Info Andrew/Ashley Hager - You Decide - FaunaClassifieds
FaunaClassifieds  
  Tired of those Google and InfoLink ads? Upgrade Your Membership!
  Inside FaunaClassifieds » Photo Gallery  
 

Go Back   FaunaClassifieds > Reptile & Amphibian - Business Forums > Board of Inquiry®

Notices

Board of Inquiry® This forum is provided exclusively for the discussion of specific persons or businesses in the herp industry.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-19-2009, 02:01 PM   #1
Royal Morphz
Andrew/Ashley Hager - You Decide

Ok guys this is an account that started in the early part of 09. I wanted a logo designed for Royal Morphz and I commissioned Ashley (Hagar) to design what now has been the face of Royal Morphz. The Piedbald BP drawing with the glowing red text is what I have been branding as Royal Morphz since day one. She started on my logo but couldn’t finish it because of not knowing how a piece of software ran.

This is where I was introduced to Andrew Hager (Ceradigital.com on most forums). He took over and pretty much I never dealt with Ashley directly again. He brought up that my logo would look nice on a business card (which is something I wanted as well) so he shot me over the file to get to the printer.

We started what I would consider a friendship, he advised me on photography equipment and I picked up quite a bit of info from him. Well one day I brought up the idea of a website, I mean I had the logo and the snakes why not get a website going. He said he knew how to build websites and started figuring out what we wanted. The website was to be done for $350 dollars which I offered to pay a portion up front, but he declined. I just figured we might work it out in trade or something. He set out on working on it. I never really saw anything that showed me he was doing any work on it, but I was excited. Around the time I was getting ready to attend the NARBC show in Anaheim he let me know the site would be up and running by 9-20-09.

Now fast forward to 10-10-09 and he finally got me a screen shot I would estimate we started the talks in maybe May 09 about the website. So with a screen shot there I went out and bought my hosting for the Site. Now he had explained that he had some software that would allow me to have an online store. Now I have to admit this sounded really cool in theory, but once he started showing me about it there was one major flaw. I didn’t think anyone would want to put there credit card info into a new BP breeders new website. So with that said I did ask him to scrap that for a traditional available page.

One day Andrew asked me to send them money toward the site so he and Ashley could put some money down on a Ruppel line Super Pastel. I didn’t have the funds in paypal and was getting ready for a show and I told him if a sale went through I would paypal it over to them. It didn’t go through and I told him up front I was sorry but I didn’t have the money. He said ok and then I notice that the site is down and in its place was a nice construction page. I didn’t question him on this and it was set up that he call me on Monday 11-09-09 to walk me through the available page layout and teach me how to add and delete ads. Come Wednesday and I hadn’t heard from him I went with a different designer.

Within about 60 hours I had RoyalMorphz.com up and running. Now I post up a few good guy posts for the Designer and on one of the forums (I will link it at the bottom of this post) Andrew posted he thought I stole his design for the website. Now I will tell you that the new designer just used what I gave him he did not know that I didn’t own the website design. When I changed the design then the topic with Andrew changed. Now I had stolen the logo that I bought previously, apparently I just bought the logo for use on my business cards??????? I mean who would have thought I would have had to buy my logo each time I chose to use it. Now this is where I must admit ignorance, I didn’t know that there were files that I should have requested when I got the original logo design. Now this is my fault in of it’s own.

Andrew went on to complain that I misused a rendering of my logo, which is an outline of my Piedbald BP logo. So I removed it now lets count I have changed the website design and now taken off an outline of MY logo. Then he states in the linked thread that I can take the logo and do whatever I want with it (it’s my logo of course I will use it as I see fit). That neither one of us has paperwork on the matter and its basically a dead subject and then its back to my website design is a rip off again. So I don’t know what to do about this so I stop posting for the most part.

I take a few days off cool down a bit and PM him saying hey we are adults and need to work this out. So just to see what he wanted for the files that so far everyone I’ve spoken to said I should have gotten in the first place. No response to that then out of the blue today 11-18-09 I get a call from Andrew. I answer because I want this over with, he says that he has spoken with a copyright law firm and they advised him that we can work it out or take it to court I told him I wanted to work it out and find a number that they wanted for the work. A few hours later I get a call and he has a number but also Ashley wants a public apology (for what I don’t know) along with $500 dollars for the files. Now I almost choked, $500 dollars for logo files I had already paid for. I mean I was thinking $100 bucks, the whole website was only supposed to cost $350 lol. Well I told him that was out of the question as I could get another logo drawn up for around 200 bucks.

