How do T-shirt companies use copyrighted material and not get sued????????????? (56k commit that)

[Pedro Navaja]

How do t-shirt companies make shirts with other people's pics and not get sued? Are there any copyright or infringement laws reagrding the use of otherpeople's pics? How do they do this legally? Can you just steal pics and change one minor detail and get away with it? Sorry for so many pics. Thanks tothose who respond.

Theres that Paris performing oral sex from the sextape tshirt by Coup de Grace



The Coup de Grace Belly shirt

This t-shirt used this pic

Isnt this copyrighted by the movie?

Isnt this copyrighted by the NFL or NBA?

Can you just steal pics and change one minor detail and get away with it?

Can you use a celebrity's own pic to diss them?

Can you use private pics/lyrics?

Can you use album covers?

 

[stork]

paris hilton isn't a copyright, she's a public figure so she's putting herself out there for criticism being a celeb

(i have that shirt too

)

 

[militaryiv]

are sextapes copyrighted?

 

[chagocal]

you might wanna take the first pic down, unless getting sent to banned camp was your goal.

 

[quik1987]

 

[Pedro Navaja]

Originally Posted by Stork

paris hilton isn't a copyright, she's a public figure so she's putting herself out there for criticism being a celeb

(i have that shirt too

)

isnt the material copyrighted by company who put the sextape out, The Red Light Districtt

 

[cabron james 23]

 

[fanatic15]

Well for the mug shots. and paparazzi photos, tthose don't belong to the celebrities, so really nothing illegal is going on there.

For logos if you change something on them they then become a different product, so yes if you change something, especially something as drastic as what youhave shown here, there really isn't much a company can do. When you patent a logo you have very specific elements that can't be used. It goes rightdown to the exact color used. So for example if someone wanted to male the NBA logo with a different shade of blue and red for a t-shirt, it is no longer thesame material that is patented.

 

[i love af1]

 

[harlemtothebronx]

I can't see the pics, but they can also get permission to use it.

 

[devilmonx]

Originally Posted by Fanatic15

Well for the mug shots. and paparazzi photos, tthose don't belong to the celebrities, so really nothing illegal is going on there.

For logos if you change something on them they then become a different product, so yes if you change something, especially something as drastic as what you have shown here, there really isn't much a company can do. When you patent a logo you have very specific elements that can't be used. It goes right down to the exact color used. So for example if someone wanted to male the NBA logo with a different shade of blue and red for a t-shirt, it is no longer the same material that is patented.

Not correct. You don't patent logos, you can trademark them. Second: just because you change one minor detail doesn't invalidate their trademarkif it will still lead to consumer confusion. If I use the NBA logo on a shirt and change the red to a slightly darker red and the blue to a lighter blue, thatwould probably still confuse consumers into thinking that the shirt is an NBA-licensed shirt.

Images aren't loading for me, btw, but to answer your question in the most practical and realistic way possible...

#1: T-shirt companies aren't getting sued because companies don't go filing lawsuits without thinking about the pros/cons of doing so, and the costs. So if someone did make the NBA logo knockoff shirt, and he was selling them from his garage, I don't know if theNBA would care that much. Doesn't mean they couldn't be sued (distinction) but they might not be.

#2: T-shirt companies might not be sued and can't be sued if they're using the likeness/logo, etc., under a fair use or some other permissible use. Aphoto of a celebrity is still protected, don't get wrong information. You can't just slap a photo you took of Kobe onto a shirt or a cup or whateverand sell it.

 

[fanatic15]

Originally Posted by devilmonx

Originally Posted by Fanatic15

Well for the mug shots. and paparazzi photos, tthose don't belong to the celebrities, so really nothing illegal is going on there.

For logos if you change something on them they then become a different product, so yes if you change something, especially something as drastic as what you have shown here, there really isn't much a company can do. When you patent a logo you have very specific elements that can't be used. It goes right down to the exact color used. So for example if someone wanted to male the NBA logo with a different shade of blue and red for a t-shirt, it is no longer the same material that is patented.

Not correct. You don't patent logos, you can trademark them. Second: just because you change one minor detail doesn't invalidate their trademark if it will still lead to consumer confusion. If I use the NBA logo on a shirt and change the red to a slightly darker red and the blue to a lighter blue, that would probably still confuse consumers into thinking that the shirt is an NBA-licensed shirt.

Images aren't loading for me, btw, but to answer your question in the most practical and realistic way possible...

#1: T-shirt companies aren't getting sued because companies don't go filing lawsuits without thinking about the pros/cons of doing so, and the costs. So if someone did make the NBA logo knockoff shirt, and he was selling them from his garage, I don't know if the NBA would care that much. Doesn't mean they couldn't be sued (distinction) but they might not be.

