Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
Cough up the Files Buddy — V2.0

[Ed. Note: Recently, Patrick Bennett e-mailed saying, “Back in April 2003, no one had any answers on work for hire contracts as they pertained to designers/art directors/creative directors, etc. Being two and a half years wiser, have you all (the Speak Up community) got any more insight into these?”

Following is an edited “reprint” of an April 21, 2003 post here on Speak Up. While I highly discourage repetition of topics, there are a few of them that were discussed many moons ago, when readership and participation was smaller, that would benefit from a second look in these more affluent stages of Speak Up.]

Many freelance designers are caught with this problem. A client asking you to transfer the files and ownership of the work you have created. The term work for hire can send shivers through any designer’s spine. And why not? It’s a touchy situation, plus anything involving legal papers and signing on dotted lines is always scary. Especially when it comes to our work.

Here is a simple explanation of what work for hire entails. In short: you lose any ownership of your work. How have you dealt with these situations?

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
PUBLISHED ON Aug.19.2005 BY Armin
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:

More specifically, I would love to hear how others work with rights transfers of trademarks.

I am reminded of a situation where a trademark was 'owned' by the designer/firm, and the client 'registered' the trademark with the USPTO -- even though they had limited rights of for the mark.

On Aug.19.2005 at 12:30 PM
feelicks sockwl jr’s comment is:

with rights transfers of trademarks

its sort of assumed that logos are transfered. Some companies- like Apple- retain incredible secrecy so their marketing dept (aka: Steve Jobs) can divert all attention back to the product. They own everything outright- including rights to promotional materials. You cant breathe a word if say, you designed that interesting new iTunes logo. Thats what you call a brutal work for whore.

whether you sign one of depends on how much (extra) they pay

or how much fun it is. Landor has an incredibly shitty contract they ask all freelancers to sign. I have a drawer full of em. My advice: get the negotiating taken care of up front... or, if youre feeling dangerous, do the work first and refuse to sign anything afterwards.

On Aug.19.2005 at 02:00 PM
Paul’s comment is:

Yes...make sure ALL is known up front.

In the music business, where I work as a recording musician, it is assumed that all your creative work on the project becomes the property of the company/studio you're working for. Occasionally, a production "on the cheap" tries to lure musicians into working non-union/off contract, and when they do that, the company usually makes the musicians sign a release that indemnifies the company against future claims of royalties.

Another example (probably a much better one to contrast with the graphic designer) would be a composer writing a jingle for a client. In a case like this, the client usually controls all publishing rights while the composer keeps his authorship rights. Broadcast royalties are then split 50/50 between the two entities.

Just thought you'd like to know how something similar works in the music biz...

On Aug.19.2005 at 02:37 PM
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:

...its sort of assumed that logos are transfered.

Well, assumptions are -- you know what they say. I am curious if anyone attempts to retain rights for 'smaller' identity projects?

On Aug.19.2005 at 03:42 PM
Hex’s comment is:

Ah... the good old days of the work for hire contract.

When I was doing my time in the trenches at various design studios around town, I came across this situation a couple of times. Basically it came down to sign it or starve. A couple of them were so convoluted and ridiculous, I just laughed when I handed it over. The way they were written, if I followed them word for word, I wouldn't be Allowed to work for another studio for minimum two years after my freelance contract was over. Yeah, good luck enforcing that one. It would never stand up in court.

On Aug.19.2005 at 04:27 PM
Tan Le’s comment is:

>logos are transfered

Copyright and trademark rights for logos and identities are the absolute properties of a client's. An identity/name/logo/brand for a corporation is legally accepted as a corporate asset — as would be their building, their patents, or their equipment.

You wouldn't expect an architect to lay ownership claim to a client's building, would you? So why expect the same for an identity?

Now, the second issue that Felix mentioned has to do with publicizing credit for design work. That's a completely separate issue than ownership. For most client work, a designer has the rights to use the completed work for self-promotion or self-advertising for the sole purpose of getting more work.

But many large corporations don't want it to be known that they had to outsource to someone like Felix to actually do their work. You'd be surprised at how many companies didn't design their own work. It's especially rampant in UI work for software products, including one of the world's largest company whose initials are MS.