We kicked a few more options before saying you know what we don’t want the files. Then they bring up a lawyer again, now I don’t know if Andrew knows me very well but my father was a lawyer and well before he passed he made sure all of us kids went to college so there are a few more lawyers in the family. If I know one thing when you are threatened with a lawsuit you quit talking right then I had ignored this point earlier, this time I was not. I told Andrew that I wanted my logo to stay as is and for him to have his attorney contact us.

Now I ask you this I am on these boards a lot if anything would let you know I posted what would it be I think it would be MY logo. This is just a information thread and should be looked at as such. I ask you all should I have to buy my logo over and over again?

If you want to view the last place this was brought up here it is: http://www.reptileradio.net/reptiler...ad.php?t=13150
 
Old 11-19-2009, 02:09 PM   #2
xanaxez
All if it should be mentioned. so in all fair... this should be brung to andrews attention for him to explain. it still comes to this.. the logo you bought was the one designed. you did not buy and do not own the original hand drawn copyright.
 
Old 11-19-2009, 02:23 PM   #3
Royal Morphz
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanaxez View Post
All if it should be mentioned. so in all fair... this should be brung to andrews attention for him to explain. it still comes to this.. the logo you bought was the one designed. you did not buy and do not own the original hand drawn copyright.
Thank you a email was sent to Andrew as soon as these were put up and let me add these were put up because we couldn't reach an agreement and he has threatened lawsuit more than once.
 
Old 11-19-2009, 02:27 PM   #4
SnakeEyesExotics
Tim, that seems completely absurd in my opinion! No, you absolutely should not have to pay for the logo every time you want to use it. Unless they have it in writing where you agreed that the logo was only for the business cards, they have nothing. I don't understand how it took him that freakin long with the site too. If he wanted the money and needed it that badly, he would have had the site up and running promptly.

Good Luck!
Anya
 
Old 11-19-2009, 03:04 PM   #5
xanaxez
heres the best answer i can find for this situation... so read it carefully lol.


What is copyright?

Copyright is the exclusive right to control reproduction and commercial exploitation of your creative work. Copyright protects any kind of artwork, including illustrations, photographs and graphic design. Except under certain circumstances (see “work made for hire” below), you own the copyright in your work at the moment you create it in a “fixed” form of “expression.” A fixed form of expression is any tangible medium that can be perceived by humans, including traditional forms—such as paintings, sculptures, writings—and new forms that require a machine to perceive (e.g., GIF files, CDs, websites).
What about “work made for hire”?

Generally, the person who creates a work is considered its “author” and the automatic owner of copyright in that work under copyright law. However, there is a limited exception under the “work made for hire” doctrine: if you are an employee, your employer is considered the author and automatic copyright owner of any work you create within the scope of your employment. In most cases, this doctrine applies only to full-time employees. If you are doing the work as an independent contractor, your work can legally be “work made for hire” only if your contract specifically says so, and your work fits one of a few narrow categories, e.g., a contribution to a collective work such as an encyclopedia, or a compilation work, such as a website.
What happens if the work is not made for hire?

When you perform graphic art services for a client, your client is paying for rights to use your work under your copyright. Identifying the scope of such rights can be the most important part of your contract with your client.

You own your copyright unless you sign a written assignment giving copyright ownership to someone else. In that case, your contract with your client will say something like you “assign all rights, including copyright.” But you can also give (or lend) your client just a piece of your copyright. Copyright is really a “bundle” of several different exclusive rights. For graphic designers, the relevant exclusive rights are the rights to (1) reproduce, (2) display, and (3) make adaptations (“derivative works”) based on your work. Each exclusive right in the copyright bundle can be owned separately. For example, you can give a newspaper the exclusive right to reproduce your comic strip, and you can keep the exclusive right to adapt the strip for an animated film. Moreover, you can give permission, or a “license,” under any of the bundled rights on a nonexclusive basis. For example, under your reproduction rights, you can grant a publisher the right to reproduce your painting as a book cover, and you can keep the right to reproduce it as a giclee print.
When should a client own your copyright?

Frequently, your client will want to own your copyright. That means your client will own the entire bundle of rights, and you no longer have the right to control how often, or in what manner, the work is used. This is not always necessary or appropriate. Generally, it is better for the scope of the license to closely track the client’s intended use of your work. For example, suppose you are hired to do a spot illustration for an article in a weekly magazine. Your fee is the standard, reasonable amount for that one time use. However, if your contract assigns copyright to the magazine, the magazine can use your illustration again; for example, it might adapt the illustration to create a logo for an ongoing weekly column, without any further compensation to you.

On the other hand, if your contract grants a one-time license to reproduce the illustration, the magazine must seek your permission, in the form of another license with another fee, before it can legally adapt your illustration for the column logo. This is true even if your license to the magazine is exclusive, that is, if you agree not to allow any other entity to publish the illustration. The magazine’s rights would still be limited to the one-time use identified in your contract.

