Spot the difference….

Discussion in 'Fireworks Forum Chat And Discussion' started by lovefireworks, Jun 7, 2021.

  1. Under most circumstances, when you pay for someone to produce artwork for website or any type of publication, the purchaser owns the property. Otherwise whoever did the artwork for a logo etc could sell it in to someone else. You are employing someone to produce an item that you own the rights too. It's a standard contract.

    You also do not need to protect your work with copyright but it does make it far easier to prove ownership if at some point you need to take legal action. Just because an image does not display a © does not mean it's free to use. If you did not produce the image or work or did not purchase it, then it's not okay to use it and under Intellectual Property Rights, will be classed as theft.

    Unrelated to fireworks, I take many photographs for my own website and also use those images to sell the products afterwards. Having spent £1000's of pounds of digital photography equipment, software and a Macbook to edit them all, get extremely pissed off when I find images just copied and used by others without permission. Two years ago I found a Chelsea flower show gold medalist using my images in their brochure and I threatened them with legal action or payment for the use of the images. They paid up as it was cheaper than reprinting the brochure again or going to court. They could not have won in court as I had all the original unedited images to prove ownership. If they had asked before publication, I would have let them use them for free or provided alternative images provided a credit was given for the photograph. They blamed an external advertising agency and denied all knowledge.

    Also images altered from the original image as mentioned about removing a single pixel is totally wrong, as the theft has already occurred and without the original image the alteration could not have taken place.

    Having spent time, effort, I'd like to think skill and money to produce a publication/photograph, I fully understand why anyone would get pissed off with someone thinking they can just right-click and take someones work for free.
  2. Jon

    Jon Pro Firer/Crew

    It's not as simple as saying because you commissioned it, you own it.

    In theatre lighting designers and sound designers etc are commissioned, but their designs are still their intellectual property, not the productions. I have gone through this a number of times over the years when a producing house copies a touring show design and then claim its their own.

    Equally in other industries it is very similar. Most architects are commissioned but you will find most terms say the architect retains full control over their design.

    Ultimately it depends on the small print!
    MrDan likes this.
  3. dazuto

    dazuto Supports UKFR

    Gonna go buy some Gemstone fireworks before they get cancelled. :D
    Lee boy, Jon and Pyro Pete like this.
  4. Correct, if the small print says they still own the rights to that image or work etc after being commissioned to create it. Then if someone tries to use their IP outside the agreed contract, then its classed as theft.

    So for anyone who did not buy the IP, obtain permission to use it from the owner, commission it for the sole ownership rights or create it themselves, then under the law it's theft of IP.
    MrDan likes this.
  5. AF Pyro

    AF Pyro Pro Firer/Crew

    Oh my, this has turned into a lively topic! From what we understand, this all revolves around copyright and copyright belongs to the originator of the document, imagery, etc. Now, copyright can be wide sweeping and can also cover "likeness" to something, so although it is not a carbon copy, if someone reproduces something which bears a significant likeness to another piece of original material, then they can fall foul of copyright law. Adding onto this, if a designer originates something for a client, the client then has to understand the terms of usage associated with that. Does the client own the copyright (has the originator passed the copyright to the client)? Does the client simply own the right to reproduce what the originator has created as long as it is in the original form, intended purpose and not for re-sale? Does the client have the exclusive rights to use of the material for what ever they choose but never owns the copyright? You get the idea....

    Also, saw a comment about changing a pixel in an image and then claiming it doesn't infringe anything as its different...not sure that would hold any water in a court case. Its a bit like saying that you slowed down the speed of Paul McCarney's latest album, so its not the same as the original one and it now belongs to you... or you mirror flipped and image of the Mona Lisa, so now you can claim copyright for it... like we said, significant likeness is the key to it all.

    The list goes on but when asking anyone to "create" something, it is important to understand exactly what that "creation" entitles you too!
    DavidLL and Jon like this.
  6. This certainly isn't my area of expertise. In fact we have recently gone through the trade mark and brand registration process on a variety of things and it's a blooming minefield, an expensive one at that.

    So, if I want to copy Absolutes logo I probably can't because you have probably registered it as a trademark in section 13 which includes Fireworks - but have you registered under section 28 which is a party section and includes Party Poppers?

    All sections require fees so where do you stop?

    As I say - it isn't an area I fully understand but I would be more than surprised if you simply owned a copyright because you designed something
  7. Seems brightstar fireworks exists in both a UK and USA format unless separate company's. Even the logos look similar, cody b dropped a decent video on them.wonder how this stands with brand infringement.
  8. Wrong. You automatically own the IP rights and you don't need to register but would need some evidence to show it's yours in case it was copied. Paying for 'advanced' protection just makes it easier in court to prove ownership. Where is gets difficult is when someone else has designed or created something very similar and you have to prove which was done first or who copied who.
  9. As CEO (naming rights etc) of a yet to be formed UK pyro manufacturer I herby give notice that the phrase' ejects stars and bangs' is owned by us. just thought Id mention it. Carry on chaps.
    RCT and Jon like this.
  10. Interesting, but unless it's registered how can you ever prove you thought of it first?
  11. paul s

    paul s Supports UKFR

    You can have it; that was BS terminology. (Pre 2010ish) :)
  12. Bright star in US is a brand of Winda , which is or was connected to Panda ,which is or was connected to bright star UK, or something like that.
  13. Winda and Panda are the same company, just branded different in each country, Bright Star in America is nothing to do with our company of the same name, if they have registered it as a trade mark internationally then they have a case to complain.
  14. paul s

    paul s Supports UKFR

    Panda (Winda brand in US) did manufacture BS products for a while after the split with MenShun. Chances are there is some carried over legacy from then.
  15. At times with great difficulty and it's down to the courts, there has been some very big cases involving Apple & Samsung for example over technology ideas. With publications and photos it's much easier as the originator usually has the original image and can prove when used first.

    Most IP cases are simple theft and they know full well they did not create the image, design, painting etc.

    Trademark and copyright are two different things. as,mean you have protection internationally.
  16. F*** me! Is this thread still going?! I don’t think I’ll post again! :beam:
    blackbat, Jon, gareth71 and 1 other person like this.
  17. Pyro Pete

    Pyro Pete Forum Editor

    Yes it is. And you started it - just saying.
    Jon, MrDan, RCT and 3 others like this.
  18. :ooops::busted: