If @ShaneS wanted to, considering his product, he could have some unbelievable shirts designed. (Which I would buy in a heartbeat, BTW.) Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Barrister and Mann sells t shirts for their special releases... The hallows t shirts is available for pre sales right now Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
No, this is completely incorrect. Images and logos fall under Trademark laws, not copyright. Disney tried to severely muddy the waters and distort the laws, but it's clear. What you -create- is copyright. What you can -build- is patented. What -represents you- is trademark. Thus, 'Coca cola' isn't copyrighted. The made up combination word 'Coca-Cola' and the swoosh logo are a trademark of the Coca-Cola corporation. Mickey Mouse isn't copyrighted. He's trademarked. A trademark lasts as long as the company is in existence, or at least the company that owns it is in existence. You can't sell a trademark, but it can be passed with other remuneration.
Just FYI... Red-headed t-shirts sells white supremacist apparel. SS Death Head, Rhodesian flags.... Know what you support when you spend your bucks.
There was a case a while back involving a Mom and Pop type store selling T-shirts with MLB and NFL logos on them. It was ruled that as long as a customer requested a certain logo on them, they didn't violate anything, especially Trademark Law. It wasn't like they were selling shirts already made up with the logos and selling them as "official merchandise". It also fell under the First Amendment right of a person displaying what he wanted on the shirt.
Right - it gets confusing, and it also depends on how many lawyers (*cough*Disney*cough*) throw at the issue, but roughly, if there's no actual money made off of the trademark, and there's no _harm_ done with the trademark, they sort of have to let it go. So, if the T-Shirt shop had 'ready-made' shirts with a trademark on them - that's financial harm done with the trademark. If someone said "hey, do a Tweety on this shirt", and they air brushed it, Warner would have a hard time justifying a suit in front of a judge. In the first case, they're making money _from_ the trademark/logo. In the second case, they're making money from painting. What they're painting is mostly irrelevant. Now, if they said "Paint the mouse humping a tasmanian devil" - that could easily be considered causing harm to the trademarked images/logos. That's why most small shops won't do it at all, just to avoid the threats.
These two law reviews pretty much explain it: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-is-unauthorized-use-not-trademark-infringement http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=sportslaw Also, I have done drawings for people requesting a certain character, but done in a different way. I have done a few Betty Boop's in sexy outfits for a friend.
Right. However, using something with MLB or NFL on it, considering they make a huge amount of money from their officially licensed products, is going to be a harder sell than Betty Boop - where their main interest is in the cartoon itself. They could make a good argument that their trademark is being damaged or diluted by unlicensed sellers. With our current 'Pay us and we'll make a law for you' legislatures, who knows where it will go. (the whole "Mickey Mouse Copyright Act" that extended copyright insanely beyond where it's actual intent was ever intended to be. Which was 17 years, so that stuff could go into public domain for the public good.. Different rant)
