Someone making money for something I did...**Tool Racing**

[GCFordChic]

One word....

Bugger.

Sorry bout that Aeron. It does seem crap that someone else is making money off your work. I know it isnt completely the same (because there is no profit for us) but your work has been sitting as my desktop since I downloaded it from these forums and I cannot imagine how many others have done the same thing or printed it off poster size!

Like others have said at least there are many people on here who know it was your fab work, not to mention that there are so many people who appreciate it and have had a great laugh because of it.

Of course, it would be funny if Toll/HSV attempted to sue the guy selling them. He is making profit from defaming them! If they werent agro before, surely that would set them off!

Well done again on it!

Jen

[JADED6]

As Aeron has contacted the seller about these we shall wait for his response.
It's just un australian.

[TwistedEL]

Originally Posted by Greenhorn

if u still have the original file on ur hard drive then u could prove that it's ur design

It doesn't prove anything
It's very easy to change the filetime of a file on a disk, anyone with some API knowlege can do it.

[MITCHAY]

Would the date the file was created be proof enough or is that easily altered?

[RIPGMH]

Find out who he is, 1080 his dog and fire bomb his car. Only then will you find spiritual peace. :

[normxb]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Norm in order for this to hold up in court you would need to be able to prove that the envelope was not tampered with in any way so as to change its contents after it had been stamped.

Thanks XRQTR

Just didn't know how it would go these days , quite a number of guys used to do it that way , I was looking back 20yrs+ when the law was a "little" easier .

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by wulos

Copyright law in Australia is a quite simple - yet extremely complex thing.
The very second you produce a work you own the copyright - do not need to register it. You just need proof that you did the work originally. It does NOT matter that your art has appeared on the net or elsewhere. Unauthorised reproduction is THEFT, it is NO different to someone walking into the Louvre, taking down the Mona Lisa, and claiming it as their own.
Registration does however make it easier to claim against those that use your artwork without authorisation. A copyright is said to be breached if to the average viewer the work has been reproduced without significant alterations in such a way that would rob the original atrist of possible renumeration (credit / sales etc)
Copyright law allows for alteration of a preset image to allow for 'parody' or reproduction in media for 'editorial, or discussion purposes.
In the above case - I think that you would have a pretty good case against him. It really depends upon what you want to do. Have you, or your representative (You're better off speaking to a specialist about this first) contacted him about it, asking him to cease & desist, or return you credit / payments for reproducing your work?

This is NOT wrong. Simply removing the name does not alter it enough to make it the 'theifs' own. Artwork becomes public property after, I think, 25 years, until then it remains the property of the artist. The forum is no different to displaying it in a gallery, putting artwork in a gallery does not make it public property.


The original post is here on this forum. Thats dated. He can ascertain its origins.


In Qld, it doubt it would be defamation, it would likely be fair comment. I cant say for other states, however Qld law on defamation is just codified case law. The same case law the uncodified states base their Slander and Liable laws on. This would be a concern though.

Personally, Id speak to a solicitor. If it was worth the effort. If the guy sells 10 shirts, well big deal. If he sells 10,000, and posters its starting to look differently.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Close but no cigar, went through this a few years ago and now that this other guy has removed Aeron's name from the pic it is changed enough to now make it his. If he further changes some of the coloration within the pic this would go further to making it his own.

Also, the image was 'FREELY' available on the net to all and sundry with no mention of Copyright, this would suggest that the owner had no intention of at any time using the material for any personal gain or profit, any reasonable person would make this assumption and therefore unless such was stipulated in the orginal posting of said material then the artist cannot make any claim to compensation. A simple Copyright would have sufficed, although even this would need to have been registered within a certain time frame from the date of first publication, unless a blanket Copyright watermark was registered by the artist and stamped onto the original work. Even then there is pages and pages of cr@p to go through that could get you in or out of it.

As you yourself said, simple yet extremely complex at the same time.

Aeron as I said mate just start making them yourself, it's only iron on transfer paper on cheap chinese $1 t-shirts form bloody Forges.

You are wrong my friend.

The Copyright Act does not require the completion of formalities (such as publication, registration or the payment of fees) in order to obtain protection in Australia, or any other country which is also a party to an international copyright treaty. (This is unlike the position with patents, trade marks and designs where registration is a pre-condition to protection.) Copyright protection is granted automatically from the time an original work is made in a material form.

The copyright conferred by the Copyright Act is a bundle of exclusive rights in relation to the work or material in question. They include the rights:

* to copy or reproduce the work;
* to make an adaptation of it;
* to publish it;
* to perform it in public; and
* to broadcast it to the public.

In some cases the copyright owner also enjoys an exclusive right to transmit the work by cable to subscribers, or to commercially rent copies of the material. Note that the delivery of a training course may constitute a performance for the purposes of the Act.

