A question for small scale builders

[sturgeo]

I've recently built myself a new Fuzz Face, as a Hendrix fan i thought he'd make a good person to use for artwork.

Here's a picture of the trial run, font needs a tweak but other than that i'm happy.



Generally, with a pedal for myself, anything goes regarding the engraving, I'm not selling it so no issues with licensing blah blah blah.

I've had some interest in this particular pedal and in my country (UK) once a person (celebrity) dies you can use there image freely (I'm led to believe). This makes for interesting reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9056455/Selling-the-dead.html

What are peoples opinions on this? i know shipping to most places out of the EU will be a no no as they have different opinions on licensing the image etc

[mremic01]

I'm having a similar issue myself. I've got a few enclosure with the Klon Horsieman etched on them that I'd like to sell off so I can get some capitol to invest in more enclosures, but the trademark issue makes me hesitant to list them online.

I'd say it's worth a try. If it's a small run and you're a nobody in the pedal world, I doubt anyone will take issue with it. If you get a C&D, you can just take the listings down and try to sell them locally or something.

[midwayfair]

Using their image is different from using someone else's image on your pedal. Someone took that photograph that you turned into an etch. You probably don't hold a copyright on it and would be using it without permission. Since Hendrix's estate probably owns the rights to grant permissive use of most of the famous images, I'd also say that you could run afoul of them.

The easy way to avoid this situation is to design your own art, just like you'd design your own PCB and give your product its own name.

[stevie1556]

As above. I also believe a photographer has instant copyright over any image he creates.

If you're good with image programs, you can always alter the image to get around that issue though. I'm not sure about the image, but I believe to get round a PCB copyright, a minimum of 90% of the layout needs to be changed, I'm sure I read that somewhere, but don't quote me on it.

That pedal does look bloody great though!

[playpunk]

There are a whole bunch of different legal issues going on here. 1: Who owns the rights to Jimi Hendrix's image, if any exist, 2: Who owns the rights to the photographic composition used in your etch artwork, and 3: does your transformation of the underlying image, if any, avoid any issues you might have with any rightholder, if any exist.

You could probably pay an IP lawyer a bunch of money to figure this out, or you could just make a batch to sell and see what happens. I don't know where you are, or what law applies, but those are the possible issues as I see it.

If I had to guess (and that's what I'm doing) I'd guess that it is impossible to connect your etch artwork to any particular piece of artwork which contained an image of Mr. Hendrix. It is more like a generic likeness of a public figure, which I don't think is something that can be copyrighted.

I would be more leary of snagging other people's artwork and using it than snagging an image and making an etch with it... I don't think it is as clear a NO as the other people who have posted, but this is not my area of expertise, at all.

If you actually want to learn more about this, here is a law review article: http://www.swlaw.edu/pdfs/lr/43_1whibley.pdf

If you want me to figure this out for you, let me know.

[playpunk]

My computer started working again, so I can answer a little better, but it probably won't be very satisfactory: I think that, depending on where you are located in the world, you are probably not wrong in using that image as a part of a pedal for sale. That said, being right won't stop Experience Hendrix from suing you, and you would have to hire some litigator to defend you and that would most likely be pricey.

If you read that LR article you will find that my original guesses were mostly right. That makes me feel good about my student loans.

[gordo]

Janie Hendrix is absolutely brutal when it comes to licensing and runs the family business. I wouldn't do ANYTHING with a Jimi likeness before running it by (buy) the Hendrix foundation. Flogging a dead horse comes to mind.

[rumbletone]

This is not legal advice -

1. Post-mortem rights of publicity exist in many places (though not all) - but plaintiffs will forum shop to find one such place where an item was sold, and sue there

2. If there is copyright in the image, the reproduction for commercial purposes without consent may constitute copyright infringement in most places

3. The Hendrix estate (i.e., his half-sister who met him only a handful of times, when she was a child) is very stingy with their licensing, and it seems to have nothing to do with anything other than money (i.e., they don't license artistic projects that pay tribute to Jimi's art, but use the brand for all kinds of ridiculous crap imho), and they are aggressive with their enforcement.

[sturgeo]

Thanks for the replies, if there was one law that every country abided by this would be a lot simpler!

I agree with everything being said, especially regarding the original photo copyright, that'll be the gotcha in the UK. I don't know if/at what point of manipulating an image it becomes original.

I think i'll keep this one for myself and unless i can find some definite copyright laws in the UK regarding the original picture i'll work on some new graphics for the ones i put up for sale. 

[juansolo]

Yeah I've had people take exception to one-offs I've made that I've put up for sale that use other people's art. It's dodgy ground for sure. Fine doing it for yourself. As soon as you put them up for sale you open yourself up to some potential legal issues.

[midwayfair]

Yeah I've had people take exception to one-offs I've made that I've put up for sale that use other people's art.

Tell them that you'll pay them the profit. Charge a reasonable fee for your time, the cost of all parts and materials, and send them a bill for the negative balance.

[juansolo]

Yeah I've had people take exception to one-offs I've made that I've put up for sale that use other people's art.

Tell them that you'll pay them the profit. Charge a reasonable fee for your time, the cost of all parts and materials, and send them a bill for the negative balance.

LOL, indeed!

[stevie1556]

Tell them that you'll pay them the profit. Charge a reasonable fee for your time, the cost of all parts and materials, and send them a bill for the negative balance.

Absolute genius!

[Hogharry]

As above. I also believe a photographer has instant copyright over any image he creates.

If you're good with image programs, you can always alter the image to get around that issue though. I'm not sure about the image, but I believe to get round a PCB copyright, a minimum of 90% of the layout needs to be changed, I'm sure I read that somewhere, but don't quote me on it.

That pedal does look bloody great though!

The first place part this is correct, under UK law ( and I believe most other countries) the photographer would own the copyright unless he sold it or was working for someone else under contract. Most photos of celebrities are taken for commercial reasons, so it would usually be clear who owned the copyright, which continues for 70 years after the owner dies. It doesn't matter it's a photo of Jimi or a tree, the copyright law is the same and it would be illegal to use it for commercial purposes without consent. Altering the image wouldn't change  fact that you don't have the right to use it. If you changed it enough to make it unrecognisable it would end up unrecognisable...

In this case it is likely that his estate owns the copyright for a lot of the well known images and I'm pretty sure they will have trademarked his name etc.

That said, many of us probably have used copyrighted images on our own pedals and often sold some of them. I think it's when profit becomes involved most people would, quite rightly, avoid it. Strictly though you cannot use one of my photos without my permission and I am entitled to charge you for any use of it, including personal use. If you think about it, it is the basis of any photography business.