#2: T-shirt companies might not be sued and can't be sued if they're using the likeness/logo, etc., under a fair use or some other permissible use. A photo of a celebrity is still protected, don't get wrong information. You can't just slap a photo you took of Kobe onto a shirt or a cup or whatever and sell it.

I used the wrong terminology there but you are right trademark is what I was looking for. As for the color example I used, it's from a real worldexample. When we learned about it in class we talked about the fact that burnt orange is a trademarked color for the University of Texas Athletics, but if at-shirt company creates t-shirts and the color is slightly off, they will have a harder time suing, the same goes with the logo (A small t-shirt company madethe Bevo logo with the horns "sawed off"and the University got a lot of heat for trying to sue and were ultimately unsuccessful).

It was a while ago so I am fuzzy on the details.
As for the celebrity faces, I was referring to the fact that those are mug shots, which makes thempublic.

Parody. Law.

Just read a little about. Interesting stuff.

 

[abeautifulhaze]

2 words.

Parody. Law.

 

[devilmonx]

Originally Posted by Fanatic15

Originally Posted by devilmonx

Originally Posted by Fanatic15

Well for the mug shots. and paparazzi photos, tthose don't belong to the celebrities, so really nothing illegal is going on there.

For logos if you change something on them they then become a different product, so yes if you change something, especially something as drastic as what you have shown here, there really isn't much a company can do. When you patent a logo you have very specific elements that can't be used. It goes right down to the exact color used. So for example if someone wanted to male the NBA logo with a different shade of blue and red for a t-shirt, it is no longer the same material that is patented.

Not correct. You don't patent logos, you can trademark them. Second: just because you change one minor detail doesn't invalidate their trademark if it will still lead to consumer confusion. If I use the NBA logo on a shirt and change the red to a slightly darker red and the blue to a lighter blue, that would probably still confuse consumers into thinking that the shirt is an NBA-licensed shirt.

Images aren't loading for me, btw, but to answer your question in the most practical and realistic way possible...

#1: T-shirt companies aren't getting sued because companies don't go filing lawsuits without thinking about the pros/cons of doing so, and the costs. So if someone did make the NBA logo knockoff shirt, and he was selling them from his garage, I don't know if the NBA would care that much. Doesn't mean they couldn't be sued (distinction) but they might not be.

#2: T-shirt companies might not be sued and can't be sued if they're using the likeness/logo, etc., under a fair use or some other permissible use. A photo of a celebrity is still protected, don't get wrong information. You can't just slap a photo you took of Kobe onto a shirt or a cup or whatever and sell it.

I used the wrong terminology there but you are right trademark is what I was looking for. As for the color example I used, it's from a real world example. When we learned about it in class we talked about the fact that burnt orange is a trademarked color for the University of Texas Athletics, but if a t-shirt company creates t-shirts and the color is slightly off, they will have a harder time suing, the same goes with the logo (A small t-shirt company made the Bevo logo with the horns "sawed off"and the University got a lot of heat for trying to sue and were ultimately unsuccessful).

It was a while ago so I am fuzzy on the details.
As for the celebrity faces, I was referring to the fact that those are mug shots, which makes them public.

Parody. Law.

Just read a little about. Interesting stuff.


Ah, slightly different example then. Of course, it would be tough for North Carolina to, say, sue a t-shirt maker for using their trademarked color "North Carolina blue" (I don't even know what the real name of the color is, lol). Because there theprotected material is the color itself. That would not be the same thing as using the Lakers logo (font, etc.) butsimply changing the color and making it blue, or green, or whatever. Changing colors for the NBA logo would not fly AFAIK.
Parody is a valid defense, yes, can't see the images so I don't know if that applies here. If it does, there you go as far as an answer goes.

Mug shots are considered public domain? That would be news to me if correct... it'd be great if you could back that up for me via case law or statute. I'd be interested to know if that's true, since it doesn't really make common sense. My line of thought (tell me if it makes sense to you?): Youcan't just put someone's likeness on a shirt and sell it, nor could you take a photo of someone's face and sell it, but if the police do it foryou, you're allowed to put the mugshot on a shirt and sell it? I don't think celebrities forfeit their likeness just because they get arrested.

(Absent parody, fair use, etc.)

Hit me up in PM if you would prefer, thanks!

 

[bubblegumxsoles]

No offense but a lot of you are clueless. These smaller companies using trademarked logos/characters are actually taking the risk of being sued. Fact of thematter is, the larger companies have greater things to worry about.

