of drinks with him a few years back at a party.

Anyway, I posted the concepts to my website so he could view them. After several unanswered emails and calls from me, I heard from my friend that he thought my price was too expensive. After several more unanswered calls, I gave up. I could really do anything to get compensated anyway since I really never had a contract with him. So I ate the money and moved on. This was about a year ago.

A few weeks ago, I’m looking through my local paper. I see an ad for his company WITH MY LOGO. He’s been using my logo for a while. And then to boot, I see his work trucks, also, with my logo. Needless to say, I called him, left messages – with of course no response.

Now this I can’t let go. When he first turned my price down, I accepted it. But this, I can’t. It’s not even about the money. I feel like he stole from me.

What is the best way to handle this? Can I do anything legally?

Thanks.

[morea]

Sorry to hear it. Start here:

http://www.creativelatitude.com/articles/article_200610_burke.html

[ezaro]

thanks a million

[balou]

I'd try to talk to him in person. Show up at his office. Tell him how it can be rectified without getting the lawyers involved. Be prepared with the proper paperwork. If he refuses to cooperate, explain that it will go through the courts and cost a lot more money. Next I'd call a lawyer. Usually they will do an initial consultation at no cost. It may be best to call the lawyer first.

[morea]

my pleasure. I hope that you get it sorted out!
Keep us up to date, won't you?

[Seapony]

I wouldn't go over to see him.

He knows what he did. And after spending money on car wraps and ads I doubt he'll see reason, either.

Send him a stern letter with the cc to <so-and-so> attorney at law, ordering him to desist before taking legal action against him and his company for theft of intellectual property and other assorted damages. Keep the working files safe and make sure to get ahold of your friend who referred him to you to begin with as a witness that you were solicited for work.

And not to beat someone when they're down, but consider this a little lesson about proceeding without a contract or written agreement before producing any conceptual work (even in conversation). As you can see it's so easy to just go to a cheaper resource to apply another's ideas, whether they're physically designed or discussed in conversation.

Sorry this had to happen. Good Luck pursuing this guy.

:)

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

I had a similar thing happen years ago. A friend who was a lawyer wrote the guy a letter demanding what I would have originally been paid for the design - plus that same amount again in "damages" - or we would take the matter to court which might end up with the business having to stop using the logo completely. I had a contract with the guy for all project work - but with this particular project element he had decided not to proceed with the job. Instead, he took it to a Kinko's and had them copy it. The guy paid - so, I ended up making double on the project.

- J.

[JgS]

I remember in law class that a spoken contract can be just as valuable as a written one. Not sure how that works but it might be worth looking into. Having you friend as a witness and the original working files might be all you need.

[tZ]

Doesn't sound like they are into legit practices. What I would have done is once I had known they stole by design was go and had it copyrighted without their knowledge. Then you could most likely sell it was yours because you had it copyrighted and they didn't. That is… being they didn't have it copyrighted but, I'm assuming they didn't from the way they conduct business. Could be wrong…

[ezaro]

lesson learned is right. I dont care if its my aunt, uncle, mother...everyone is getting a proposal for now on.

[tZ]

What you can do next time you get this type of "client" is have the proces work copyrighted itself as a group. This way that regardless of how the logo is executed you have the conceptual proof and composition to hold up it was a theft. Although, I'd be interested in knowing if this approach would actually hold up court if you just had sketches and nothing in finished(vector) form…

Something maybe to look into. From what i remember I think you can copyright a group of documents for $30 with no limit to the number of things in the group.

[JgS]

There is always the poor mans copyright. you take your print outs and digital work and mail it to yourself. if you run into a problem you have a sealed and dated envelope to prove that you created the logo and all it cost is the postage.

[Virgo Nightingale]

There is always the poor mans copyright. you take your print outs and digital work and mail it to yourself. if you run into a problem you have a sealed and dated envelope to prove that you created the logo and all it cost is the postage.
This is not a valid method of copyrighting. It will not hold up in court, since it has been proven to be subject to tampering and fraud.

The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.

[morea]

There is always the poor mans copyright. you take your print outs and digital work and mail it to yourself. if you run into a problem you have a sealed and dated envelope to prove that you created the logo and all it cost is the postage.

doesn't work:

http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28792

[Ovaltine]

There is always the poor mans copyright. you take your print outs and digital work and mail it to yourself. if you run into a problem you have a sealed and dated envelope to prove that you created the logo and all it cost is the postage.