Permission for publicizing credit for work must be explicitly granted by clients in many cases.

On Aug.19.2005 at 05:47 PM
feelicks sockwl jr’s comment is:

He is not referring to Multiple Sclorosis, though they - MS-could have it along with Mild Scurvy.

-Mr. Skwl

On Aug.19.2005 at 06:31 PM
BlueStreak’s comment is:

"Copyright and trademark rights for logos and identities are the absolute properties of a client's."

Trademark and copyright ownership are not the same and ownership of one doesn't automatically guarantee the other. I checked the USPTO and still believe that the copyright remains with the creator as long as the creator is not an employee, or made a specific "work for hire" agreement.

Here's an amusing, and slightly related article:

--> FedEx Accused of Confusing Trademark Ownership with Copyright.

On Aug.19.2005 at 09:05 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

BlueStreak is correct and TAN is correct.

The problem is each situation is different.

Clients own exclusive rights to said Identiities because they are buying out the Identity.

Although, the work is commissioned. The client is buying ownership rights to use the Designers work. The Design or Artwork does not belong to the client unless the job is a work for hire or a buyout. What happens, very powerful clients such as First Tier Consultancies in no uncertain terms intimidate and blacklist Designers when they don't cooperate. This doesn't happen with Designers that have built a name and reputation for themselves.

It will take an ACT OF CONGRESS to change this.

If you think Identity Designers have it bad.

Type Designers almost have no creative rights of their Designs in the public domain.

In Identity situations, its always good to have your Attorney with you. Often times Designers are there own worst ememy in the Zest and Zeal to win the contract.

A Designer can sell as much or as little of his work as he wishes. Designers can sell an Identity for three months usage, 6 months, one year, 5 years, whatever. It doesn't make sense because the buyout is so astronomical.

Any Design or Artwork commissioned belong to the Designer or Artist until rights of said work is transferred to the client.

Copyright simply protects the Artist or Designer

from infringement.

Trademark confers ownership.

If a client only bought limited rights to a Trademark and the client is upset. He or she can contest that in court.


On Aug.19.2005 at 10:55 PM
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:

I should have been more clear. The issue I was trying to clarify, was that of copy right, as DM touched on.

On Aug.20.2005 at 12:34 PM
BlueStreak’s comment is:

Tan's architecture analogy has had me wondering. Apparently the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation still owns the copyrights to his plans and prints, even though the buildings are the property of others. So who has the right to reproduce one of the actual buildings?

And I wonder if Maven or some other lucky collector has a copy of a Bass or Rand contract.

On Aug.20.2005 at 12:54 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

I've been burning DVD's all weekend New Computer since May, 200 GB hard drive, 160 GB internal/external hp hard drive. Full to capacity with Movies and TV Programs trying to fee up some space.

BlueStreak, I don't, posses a copy of Bass or Rand's contracts. I know they were Rock Solid in reference to their Terms and Conditions perhaps Steve Heller, has a copy of Paul Rand's contract. Doubtful if he would disclosed the information. Since the information would be confidential.

Identity Design and Identity Exploration are two separate issues and sometimes they cross pollinate.

Explanation, Both Felix and Von Glitschka, better known as VONSTER commence both.

In the past I did Exploration. Only Develop and Design Identities now. Because of the abuse of this practice. More money in working directly for clients.

Meaning they Develop and Design Identity. As well, lend their expertise to the Ideation process via Identity Exploration which is freelance. There can be several Identity Designers approached to submit Identity Exploration. Generally, the Design the client like best is the Identity implemented.

Often times the Exploration Fee is based on reputation.

Sometimes it's a set fee which Designers of international repute will not engage.

If an Identity Consultancy called Joe Finocchiaro, Miles Newlyn, Michael Beirut, JonSel, Felix, VONSTER, and myself to submit Identity Exploration. And a Identity Selected as Final and Buyout.

Michael and Joe Fino would command the Highest Fee because of their reputation. Hypothetically, $30.000 - $50.000 dollars.