 

[21 world b free 21]

companies will send cease and desist letters or other warning letters, its not worth the cost to go after all these small guys, you can argue all you wantabout what is/isn't infringement but the fact is their are tons of products out there that blatantly do but are very hard or impractical to stop

 

[fanatic15]

Originally Posted by devilmonx

Originally Posted by Fanatic15

Originally Posted by devilmonx

Originally Posted by Fanatic15

Well for the mug shots. and paparazzi photos, tthose don't belong to the celebrities, so really nothing illegal is going on there.

For logos if you change something on them they then become a different product, so yes if you change something, especially something as drastic as what you have shown here, there really isn't much a company can do. When you patent a logo you have very specific elements that can't be used. It goes right down to the exact color used. So for example if someone wanted to male the NBA logo with a different shade of blue and red for a t-shirt, it is no longer the same material that is patented.

Not correct. You don't patent logos, you can trademark them. Second: just because you change one minor detail doesn't invalidate their trademark if it will still lead to consumer confusion. If I use the NBA logo on a shirt and change the red to a slightly darker red and the blue to a lighter blue, that would probably still confuse consumers into thinking that the shirt is an NBA-licensed shirt.

Images aren't loading for me, btw, but to answer your question in the most practical and realistic way possible...

#1: T-shirt companies aren't getting sued because companies don't go filing lawsuits without thinking about the pros/cons of doing so, and the costs. So if someone did make the NBA logo knockoff shirt, and he was selling them from his garage, I don't know if the NBA would care that much. Doesn't mean they couldn't be sued (distinction) but they might not be.

#2: T-shirt companies might not be sued and can't be sued if they're using the likeness/logo, etc., under a fair use or some other permissible use. A photo of a celebrity is still protected, don't get wrong information. You can't just slap a photo you took of Kobe onto a shirt or a cup or whatever and sell it.

I used the wrong terminology there but you are right trademark is what I was looking for. As for the color example I used, it's from a real world example. When we learned about it in class we talked about the fact that burnt orange is a trademarked color for the University of Texas Athletics, but if a t-shirt company creates t-shirts and the color is slightly off, they will have a harder time suing, the same goes with the logo (A small t-shirt company made the Bevo logo with the horns "sawed off"and the University got a lot of heat for trying to sue and were ultimately unsuccessful).

It was a while ago so I am fuzzy on the details.
As for the celebrity faces, I was referring to the fact that those are mug shots, which makes them public.

Parody. Law.

Just read a little about. Interesting stuff.

Ah, slightly different example then. Of course, it would be tough for North Carolina to, say, sue a t-shirt maker for using their trademarked color "North Carolina blue" (I don't even know what the real name of the color is, lol). Because there the protected material is the color itself. That would not be the same thing as using the Lakers logo (font, etc.) but simply changing the color and making it blue, or green, or whatever. Changing colors for the NBA logo would not fly AFAIK.
Parody is a valid defense, yes, can't see the images so I don't know if that applies here. If it does, there you go as far as an answer goes.

Mug shots are considered public domain? That would be news to me if correct... it'd be great if you could back that up for me via case law or statute. I'd be interested to know if that's true, since it doesn't really make common sense. My line of thought (tell me if it makes sense to you?): You can't just put someone's likeness on a shirt and sell it, nor could you take a photo of someone's face and sell it, but if the police do it for you, you're allowed to put the mugshot on a shirt and sell it? I don't think celebrities forfeit their likeness just because they get arrested.

(Absent parody, fair use, etc.)

Hit me up in PM if you would prefer, thanks!


I was assuming, just like court documents and the like are public record. But I may be mistaken. I'm no criminal justice major lol.

 

[Pedro Navaja]

can y'all see the pics now??

 

[air bonilla 23]

Originally Posted by suge67








Can you use album covers?

Info on this shirt.

Hence the avy

 

[russ tha g]

Yeah, I think these brands get away with it moreso because they're so small that it's either under the radar or not worth the time/money to stop themthan any legal protecting they might have.

 

[ca5perrr]

i know the lemar and dauly ones have little changes, like if look at mj's jersey it says YBA n i seen the david robinson with a diff number, just thingslike that , dunno if its a loop hole or not

 

[thagreatj]

info on that Biggie shirt????

 

[czdadegrees]

big brands usually get permission or they would alter the image...but if your a small brand you can get away sometimes

 

[georgehimself]

I think its not worth it for them to sue the smaller companies because the litigation process would end up costing them more money for lawyer fees and whatnot. But when it comes to bigger companies, there is an incentive to sue and try to get a percentage of the profits that they are due.

 

[kingofallkickz]

i like dat raiders shirt