PDA

View Full Version : Is there any type of licensing required?



jeryst
02-28-2010, 12:34 PM
I was just wondering if any type of licensing is required to reproduce Studebaker items. I know that if you do that with a current car company, they require you to obtain (buy) permission from them. But being that Studebaker no longer exists, is anyone free to reproduce parts, make clothing, use the Studebaker logo, etc, or are you required to still go through someone to do something like that?

StudeRich
02-28-2010, 12:43 PM
I don't think the Parts are a problem, but the Logos are another thing entirely! There are a couple of Corps. that claim to own the rights to the Studebaker name! [:0]

StudeRich

StudeSchack
02-28-2010, 12:46 PM
The Studebaker National Museum may hold those licensing rights....but I am only going by this neon light that I saw recently, and it says that it is licensed through the Studebaker National Museum.

http://www.neonconcept.com/Studebaker_Script_Window_Sign_on_Sale_Now_details.aspx


Ted
'57 Champion

If you have the time: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/studebaker

Avantidon
02-28-2010, 12:49 PM
It is my understanding that the Studebaker logo for use on clothing and other type items is owned by John Seaton. If you have questions contact me outside of here and I'll get you the info you need.

bondobilly
02-28-2010, 01:29 PM
Right now there is a company called Studebaker motor Company that is shown to own the Lazy S logo as their trademark. If you go to the Trademark pages you will see that all trademarks owned by all entities are listed as DEAD. The SNM does not own any designs, or logos other than their own logo, which is currently listed as dead. There is a Studebaker Jeans company that uses a version of the Red Ball, another company uses the word Studebaker done in Parkway font that is their trademark for electronic goods such as radios.

While you can own a trademark, or srevice mark, or copyright an image UNLESS you police it and enforce it you loose it.

There are three people who claim to own the Packard script. As far as this discussion goes do not go on word of mouth, use the US trademark pages asa guide. The "owner" of the Lazy S was awarded it in 2006 after filing for it in 2004, only now, 2010 is he asking for protection, or policing it.

It is going to be very difficult as time goes on to protect/police the trademarks as Studbaker grows in popularity. The Licensed by the SNM on Toys and models is a method for toy companies to get street credibility. AMT/Ertl was using the SNM logo on their packaging and ha dropped it, some Johnny Lightning is comming in without the SNM endorsement.

The fellow who "owns the Lazy S wants a R in a circle placed next to the logo. That was from a letter I got.

Again I strongly stress that you look at the trademark pages on line and click on each logo and notice waht is active and what is dead.

I know that a lot of us who produce Studebaker items have not gotten cease and desist letters from either owners or law firms.

To be fully informed I would take with a grain of salt all claims until you have in hand anything that proves ownership.

For example a comapny called WOODLAND SCENICS who produces HO and N scale cars and trucks circumvented any infringement on GM and the other big three by leaving off the Chevy "Bowtie" or the words "Belvedere" or "Airstream" on anyof thier models. Wm. K. Walthers and Athearn who also produce HO and N scale autos opted to pay Ford large sums of money so they could use the name FORD and the various model names.

There is nothig wrong with the SNM asking for and getting money or royalty on a product if the toy company used a car at the SNM.

If this Mr. Seaton owns the logo for clothing and other items where does this leave the Studebaker Motor Company who is listed as owner of the Lazy S???

Avantidon
02-28-2010, 01:43 PM
I don't know but we can ask him as he is just a phone call away. Also he is well known to many within the Avanti world and to some within the Studebaker world. I don't mean that as a slam as I thought you might know him. I will ask him on this very issue in the morning and let all know what he tells me.

bams50
02-28-2010, 02:09 PM
What about using a picture you found on the web to make portraits or shirts? I'd like to have one done but don't even remember where I found the picture, just saved to my computer.

Robert (Bob) Andrews- on the IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys)
Parish, central NY 13131
http://www.patrioticon.org/images/flag1-1.gif
GOD BLESS AMERICA

bondobilly
02-28-2010, 02:15 PM
quote:Originally posted by bams50

What about using a picture you found on the web to make portraits or shirts? I'd like to have one done but don't even remember where I found the picture, just saved to my computer.



In South Bend I was walking the rooms when I came across a booth selling t-shirts of my 56J. Not only was it my car, it was on my front lawn and I took the photo. This company scanned the photo of my car from the inside back cover of Turning Wheels.
THAT IS A OUTRAGOUS VIOLATION OG COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

It violated two copyrights, mine as I was the photographer and TW's as they published it.
Bottom line, no you cannot use a photo from a magazine, or book unless in this case it is a picture in a Studebaker catalog, book, pamphlet, or ad etc. They are public domain.

As far as our shirts and now clocks and mugs go, we can use any of the above, or a photo you took or a friend took for you. All our shirts that have cars come from either ads, or customer photos.

BG

bams50
02-28-2010, 02:19 PM
Now I'm confused. I've also been told that if the photo was posted on the net it was free to use, and no copyrights exist on it. Anyone know which is true?