Another important reason to retain copyright is to ensure that you have the right to create similar works for other clients. If you assign copyright to one client, and then create a similar illustration for another client, the second illustration could infringe the first client’s copyright in your earlier work. For example, in one case a jury found such infringement with respect to greeting cards that the same artists had created for different companies.

Obviously, for some types of work it is appropriate for the client own your entire copyright, for example, corporate identity packages, logos, websites or any other works that are intended to have an ongoing, exclusive marketing presence for your client. It would not be appropriate for you to re-license that kind of work to another client. In such situations, you should ensure that you have the continuing right to display and reproduce the work in your print and online portfolios; otherwise, you no longer need to worry about copyright.
What is copyright infringement?

Copyright infringement happens whenever someone makes copies or commercially exploits a work without the copyright owner’s permission. The second work must actually be copied from the first work—if you just happen to create a very similar work independently, that is not infringement. The problems arise when one artist uses another artist’s work as reference. To be infringing, the second artist’s works need not be identical. The standard for infringement is whether the second work is “substantially similar” to the original work. (Contrary to popular belief, there is no “20 percent rule,” i.e., you cannot escape infringement by changing something by 20 percent. Infringement is not a mathematical calculation.)

Substantially similar” means that an average person viewing the two works would recognize that the “artistic expression” in one was copied from the other. The focus on “artistic expression” is meant to distinguish between illegal copying, which is infringement, and being inspired by someone else’s work, which is not illegal. “Artistic expression” means the specific artistic choices and details that go into a work, such as composition, rendering and colors, but not general concepts such as subject matter or similar artistic style. However, courts often describe infringing works as having the same “look and feel” as the originals. Sometimes work depicting similar content in the same unique artistic style are held infringing, even if specific details are different.

Unfortunately, infringement is a common occurrence in the graphic arts. Here are some examples:

* A licensee re-uses the work beyond the scope of the license, as in the example above where the magazine adapts the illustration for a column logo.
* An illustrator makes a painting from a photograph. Many people think photographs are just factual records, and thus can be freely copied, or that changing the medium is sufficient to avoid infringement. This is not correct. Photographs are fully protected as copyrighted works. If you copy the artistic expression of a photograph, e.g., the choice of subject matter, props, lighting, point of view, composition, etc., you have infringed the copyright in the photograph.
* An illustrator copies the unique way another illustrator draws figures.
* An ad campaign uses slogans, images and page designs similar to those of another ad campaign.

Many designers are surprised to learn that infringement occurs even when you merely copy someone’s work for intermediate purposes, as in the following examples:

* An advertising agency creates a comp using images from an artist’s or photographer’s portfolio. The comp itself is an act of infringement. If the final artwork is substantially similar to the art that was used in the comp, it counts as a second infringement.
* An image is digitally copied (e.g., scanned or downloaded) in order to manipulate it with a program like Photoshop. The mere act of making the precursor digital copy counts as a separate act of infringement, regardless of whether the final manipulated image is substantially similar.

Who is liable for infringement?

Any person or entity involved in the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work, from the initial copying through publication and distribution, is liable for infringement. For example, in one case where a photograph was used in a comp without permission, the photographer sued the ad agency and the agency’s client for whom the ad was created. The court awarded the photographer $2,750 in actual damages (the fee he would have charged had he been given the final assignment), $57,358 for the ad agency’s net revenue earned from the project, his attorneys’ fees and an injunction preventing further use of the infringing ads.
What about fair use?

“Fair use” will excuse an otherwise infringing use under certain limited circumstances. The courts balance several factors to determine whether a particular situation qualifies as fair use. Generally, non-commercial editorial or educational uses will be fair use. Parody will also qualify, but only if the work directly parodies something about the original work. For example, a Los Angeles federal court rejected the fair use defense for a parody entitled “The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice,” which used verses and artwork reminiscent of Dr. Seuss to mock the O.J. Simpson trial. The court did not believe the book also critiqued Dr. Seuss.

“Transformative” works may also be fair use. A work is “transformative” when the copyrighted material is “transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understanding.” Under this standard, a New York federal court recently held that a collage-like painting by Jeff Koons, which incorporated an image copied from a fashion photograph with other disparate images, was fair use.
Why should you register your copyrights?