JonSel and Miles Newlyn would command Hypothetically

$ 20.000 - $30.000

Felix, VONSTER and myself would command Hypothetically $10.000 - $20.000.

This is a WORK FOR HIRE contract signed sealed and delivered by an Identity Consultancy, Design Firm or Ad Agency.

If that same client came directly to anyone of us to Design their Identity we could ask for whatever we wanted based on our respective experience and capability. Which would be five times more that what an Identity Consultancy, Design Firm or Ad Agency are willing to pay for Work for Hire.

Hypothetically, Let's say Felix and VONSTER made $10.000 dollars for Identity Exploration for Designing the ipod Identity. under a Work For Hire Contract.

If apple came Diretly to Felix or VONSTER for their expertise in Identity Design. Based on rersearch of Apple's Market, Target Audience, Annual Billing. Felix or VONSTER could charge them close to $ 100.000.00 dollars.

If Apple approached any of the Big Names, Bass, Rand, Glaser, Vignelli whomever. Their fee would exceed a million dollars based on their reputation and problem solving capability.

This doesn't happen unless you have a Cult Like Following.

When clients come directly to the BIG NAMES they're buying into their Cult Status. With an understanding the Designer possesses an innate ability to solve the problem.

Bass, Rand, Glaser, and Vignelli never argued over fees or credit for their work because of their status.

It is Designers trying to build a reputation for themselves suffering this Uncongenial Practice.

Two years ago, I wrote to several Legendary Identity Designers when the Centrino Identity was rolled out. I informed them. The Centrino Identity was not an anomaly.

It was actually very similar to another Identity used in the 1960s which they all agreed. All had forgotten about the existence ot the Identity. Long story short. One Identity Consultant informed the Identity was Designed by Steve Addis. And I joke with him I should break Steve's balls about the origin of the Identity. And decided I would not. Anyway, the Identity Consultant informed me Addis could not inform the public or promote the use of the Identity in their capability brochure or online. This was two years ago. Maybe things have changed because they illustrate it in Logo Lounge 2.

Image creating an Identity and not being able to take credit for it or promote it to acquire new clients.

Solution, we're talked about this subject for several years. Now it's time to take effective action. Why don't we as the Speak Up Community The Best and Brightest do something about this horrible practice. Members of the AIGA can write a letter to Richard Grefe and Michael Vanderbyle. Asking they approach Congress to get the Work For Hire Mantra changed. This is the only way it is going to happen. Congress will have to get involved. If there are Congressional Hearings on this matter. I'll see you Guys and Dolls in D.C.

If those that commence Identity Exploration and are not getting credit for their work and can't discuss their work because of Confidentiality. Congressional Hearings is the only way to change the status quo.

If you feel that strongly about it.

If not, the Present Atmosphere and Condition of Work For Hire will never change.

Old saying, If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.


P.S. BlueStreak, if you can get a copy of Lester Beall's book. I think they have one of his contracts in the book for International Paper.

If not, I'm mistaking and chalk it up to old age.

On Aug.21.2005 at 05:34 PM
BlueStreak’s comment is:

Maven, I love the info you bring to an identity discussion. You always bring quite a bit of detailed knowledge that's of great value.

However, and pardon me if I'm wrong, but there still seems to be an implication that trademark ownership also includes the copyright. This is not the case. If a trademark is created by an independent contractor, the copyright remains with the creator unless there is a specific Work For Hire Agreement.

There are many legal implications for this situation. One of the most important is that the client is not legally able to modify the mark without the creator's permission. Without a Work For Hire Agreement, the client only is only buying the right to use the art as a trademark. But they do not own the art or the copyright for the art. This seems to be more clear when it involves existing artwork, like a sculpture that a company wants to use as a trademark. But it applies to commissioned art as well.

The problem as I see it is that the copyright has been given away so much that it's just become assumed that is the legality of the situation.

ref: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

On Aug.22.2005 at 09:26 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

Blue Streak I don't disagree with your assertions. I was differentiating between Work For Hire and Clients directtly commissioning Designers. And their salary differences. With no reference to copyright or trademark.

I beg to differ, if you or I freelanced with Landor, Siegel & Gale, Enterprise IG, Lippincott & Margulies.