Robert (Bob) Andrews- on the IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys)
Parish, central NY 13131
http://www.patrioticon.org/images/flag1-1.gif
GOD BLESS AMERICA

StudeSchack
02-28-2010, 02:25 PM
I'd rather spend $30k on a car!

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#p2p

Ted
'57 Champion

If you have the time: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/studebaker

bondobilly
02-28-2010, 02:29 PM
quote:Originally posted by bams50

Now I'm confused. I've also been told that if the photo was posted on the net it was free to use, and no copyrights exist on it. Anyone know which is true?


When you post to the web you basically own the rights to the photo/drawing, but in the back of your mind you know you have lost control. HOWEVER, 90 to 98% of all images posted to the web are done at 72 dpi and are possibly no bigger than three inches. If you right click on an image and hit copy, open a photo program and hit paste, and then try and enlarge it, you will wind up with a very out of focus soft pixilated image.

BG

bams50
02-28-2010, 03:13 PM
I foud a picture on flicr or one of them and copied it. It was very big and clear, which was why I liked it. Had it made into a portrait (11x14) where it was customized to give as a gift. I believe others would want one too, and am wanting to offer it to that group as portraits; it can also be printed on shirts.

I cannot remember where I got it or I'd just ask permission. What applies here? Bill, what did you ever do about your situation?

Robert (Bob) Andrews- on the IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys)
Parish, central NY 13131
http://www.patrioticon.org/images/flag1-1.gif
GOD BLESS AMERICA

bondobilly
02-28-2010, 03:35 PM
quote:Originally posted by bams50

I foud a picture on flicr or one of them and copied it. It was very big and clear, which was why I liked it. Had it made into a portrait (11x14) where it was customized to give as a gift. I believe others would want one too, and am wanting to offer it to that group as portraits; it can also be printed on shirts.

I cannot remember where I got it or I'd just ask permission. What applies here? Bill, what did you ever do about your situation?



What happened in my situation was I said to the guy in the booth ......"nice shirt"...yup....."nice car" thats why we made it, "Hate to tell you but I took the photo of my car" ..Deer in the headlight look. Decided rather than cause a fight I went to Ed R and Ann and Art. Next morning all the shirts of my car were off the booth's display. The next month in TW's there was a little blurb about copyright issues.

BTW, I bought one of his shirts of my car as he did it using a method called DTG (Direct To Garment) digital printing. If I had an extra $65,000 I would buy the machine they used. First DTG image that did not wash out after two washings.

Just picture a huge Epson printer that accepts shirts. Amazing.

If you have permission then you can do what you want. Some people are flattered and excited that others think their art have commercial value.

BG

bams50
02-28-2010, 04:09 PM
That's fine if I can find out who took the picture. Haven't had any luck with that so far. The site it was on just said by 'J' with no other contact info.

Robert (Bob) Andrews- on the IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys)
Parish, central NY 13131
http://www.patrioticon.org/images/flag1-1.gif
GOD BLESS AMERICA

Retired
02-28-2010, 04:13 PM
Simple,No one owns the name Studebaker. Mike Kelly is registered for exclusive use of the name for the application to a motor vehicle. The SNM logo can not be used with out their approval. Use of the SDC logo requires approval. The Chipawa Plant Industrial site uses the lazy S red/white/blue ball on their sign, is such use soley owned by them, I don't know. Some toy/model companies wish to use the SNM logo on their packaging and get approval. Others don't use it and market their product with out any mention of the SNM .Open to comments.

Richard

Maynard
02-28-2010, 10:09 PM
I sent a query to the SNM last week about use of the Studebaker logos. I got the automated response promising to get back to me within 48 hours, and that's long past.

Avantidon, do let us know what you learn about this, and I'm interested in contact info.

bondobilly, had you filed for copyright protection for your image?

Chris_Dresbach
02-28-2010, 10:38 PM
Does that apply to a logo where whoever is useing it is not making any money with it? Typically I put a studebaker script logo over a r/w/b lazy S on the bottles of core sand I sell, but I don't make any money at it. Does that require getting permission of a trademark[?]

Chris Dresbach
http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx323/chris_dresbach/Studebaker%201/ModelN-1-1.jpghttp://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx323/chris_dresbach/40champion-1-1.jpghttp://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx323/chris_dresbach/Studebaker%201/N10-1-1.jpg
1940 Champion two door.
Parts of the 1952 Model N

Avantidon
03-01-2010, 07:53 AM
Several years ago, I found a picture of my 73 Avanti II used in an eBay ad for the sale of another Avanti II. When I approached the poster and told him that he had used my picture without permission and was comitting fraud in the process, he threatened me. I jsut turned around told eBay and within 15 minutes the ad was gone. If you are following the pictures Richard Quinn is posting here or eBay ads that Walt Miller posts you will see how they protect their rights to what they share or sell. You need to always be aware what is going on around you.

Skip Lackie
03-01-2010, 10:26 AM
Many of the old Studebaker trademarks, logos and artwork have been copyrighted by other organizations, including SDC, SNM, Avanti Motors, AOAI, and several companies using the Studebaker name. You can't reproduce any of them without the permission of the owner.

