Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I say yes.

Definitely yes.

Copyright, no. Trademark, maybe. It's just a picture of a Rickenbacker guitar headstock made into a magnet. Is it illegal to take a picture of your guitar and sell it for profit? To be on the safe side, I think the seller should note that it is not an officially licensed RIC product.

This was also discussed here (click) on this forum. Interesting subject. I'm not sure what law is in my own country (Holland), but it seems that in the USA selling this is prohibited.

wooly wrote:I think that's way too far.
If a model is photographed at the Oscars, does the phtographer need permission of the carpet manufacturer?
Of how about the shoe maker?
It's endless.

The photographer is question is not selling photographs of the carpet or shoes.

blueflamerick wrote:Copyright, no. Trademark, maybe. It's just a picture of a Rickenbacker guitar headstock made into a magnet. Is it illegal to take a picture of your guitar and sell it for profit? To be on the safe side, I think the seller should note that it is not an officially licensed RIC product.

I'd tend to agree, here. In any event, I don't think it's a good idea.

JimK

Who buys this junk anyway? Reminds me of those tiny guitar replicas.

I think it works like this. If the SUBJECT of the photo IS the GUITAR than it is a violation. If on the other hand it's a photo of me holding my beautiful 4001 and I use it on an album cover then really the SUBJECT is ME, not the guitar and it's ok, because it's used as a prop.

they still avoid the names of guitars in commercials. anybody saw 2007-2008 snickers campaign? it started with a guy playing old 70's guild d50.... by the january of 2008 the logo on the headstock was obscured.

I think they cover the trade names because it's not an ad or a product placement. They get big $$ for that. Ever see a sitcom with a soda can with black gaffer tape over the label, while on some shows there is a closeup of a label on a soda bottle. That company paid big $$ for that. They cover trade names up because they don't want to give free advertising out. Do you really think Pepsi would complain if the mail character was drinking a bottle?

Well, evidently it was copyright infringement as the auction is pulled.

O'm sure RIC had something to say.

Trademark!!! Not copyright!!!!


The following taken from http://www.funnystrange.com/copyright/trademark.htm:

According to the US Copyright Office FAQ, copyright "protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."

While copyright covers expressions of ideas, trademark covers logos and brand names. The US Patent and Trademark Office says that "A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name."