Once you sign your John Hancock or their contract you give up any rights to ownership of your work. Which is what Felix was stating.

Unless the LAW has changed that is pretty much Etched in Stone.

It's like entering a contest for a Logo Design with a Corporation once you submit your work to be Judged among others. You ultimately give up all rights to your work.

Copyright is authorship and only protects the artist from infringement in the event another Designer came up with a similar idea or stoled their idea. Then you have documentation proving you created your Design or Artwork and filed with the Library of Congress Copyright Office on a given date and year.

Copyright simply inform the public that your work is in the public domain and cannot be used or altered without express written permission from the author.

It's the same with the Identity I Designed for D.C. Air. Bob Johnson went to Congressional Hearings to discuss his buying Airlines from United and forming his own Airline.

Immediatety when I Designed the Identity I had the Identity Copyrighted because the work was going to be in the Public Domain.

That copyright only protects me from another Designer using the same exact Identity.

A very knowledgeable and skillfull Designer can alter the Design with a single stroke by modifying a line or position of the elements.

My copyright is usless and only defend me and other Designers or Artist from exact duplication of said Design or Artwork.

I read the pdf. It's the same thing I'm stating re-read the first paragraph of the pdf. It is only solidifying what I stated in this posting.

Don't misinterpret my writings. Others are complaining about Work For Hire. I don't do any Work For Hire. The Copyright Law was written in 1976 it need to be udated.

Only an ACT OF CONGRESS will change it.

Something a lot of People and Designers are unaware. All Logos and Identities cannot be Trademark. Only specific categories of Identities can be Trademark.


On Aug.22.2005 at 10:50 AM
BlueStreak’s comment is:

"My copyright is useless and only defend me and other Designers or Artist from exact duplication of said Design or Artwork." --DM

You mean an exact duplication like some of the LogoWorks identities mentioned in today's Quipsologies? That illustrates why the copyright of a logo is so valuable. LogoWorks hasn't violated trademark law. (The companies that bought their logos probably are though.) But LogoWorks is clearly in violation of copyright law. That's why the lawyers want their clients to own both the copyright and the trademark, and insist on Work For Hire Agreements. (Which is, of course, what you've said.)

But if you are one of the ripped-off designers, and you didn't sign a WFH agreement, you could be carving up a piece of LogoWorks pie right now.

On Aug.22.2005 at 12:27 PM
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:

Let me pose a scenario:

Designer creates an identity for client. Designer creates a trademark for client. Designer retains copy rights, but licenses full unlimited and unrestricted global usage of the trademark to client. Designer does not relinquish copy rights.

Fast forward, client registers trademark with the USPTO. Clients uses trademark for 5 years. Client then decides to 'update' thier trademark. Slight modifications are commissioned by client with an other designer. Designer makes modifications and assigns rights of use to client.

Question: The client never owned copy rights to the mark. Are they infringing upon rights if they take the mark the initial designer made for them, and modify it? (I am fairly certain this answer is no)

If we are too apply this same scenario to the music business, then this answer would most likely be yes. Take for example the Vanilla Ice and Queen cort case. Where Vanilla repurposes a base line and added one additional note.

If we apply this scenario to fine art. A statue is commisioned. An artist creates the statue for the client. The client, after five years, decides to weld another arm on to the statue. Is this a copyright violation?

(forgive my rough analogies)

On Aug.22.2005 at 12:54 PM
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:


An excerpt from the Library of Congress on Terms of protection for Architectural Works:


Protection for an architectural work created as a work made for hire (see “Name of Author” on page 3) on or after December 1, 1990, lasts for 95 years from the date of publication of the work or for 120 years from the date of creation of the unpublished plans, whichever term is less.

Protection for an architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990, by an individual in his or her personal capacity (not as a work made for hire) lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.

Protection for an architectural work that is unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans on December 1, 1990, terminates on December 31, 2002, unless the work is constructed by that date.

On Aug.22.2005 at 01:00 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

"But if you are one of the ripped-off designers, and you didn't sign a WFH agreement, you could be carving up a piece of LogoWorks pie right now".

True, BlueStreak.