I thought it had to be certified mail anyway, and you couldn't open the package, so as to maintain the legitamacy of the claim. Otherwise you could concievably put anything into the envelope after you opened it.

I'd also like to suggest printing out all your e-mails out to prove you tried to contact him repeatedly. And If you have any e-mailed corrosponance with this person prior to the theft, where he's offering direction, instruction, etc. print that too, it should help to prove he asked for the logo's creation in the first place.

[morea]

Yeah that mailing it to yourself thing is an urban myth. Send your self an unsealed empty envelope and then years later stick something in it and there's your claim LOL.

Do it through the Library of Congress, last time i checked it was $45. If you do it as a collection it's $45 no matter how many songs.

I don't think that certified mail would work, either.

[Ned]

Believe it or not, Email proof is better than the "poor man's copyright", in court. It's funny, being as email is all digital, and much easier to alter than sealed, registered mail. But, who ever said justice was logical? People are convicted on emails all the time, never on "poor man's copyright" anymore.

Get a lawyer to write a letter, demanding payment for the logo. It will most likely be settled once they know that you have a lawyer involved, and will likely not go to court, and as such should not cost you much.

[tZ]

Its funny how more value is placed on an email since, really I could forge an email easier then I could tamper with mail,lol.

Unless you have something that proves the date then your just going to have learn from your mistake and move on.

[Ovaltine]

I don't think that certified mail would work, either.

I don't know if the laws altered, but I was told in college that certified mail would work. I was told regular mail was no good.

It doesn't make sense that email would be better than an unopened certified letter, but hey, get both and you're golden I guess.

[Ned]

Yeah, I was taught the same when I was in school, Ovaltine, but that's old news... Doesn't hold up in court anymore. People are just too damned greedy.

[Ovaltine]

Well crap, how then does one who has no $ get a copyright? I though the work was supposed to be copywritten the moment you create it. It seems to be yet another game of "screw the artist". As in "Let's make it easy for jerks to steal art/design and make it extremely difficult for the artist/designer to prove the work really belongs to them (the artist/designer)."

[tZ]

To really prove it in court it needs a copyright. You don't need to rich. For $30 bucks you can copyright a group of items. To sue and be eligible for damages you need a copyright. i don't really get that either when they everything is copyrighted once you create but, then there are a lot of things I don't understand,lol. I'll just agree with what they say since, its not my profession.

[Ned]

Yes, copyright is indeed inherent the moment you create it.

The problem is PROVING that you were the first to create it. If it becomes published, then that's your copyright, right there. Many eyes will see it, and become witness to it, and the publication would no doubt have record of it. Then if somebody else publishes it after, your date of publication will be the earliest. Anything that doesn't get published and put out into the public, however, is difficult to protect without going through the expense of government registration. Like I said, people are too greedy...

[Seapony]

Well crap, how then does one who has no $ get a copyright? I though the work was supposed to be copywritten the moment you create it. It seems to be yet another game of "screw the artist". As in "Let's make it easy for jerks to steal art/design and make it extremely difficult for the artist/designer to prove the work really belongs to them (the artist/designer)."
A visual arts copyright costs only $45 USD here in the states, and you can submit images in bulk per application (http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html).

It's about being informed and avoiding the dreaded procrastination. A shame some design institutions still don't address these basic issues, but I digress.

:)

[Ned]

A visual arts copyright costs only $45 USD here in the states, and you can submit images in bulk per application (http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html).

In bulk? You mean like totally different, non-related designs, all under one application fee? If that's the case, then that's not such a bad thing... otherwise, $45 per design (or set of designs for one marketing scheme) is very costly, considering how many you can make in a short period.

[Riya]

From copyright.gov:

Under the following conditions, a work may be registered in unpublished form as a “collection,” with one application form and one fee:

The elements of the collection are assembled in an orderly form;
The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole;
The copyright claimant in all the elements and in the collection as a whole is the same; and
All the elements are by the same author, or, if they are by different authors, at least one of the authors has contributed copyrightable authorship to each element. An unpublished collection is not indexed under the individual titles of the contents but under the title of the collection.

[Ned]

Ah, then it is a per-project or per-piece cost.

Considering the amount of "product" we SHOULD have copyrighted, I'd hardly call that cheap. And of course, it's never the ones you choose to copyright, which will be ripped off.