Copyright is a form of property. However it relates to an abstraction - the work or material in question; and should be distinguished from ownership of the physical medium in which the material is expressed.

It is an infringement of copyright to do any of the above acts without the permission of the copyright owner. An infringement need not involve the whole of a work in question; it is an infringement to take a substantial part of the work.

[XR Martin]

More about copyright

Even if you are only using part of the work, you will generally need permission, if what you are using is a
“substantial” (important, essential or distinctive) part of the work. For example, if it were still in copyright, the
famous smile of the Mona Lisa would be a “substantial part” of that painting, although the mouth takes up a
very small proportion of the canvas.

My work has appeared on a website without my permission. Does this infringe copyright?
Generally, yes. As the owner of copyright you are the only person who has the right to communicate your work to
the public using any form of technology, including the internet. If no exceptions apply to allow the use (eg
criticism and review), you may want to contact the person responsible for the website and ask them to remove
your work or pay a fee for the use. Your moral rights (eg attribution) may also be relevant.

How can I prove I am the copyright owner?
You will only have to prove that you own copyright if your claim to copyright is disputed in court. If you own
copyright because you are the artist, you could prove this by calling witnesses who know that you created the
material and by producing your original sketches, working drawings and so forth. Generally, however, your own
statement will be sufficient.

Can I use another person’s work without permission if I make changes?
You do not escape the obligation to get permission by making changes or additions to a work (such as changing
the colours). If you can put two works side by side and identify important parts that have been copied, it is
likely that you need permission.

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by normxb

I don't know how this would hold up now ?

I had a customer at my music shop who used to write his own songs (original material) write out the music & a rough recording on a cassette .

He'd take it to the Post Office , get them to seal & date stamp it , then "post it to himself" . When he recieved it he "Would NOT open it" , but store it away . If anyone tried to use his material he could take the "Sealed" envolope to court to prove when it was written .

I don't know if Aeron could do this with any future work ? Would it still work guy's ?

My son is a music writer, and these days you just register yourself as a publisher.

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well you could take legal action but you would then have to identify yourself as the author.
This might not work out the way you want as then shoud Kelly decide to have you for defamation you have already done the hard part for him (proving it was you).
Remember, in most civil legal matters, "he who has the most money wins". Kelly & Toll have lots of money and your pic, though funny and probably accurate is quite defamatory.

Good advice.
Aeron, If I were you I'd forget about trying to identify yourself as the author.
I think it's only a matter of time before the Kelly camp takes legal action against the T-shirt seller.

[Scott]

Have a sook, I wonder if you'll give me a cut for using my "cheat", "HSV Cheater Team" and "Tool Racing" image?? Given you started with someone elses image that also started with someone elses image, I doub't you would be entitled to anything. If you do get anything, don't forget me!

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=872

[Aeron]

Originally Posted by GTP006

Have a sook, I wonder if you'll give me a cut for using my "cheat", "HSV Cheater Team" and "Tool Racing" image?? Given you started with someone elses image that also started with someone elses image, I doub't you would be entitled to anything. If you do get anything, don't forget me!

I haven't forgotten about you mate. You'll get a cut. If I get a shirt out of this guy, you can have the left sleeve. : : :

[FOCUSonTHIS]

Would you really want a K-mart T-shirt with print on it done in someone's backyard and not done professionally. You will wash it once and the print might just come off

[Aeron]

Originally Posted by FOCUSonTHIS

Would you really want a K-mart T-shirt with print on it done in someone's backyard and not done professionally. You will wash it once and the print might just come off

1 wash and it might come off. 2 washes and it'll defiantly come off. I cant believe people payed $25 for them :

[wulos]

XRQTR(or other members) - If you are interested in learning more about copyright law, HERE is a link to the Australian Copyright Council website.
The information & my understanding of it may have changed since early 2006 when I was studying in preparation for starting a private business of which copyright law would be of significant interest.
At the end of the day this thread is about a light hearted parody image commenting over the 'performance?' of a Holden Driver in the V8supercar champion being used on a T-shirt.
I don't understand the need for all & sundry to be getting all fired up and argumentative over it here on AFF.
Let's just keep things light hearted & enjoyable & in the original spirit that the above image was created.

[XRchic]

I think Kelly and Toll would be struggling under defamation laws as well. The defence to defamation is truth. Kelly/Toll would have to prove that he wasnt a cheat, to succeed in such action.... And then there is the trouble they would have with opinions... you cannot sue someone for having an opinion either.

Besides, I dont think it would be good for whatever image they have left, to go after Aeron or whoever, for defamation... It would just look pathetic.

Aside from that, I think Aeron should perhaps talk to the t-shirt guy. But at the end of the day, it is a complement - that the image is so popular!!!