This is why the Laws need changing. Those laws are outdated and outmoded. Designers commencing the work need

to be able to represent themselves with said work. Once an Identity is rolled out. Confidentiallity is over except the Identity Manual which is on the intranet. Acess is not granted unless you are authorized. Identity Manuals that are online for public view are basic guidelines. You will never see an Application Guidelines or Application Standards Manual Online.

You and I can see the difference as Designers.

You would think a Judge would see the same.

Once an element is changed its very difficult in a court of Law to disprove the Desgners intent.

I can show you Historically Identities that are essentially the same and only one element was

changed and the Designer of the look-a-like Identity could not be sued.

This is a No Brainer. This is for all my Family Members and Compadres on SU.

With a Few Nips and Tucks. Name this Identity which is in Use Today. Received an enormous amount of Kudos and Accolades. Vehemently is not ORIGINAL.

I know the Design Consultancy that Created this Identity. Scroll down to the middle of the page on these links.



The Hanging Judge Rest !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whom ever Guess the Correct Answer and Post the Look-A-Like Identity in use today by the computer processor manufacturer.

Dinner on Felix.

Going to Lunch and Pay some Bills.

Only Manufacturers can own a Trademark. Corporations that do not manufacture a product cannot get their Identity Trademarked.

BlueStreak, Don't overlook my Research with Ducommon. The Identities are the same only one element taken out the concentric shortened and concentric rings thickened.


On Aug.22.2005 at 01:29 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

Follow Up:

If anybody want to see the Identity I'm referencing. Below are the eBay Numbers which will last for three months.

This first one will be removed in 3 hrs and the second will be removed in 6 hrs.

You can load the numbers into eBay's home page search template to see the Identities. Again scroll down to the middle of the page once it loads.




On Aug.22.2005 at 01:42 PM
Mbrex’s comment is:

Whom ever Guess the Correct Answer and Post the Look-A-Like Identity in use today by the computer processor manufacturer. Dinner on Felix.

Link to Logo

Mmmmmmm Filet Oscar sounds great to me! Thanks Felix.

On Aug.22.2005 at 01:45 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:


In my Best Bob Barker voice. You are a WINNER.

Truth is stranger than Fiction. I was going to write an Editorial on this two years ago. No need to keep this Secret any longer.

It is amazing because BEN PEARSON has been around forever.

An their arrow Identity was very Prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s.

I also love the fact that Addis in Logo Lounge 2 stated they commenced 60 drawings or more in the Ideation process in Developing the Centrino Wing Identity. Sixty drawings based on that existing Identity by Ben Pearson.

There Ought to be a LAW.

Thank GOD for old Corporate Identity Books and eBay.


On Aug.22.2005 at 05:25 PM
Kyle Hildebant’s comment is:


Do you not think there is any way that this could be purely coincidense?

It is such primitive shape.

On Aug.22.2005 at 07:28 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

Kyle Hildebant

Without actually seeing the Brief for Centrino and understanding why Addis chose a wing. Which it actually isn't it's an arrow head.

There is a remote possibility.

The Identity Consultancy that created the Ben Peason Identity was a Great and Renowned Identity Consultancy. I'm not divulging their name for personal reasons.

I'd like to give Addis and Peter Arnell the benefit of doubt. Time and time again history has proved me correct. I just present the material.

Understanding the Money involved in Identity Design I'll let you Guys be the Judge.

The Ben Pearson Identity is an Arrow Head reduced to it's barest essential. The true Essence of an Identity.

I could give that same Brief to every Identity Designer I know. None would come up with the Ben Pearson Identity.

The same with Saul Bass's Identity for Ducommon.

A Designer would more than likely create a more rounded "C" with the "e" enclosed. Using the Chicago Cubs Logo as an example. Which is a very traditional rounded "C."

Check back to tomorrow, I'll show you another Saul Bass Identity in Use. There's no way possible the Designer could've come up with that Idea without seeing the Identity Designed by Saul Bass.

Designers find inspiration in the correct Places. What better source than Identity Books

from eras past.