SDC has a brochure that describes SDC's registered logos and limits on their use. It is available from Larry Swanson. SDC chapters are allowed to use the logos without permission as long as they reproduce them properly. In general, SDC does NOT authorize the use of its copyrighted materials for profit, with the exception of items sold by the club store.

A gray area is the reproduction of photographs. For example, one could blow up a picture of the 1964 S-in-a-circle hood ornament and print it on T-shirts. Presumably, that would not violate anyone's rights, since it would be a legitimate photo of a real car. But the fact that it portrays a trademark that was owned at the time by Studebaker, but is now owned by a different company, still might present a problem.

The lazy S symbol has been copyrighted in slightly different forms by a number of companies. Only the USPTO can determine if a new representation violates someone else's rights. There are law firms that specialize in copyright and trademark law. They would have to conduct a search to determine if a given ex-Stude logo was available for use or not.

Skip Lackie
Washington DC

nibbs53
03-01-2010, 11:17 AM
quote:Originally posted by bams50

That's fine if I can find out who took the picture. Haven't had any luck with that so far. The site it was on just said by 'J' with no other contact info.

Robert (Bob) Andrews- on the IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys)
Parish, central NY 13131
http://www.patrioticon.org/images/flag1-1.gif
GOD BLESS AMERICA

Bob try this web site.

http://www.tineye.com/

nibbs53

aenthal
03-01-2010, 11:58 AM
Okay, a variation on this topic: does anyone own the rights to an image of a Studebaker car that is not photographed?
In other words, if I draw my Land Cruiser, and the artwork is entirely my own, with no words or logos, is there anyone claiming the rights to the likeness of Studebaker's cars?
With GM, Mopar, and FoMoCo, there certainly is a licensing problem. They own the rights for likenesses of their products as long as they exist.
But who is left to claim ownership of the orphaned Studebaker?
I think that drawing Studebaker cars falls into public domain, as far as the car looking like Studebaker's designs.
Obviously the artwork of the Studebaker has copyright belonging to its artist.

stude62
03-01-2010, 12:14 PM
quote:Originally posted by bondobilly

Right now there is a company called Studebaker motor Company that is shown to own the Lazy S logo as their trademark. If you go to the Trademark pages you will see that all trademarks owned by all entities are listed as DEAD. The SNM does not own any designs, or logos other than their own logo, which is currently listed as dead. There is a Studebaker Jeans company that uses a version of the Red Ball, another company uses the word Studebaker done in Parkway font that is their trademark for electronic goods such as radios.

While you can own a trademark, or srevice mark, or copyright an image UNLESS you police it and enforce it you loose it.

There are three people who claim to own the Packard script. As far as this discussion goes do not go on word of mouth, use the US trademark pages asa guide. The "owner" of the Lazy S was awarded it in 2006 after filing for it in 2004, only now, 2010 is he asking for protection, or policing it.

It is going to be very difficult as time goes on to protect/police the trademarks as Studbaker grows in popularity. The Licensed by the SNM on Toys and models is a method for toy companies to get street credibility. AMT/Ertl was using the SNM logo on their packaging and ha dropped it, some Johnny Lightning is comming in without the SNM endorsement.

The fellow who "owns the Lazy S wants a R in a circle placed next to the logo. That was from a letter I got.

Again I strongly stress that you look at the trademark pages on line and click on each logo and notice waht is active and what is dead.

I know that a lot of us who produce Studebaker items have not gotten cease and desist letters from either owners or law firms.

To be fully informed I would take with a grain of salt all claims until you have in hand anything that proves ownership.

For example a comapny called WOODLAND SCENICS who produces HO and N scale cars and trucks circumvented any infringement on GM and the other big three by leaving off the Chevy "Bowtie" or the words "Belvedere" or "Airstream" on anyof thier models. Wm. K. Walthers and Athearn who also produce HO and N scale autos opted to pay Ford large sums of money so they could use the name FORD and the various model names.

There is nothig wrong with the SNM asking for and getting money or royalty on a product if the toy company used a car at the SNM.

If this Mr. Seaton owns the logo for clothing and other items where does this leave the Studebaker Motor Company who is listed as owner of the Lazy S???


Is that guy behind "Studebaker Motor Company" still sticking with his "idea" of resurrecting a new Studebaker? I went back and looked at his web site and it looks like the some old stuff he was claiming years ago. I was sure that he'd have picked a new hobby by now.

Stu K

http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac35/stude62/thumb-2.jpg
'63 Lark Regal, "Miss Rose"

barnlark
03-01-2010, 01:22 PM
]Originally posted by Retired

Simple,No one owns the name Studebaker.Mike Kelly is registered for exclusive use of the name for the application to a motor vehicle. The SNM logo can not be used with out their approval. Use of the SDC logo requires approval. The Chipawa Plant Industrial site uses the lazy S red/white/blue ball on their sign, is such use soley owned by them, I don't know. Some toy/model companies wish to use the SNM logo on their packaging and get approval. Others don't use it and market their product with out any mention of the SNM .Open to comments.

Michael Kelly is in prison, but do you mean he still owns the Avanti name for a motor vehicle, or the use of the name Studebaker?