[Riya]

Not neccessarily. You could copyright a collection of pieces entitled "Illustrations by Ned". That could cover a whole lot of projects.

[PrintDriver]

There's a lot of things people are told in college that aren't true.

I especially like the "change 3 things and it's yours" concept. That one isn't true either.

I don't believe there has ever been a provision in copyright law upholding the Poor Man's Copyright. It's another one of those urban myths that just keeps hanging around.

[Seapony]

There's a lot of things people are told in college that aren't true.

I especially like the "change 3 things and it's yours" concept. That one isn't true either.
Surely you jest. I've never heard of this being taught in schools.

:eek:

[emmerse]

^^ funny story about this myth:

I ran into a designer's myspace page with a sample of MY WORK in his portfolio. I natually called him out on the theft, and his justification was that he "added a second side to the business card, therefore altering the design 50%" - which means he can show it. I naturally pointed out the obvious fact that he didn't alter ANY of the front side, which means it's still my work and should not be in his portfolio without credit. He made a lot of other childish remarks and finally took it off his page. Two words for this type of design professional: ass hat.

[tZ]

emmerse wrote:

design professional


…

[emmerse]

…

indeed

[teniworks]

"change 3 things and it's yours" concept
When I was in school we were always told that if it even resembles someone else's work then it's theirs. Period. There is a situation going on like that now at the school where a student blatantly stole another designer's work (all of it) and called it his own. He is currently being sued by that designer.

[JgS]

I was told something like that in school. Something along the line that you can use up to 30% of another designers work in a single piece.

[Seapony]

I was told something like that in school. Something along the line that you can use up to 30% of another designers work in a single piece.

Wow. My utter disdain for the quality of college level design education has unbelievably grown.

:mad:

[JgS]

its from the same teacher that told us that the "poor man's copyright" would always hold up in court.

[palo1]

its from the same teacher that told us that the "poor man's copyright" would always hold up in court.

While the poor mans copyright does not hold up in court, getting it signed and dated by a notary (such as a paralegal or bank teller) will. At least, that is what I understand. My professor told me of this trick, and I trust his 30+ years of experience. Aside from that, I am sure that they would have no problems with signing them for you, since after they sign (from what I understand), it becomes a legal binding document.

[budafist]

While the poor mans copyright does not hold up in court, getting it signed and dated by a notary (such as a paralegal or bank teller) will. At least, that is what I understand. My professor told me of this trick, and I trust his 30+ years of experience. Aside from that, I am sure that they would have no problems with signing them for you, since after they sign (from what I understand), it becomes a legal binding document.

Never heard of that one, but just coz a bank teller signed it, doesn't mean the thing they are signing is original and yours.

Example, I could print a logo from the internet and get my bank teller friend to sign it. Now what?

[morea]

While the poor mans copyright does not hold up in court, getting it signed and dated by a notary (such as a paralegal or bank teller) will. At least, that is what I understand. My professor told me of this trick, and I trust his 30+ years of experience. Aside from that, I am sure that they would have no problems with signing them for you, since after they sign (from what I understand), it becomes a legal binding document.

that's interesting... I haven't heard that before but it sounds logical.

Buda, a notary has to use an official seal and sign their name to the document. You would probably have to include a sworn statement to the effect that you had created the design in question, and then sign it in front of the notary, who would witness your signature and then put their seal on it. If a notary endorsed something that they knew to be false, I would imagine that they could lose their license or possibly even face legal repercussions. Again, you'd have to look into it.

It's bound to be less expensive than copyrighting every single design you produce, as long as it is effective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notary_public

[budafist]

Ok then, a notary and date stamp a piece to prove that you had it in your hot little hands on that date.

[morea]

I suppose that it would be up to the actual author to prove that they had it before anyone else... but if someone swore before a notary that they were the original creator of a piece and they were found to be lying, it seems like they could be legally prosecuted for perjury.

[budafist]

Oh, sounds good then. I guess the thing with any kinds of copyright is that it is still up to the person to prove that they created it. Just because you can prove you had it in your hot little hands on a date before the other person can prove it, you still need a bit more evidence - working files etc should help.

Just a thought though. At school we very often "beefed up" process work after we had finished the final product. What's to stop someone making up some process work for work they have stolen? I guess it's all about whether or not you are willing to do all that wrong stuff in front of court I guess.

[tZ]

Thats why you should actually copyright the process as a group. Even though, the end product is more then likely going to be published I'm sure you can still have all the process work grouped- no?