The biggest Identity Fiasco in History was between Lippincott & Margulies and a local television station in Kansis City Nabraska involving an Abstract "N." Maybe someday I'll post the story.

My daughter has just brought me my dinner.


On Aug.22.2005 at 08:42 PM
feelicks sockwl jr’s comment is:

----- regarding Steve Addis------

if anyone has a copy of "Designing corporate identity"

by Rockport publishers pls look on page 63.

I can't comment on it due to legal bindings but

you are going to laugh and laugh hard... especially

if you used to have a subscription to Critique mag.

send in your copyrights boys! and.. anyone wantin a free

filet outta me needs to send over a huge identity job.

On Aug.22.2005 at 10:06 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:


Laughable is an understatement. I'm in the process of contacting Pat Matson Knapp. She published a KICK ASS Magazine Titled Identity. The only Magazine soley devoted to Corporate Identity now defunct, trying to get some back issues.

I've got Designing Identity, two Illustrations at the top of the page. Under the subject heading A Brand for all. Talks about Brand Positioning and Brand Essence. Illustrations state Braingasm, and Mind Merge.

Kyle Hildebant Apparently the Ben Pearson Identity is no longer in use. Ben Pearson has evolved into making Car Lifts, Pipe Binders, Turf Lifts, Oil Filter Crushers, Tire Changers, and Wheel Balancers.

They continue to manufacture high end hunting bows. Unable to see the Logo on them.

When an Identity is expired or no longer in use it can be regurgitated. I'm almost certain that's what happened with Ben Pearson's Arrow Identity. The merchandise sold on eBay is from the 1970s.

Same with Saul Bass' Ducommon Identity it is no longer in the public domain. Ducommon as a Corporation does not exist anymore.

The Bass Designed Identity is Fair Game. That doesn't make it right, meaning to pass the conEdison Identity off as something original.

The Ben Pearson Arrow Identity was Original, Unique, Imaginative, Memorable, Meaningful, and posses Visual Impact.

I've found the Bass Identity I wanted to show, can't find the Rip Off Identity. If it takes longer than expected I'll email it to you instead of posting.


On Aug.22.2005 at 11:19 PM
Kyle Hildebant’s comment is:


If you would, I would enjoy it. Paul Rand and Saul Bass have always been designers I have looked up to.

On Aug.23.2005 at 12:25 AM
BlueStreak’s comment is:

Kyle you're asking great questions. And thanks for the information on the copyrights for architects. As to modifying copyrighted material, legal success comes down to arguing intent. To take LogoWorks as an example, it looks like they have a very weak position to argue the merits of their changes to existing copyrighted material. So I doubt there is going to be any hesitation for many parties to sue them. And their legal costs are soon going to overwhelm their low-cost solutions.

Fighting a client for copyright has to be approached far more cautiously though. Because even if you win in legal court, you can still lose in the court of public opinion. Who wants to hire a vendor that has sued a client over a copyright? That's why what others have said here is crucial, know your rights and make sure the deal is clearly communicated and agreed to on the front end. Everyone should feel free to take a red pen to proposed contract negotiations to strike out anything objectionable. Lawyers are know for making some outrageous and indefensible contract demands.

Maven, you are so right about so many things. And one of those is that the big dog usually wins the fight. But there is a huge sense of accomplishment in being the little dog that rips his teeth into the big dog's cojones.

On Aug.23.2005 at 10:00 AM
BlueStreak’s comment is:

Wow. I just realized that LogoWorks is probably going to be on the hook for consequential damages to the companies they sold logos to as well. Ouch. That's going to hurt.

On Aug.23.2005 at 10:16 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

BlueStreak and the Rest of my Speak Up Family and Compadres.

Please checkout the Forum on Typophile hosted by our online Brother Kyle Hildebant.

The Forum Discussion is Blatant Plagiarism / Infringment.


Subject Matter extremely Appropro. I read this a couple of weeks ago. Went back to get the link to share with my online Family and Friends.

Please Read every word and Check every link.

BlueStreak, I wholeheartedly agree. Designers the Ilk of Mark Fox got ripped off and Xerox got Ripped off. Of course everybody should know the Xerox Identity was Designed by Landor.