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by fmc351

This is NOT wrong. Simply removing the name does not alter it enough to make it the 'theifs' own. Artwork becomes public property after, I think, 25 years, until then it remains the property of the artist. The forum is no different to displaying it in a gallery, putting artwork in a gallery does not make it public property.

I can only go from what was told to me by the people with whom I had lengthy conversations with in regard to getting some of my own work at the time(3 years ago) copyrighted and trademarked. The information given to me was that small changes can be made to an item in order to make something there own.

A good example would be the BA GT spoilers that so many companies are reproducing, they can do so without fear of recrimination simply because of the changes that are made around the fog light area as well as one piece nature of the section at the upper end of the lower opening. Ford can't touch them because they have changed it enough to make it there own.

The original post is here on this forum. Thats dated. He can ascertain its origins.

And this has now been disputed as to actual ownership by another member, GTP006, on here who had done some work to the picture prior to Aeron's final draught, it can therefore be shown that the pic rather than being an original by just the one person is in actual fact a virtual ad on piece of art that many have had a hand in producing. So who is the actual owner??

[Aeron]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

So who is the actual owner??

Me because I produced the final product used on the shirts.
GTP006 did a bit of work on it too, and so did the people who took the photo of the car and made the ad or poster or what ever it was.

I have no plans to sue the guy. Sure, he's made $250, thanks to GTP006 and myself, but all that means is that 10 suckers have bought a shirt worth about $3. We can only hope he gets bad feedback for the crap quality of the print.

Now lets all go down the pub and have a drink and laugh about it : :

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by Aeron

Me because I produced the final product used on the shirts.

You only produced part of the final picture, not the picture in its entirety.

[Laminge]

Im sure if I change GTP006 user name and remove some of his posts I can swindle into a sleeve as well!

[Aeron]

Originally Posted by Laminge

Im sure if I change GTP006 user name and remove some of his posts I can swindle into a sleeve as well!

Gee-whiz, its turning into a "muscle shirt" quick smart :



In other news, I’ve had no reply from the guy and I don’t expect to either.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Aeron

Gee-whiz, its turning into a "muscle shirt" quick smart :



In other news, I’ve had no reply from the guy and I don’t expect to either.

Muscle? ha!



Ive got no idea, never seen ya, you could be Arnie for all i know, if you are, I meant nothing by that crack. If you are Arnie, go meet with the Shirt 'lifter'.

[Scott]

This is BS!! I'm being done in the eye. I want one sleeve, the collar AND the tags.... otherwise no deal.

[Aeron]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Muscle? ha!



Ive got no idea, never seen ya, you could be Arnie for all i know, if you are, I meant nothing by that crack. If you are Arnie, go meet with the Shirt 'lifter'.

: Ok, for me it'll be an "Arm Shirt" :

[Kyl3]

If he modifies part of the image to make it his own per se.. it's still plagureism (spelling?)

In any case, something like this was bound to happen. within 1 day i'd seen them posted across about 20 internet forums, various chain emails...

And aeron used original images that were copyright to probably hsv/toll dealer team to begin with.

Aeron, i feel sorry for you, but unless he's willing to donate it freely, I cant see you being able to fight it at all :(

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Aeron

: Ok, for me it'll be an "Arm Shirt" :

"Collarless, Tagless Arm Shirt" thankyou very much lol.

[jason71]

If he modifies part of the image to make it his own per se.. it's still plagureism (spelling?)

In any case, something like this was bound to happen. within 1 day i'd seen them posted across about 20 internet forums, various chain emails...

And aeron used original images that were copyright to probably hsv/toll dealer team to begin with.

Aeron, i feel sorry for you, but unless he's willing to donate it freely, I cant see you being able to fight it at all

Have to agree,
If you had taken the original photo, (which you are very good at!)
It might have been a different story.
Neither less sad to see someone taking advantage of your work.

[460cixy]

Originally Posted by rocket.

They have a this picture printed out and on a shelf in Spare Parts at Passlow Ford Warrnambool.

You are famous haha

its in spares at john mcgrah ford philip too and on every ones tool box as well

[Aeron]

I got a reply

Hi Aeron
I've been waiting for you to contact me - I had no way of contacting
you. My
brother in law is making these and we were very excited by your design
when
I first saw it on the forum. We are not so much interested in making a
profit out of this rather we want your design all over the place at
racetracks to remind those scummy pricks that they are a pack of
unsporting
*********.
We estimate that we are breaking even from the shirts but if there is
any
profit, you are welcome to it.
We were also talking yesterday about putting these on stubby holders
and
other stuff ... the only problem we foresee is if the Holden/Toll
people get
shitty (we don't think they will because it will just highlight all
over
again something they want forgotton) or if they kick up a fuss about
the
original image you used.
Dunno.
Let me know your thoughts - and GREAT work.
Best regards
Richard

So there ya go.