Even though you have copyright ownership as soon as you create your work, under U.S. law you have no rights to enforce your copyright until you register. Generally you must have filed for copyright registration before the infringement occurs in order to have the full scope of copyright protection (the exception is if you filed within three months of the first publication of your work; in that case, you have full protection even if the infringement occurs earlier). Full protection for such early registration gives you two important remedies: the right to recover your attorneys’ fees when you win the lawsuit, and the right to an award of statutory damages. Statutory damages means a jury can award you an amount of money even if you cannot prove the infringement caused you a specific monetary loss. (Currently, the law sets a minimum of $750 and a maximum of $150,000 in statutory damages for willful infringement.)

Many artists know that they cannot afford litigation, so they believe these advantages of early registration are not relevant. However, in most cases it is the possibility of a lawsuit, rather than actual litigation, that gives you the bargaining power to stop an infringement, and often, obtain a monetary settlement. When defendants receive a letter raising an infringement claim, their first step is to determine whether you have a copyright registration that predates the infringement. If you do, they know that you are entitled to sue them for statutory damages and recover your attorney’s fees. Your registration enhances their risk of both defending a lawsuit and incurring monetary damages, so they are motivated to settle. On the other hand, if they learn that you don’t have an early registration, most infringers assume that you will not be able to sue them, and they will be less inclined to negotiate in good faith for a reasonable settlement.

There is no substitute for early registration. (Contrary to a popular myth, there is no “poor man’s copyright”—putting a copy of your work in an envelope and mailing it back to yourself will not provide any legal protection.) The best practice is to register any work that will be seen by the public or potential clients, including your portfolio and websites. Unauthorized copying is temptingly easy, and infringements are common. Early registration is the best proactive step you can take to ensure that you will have the full power to react in the unfortunate event that your work is infringed.
 
Old 11-19-2009, 03:13 PM   #6
AaronP
The problem with what you posted xanaxez is that it implies they registered it to begin with. Which wasn't the case.
 
Old 11-19-2009, 03:24 PM   #7
xanaxez
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronP View Post
The problem with what you posted xanaxez is that it implies they registered it to begin with. Which wasn't the case.
Are you sure they didnt? also... theres no problem with what i posted... if you read the entire articale then you would have read what you just stated also. either way.. if you do websites... you know you can not alter any image without consent of the copyright holder.
 
Old 11-19-2009, 03:31 PM   #8
AaronP
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanaxez View Post
Are you sure they didnt? also... theres no problem with what i posted... if you read the entire articale then you would have read what you just stated also. either way.. if you do websites... you know you can not alter any image without consent of the copyright holder.
Because a copyright comes with paperwork, formal paperwork, none of which has ever existed else it would have been presented and this topic wouldn't exist in the first place.
 
Old 11-19-2009, 03:54 PM   #9
xanaxez
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronP View Post
Because a copyright comes with paperwork, formal paperwork, none of which has ever existed else it would have been presented and this topic wouldn't exist in the first place.
From my understanding from both parties... neither does a contract... so therefor he still isnt entitled to you use it.
 
Old 11-19-2009, 04:23 PM   #10
KathyLove
Interesting article - thanks!

"...Except under certain circumstances (see “work made for hire” below), you own the copyright in your work at the moment you create it in a “fixed” form of “expression.” A fixed form of expression is any tangible medium that can be perceived by humans..."

According to this article, it does not need to be registered. It sounds like you would need a contract stating you have all rights to do whatever you want with it, to be in the clear?

I am far from a lawyer! But Bill sells his photos and articles, so we have dealt with similar things. Whenever Reptiles Magazine sends him a contract for an article or photos, it always says they get first time North American publishing rights only. If they decide they want to use it on their website as well, they send an additional contract with an additional payment. I am not qualified to give a legal opinion, but that is how I have seen it done by a magazine publisher. That is not exactly your situation, but there are some similarities. But a legal opinion from a copyright lawyer is probably what is needed.
 

Join now to reply to this thread or open new ones for your questions & comments! FaunaClassifieds.com is the largest online community about Reptile & Amphibians, Snakes, Lizards and number one classifieds service with thousands of ads to look for. Registration is open to everyone and FREE. Click Here to Register!

 
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Red Barn Reptiles / Scott Hager = happy customer! wahjeh Board of Inquiry® 5 08-23-2011 12:44 AM
Shane or Ashley Of Pet World inc munchkin1020 Board of Inquiry® 4 11-16-2009 05:07 PM
Ashley Haas (ento890) enviedreptiles Board of Inquiry® 0 09-10-2009 10:46 PM
Any one dealt w/ John Ashley boreeves Board of Inquiry® 2 10-18-2002 02:55 AM
Ashley Michaud dwedeking Board of Inquiry® 12 08-09-2002 07:35 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:31 AM.







Fauna Top Sites


Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.19885492 seconds with 10 queries
Content copyrighted ©2002-2022, FaunaClassifieds, LLC