And nobody but nobody Rips of Landor and live to Fricken tell about it.

The typophile Forum also discuss the new trend in Digital Design to Rip someone off and make moderate changes call it your own Design. There's a name for it. Can't think of it now.

Everybody, Please read the Typophile Discussion hosed by Kyle Hildebant.

You will not be disappointed !!!!!!!

Meeting with some venders for my projects. Will return this afternoon.


On Aug.23.2005 at 11:29 AM
feelicks sockwl jr’s comment is:

Meeting with some venders for my projects

Thats a nice way of terming it. I'm heading out for a

snickers from the vending. Maybe some design will fall out.

On Aug.23.2005 at 01:35 PM
Kyle Hildebant’s comment is:

DM, thanks for pointing out the thread.

On Aug.23.2005 at 02:40 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:

DM -

I've heard it calledrecombinant creativity. That's the one thing I remember a teacher telling me in high school many many (many) moons ago. Been scared of it ever since...

On Aug.24.2005 at 12:59 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:


Many thanks, it was talked about in the Typophile Forum. They didn't mention the name.

Very Scary, there should be some kind of recourse for this unlawfulness.


Cute, you don't have to Humor Me. You're in the Book. Whenever its written.

Better yet, Humor me makes my day.

I just want to clarify. Designers cannot have their Identities Trademarked. Only the Manufacturer/Corporation can have the Identity Trademarked. The fee last I checked was $ 600.00 dollars. That's the reason when a Trademark search is commenced only the owner of the Corporation and Attorney name is in the database along with the year filed.

To copyright a Design, Artwork or Logo the fee is thirty dollars ($30.00) for each entry.

Only the Author can Copyright the Design. Unless the Copyright is transfered. Transfer of ownership rights must be indicated on the Copyright Form.

The Library of Congress has gone up on it's fee. A few years ago Copyright Fees were $ 10.00 dollars. You could submit as many Designs as you wanted under that $10.00 dollar Fee. That has


I'll have to reiterate, only Corporations that Manufacture Goods or Products can purchase a Trademark for their Identity.

Example, If Byrony, Debbie and Marian formed a Partnership to make Cosmetics e.g. Facial Creames, Lip Gloss, Eye Liner etc. They can have their Identity Trademarked.

Counter Example, If Armin, Felix and myself owned a chain of Beauty Salons we could not get our Identity Trademarked. We could get a Service Mark not a Trademark. Because we don't Manufacture anything.

Kyle Hildebant:

My Pleasure, Great Topic of Discussion.

I was sent my re-login information to re-join Typophile after the reDesign of site. Will officially re-join soon.

Haven't found the second Identity I was searching will forward you the information as soon as I find it. Will get you contact information after I re-join Typophile.

To my Speak Up Family and Compadres At Large.

If you haven't read this story or are familiar with it Please Read.

Fred Bouchat vs The Baltimore Ravens From a couple of years ago.

How the Balitmore Ravens Stoled the Logo of an Amateur Artist. His occupation was a Security Guard.

Mr. Bouchet is now a Millionaire.

Links to Articles.


You can view Fred Bouchat's Logo along with the Baltimore Ravens copy at this site along with the other Legalities of this case.



We should be so lucky. Some Guys have all the Luck.


Off to more Dog and Pony Shows.

On Aug.24.2005 at 12:15 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

Follow Up:

Apologies Family Wrong Link.

Correct Link below:

Apparently the article link does not work when you cut and past.

One the second link I gave in previous posting go to this story and click on the link. Its the fourth link under the two logos. Washington Post Article Title below.

"Artist beats Ravens in copyright suit" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58154-2001May21.html

For whatever reason the Washington Post will not let you access the article without going to the page with the link. Which is the second link illustrating the two Logos.

Defintely worth the trouble I've gone to post the information.


On Aug.24.2005 at 12:31 PM
feelicks sockwl jr’s comment is:

Mr. Bouchet is now a Millionaire

according to the article "he can now continue his 10m" litigation. Hopefully, he'll get teh 10m. Pretty brutal- hes been at it for 7 years now and its obviously a rip.

On Aug.24.2005 at 01:17 PM