[CR]RE: Decals

(Example: Framebuilders:Tony Beek)

From: "Jim Cunningham" <cyclartist@home.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Cc: "Susan" <susan@cyclart.com>, "1JFC@CA" <Jim@cyclart.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:41:35 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CATFOODPTANgwiniMnm00000378@catfood.nt.phred.org>
Subject: [CR]RE: Decals

Bob Reid writes:
>I can understand the need when designing new graphics for whatever purpose to dismiss the use of modern technology as >being unimaginitive in comparison with years gone by. What I can't see is how this could relate to classic bicycle restoration >of the period the list encompasses. All of the designs of the bikes for the era concerned were previously in existance and so >all of the "design" work has in effect already been done - strictly speaking it's copying someone elses work, and if that was >unimaginitive there is not a lot you can do about it short of making it unoriginal.
>What sole right has any decal manufacturer to produce certain "classic" decals if they do not hold the registered design or >trademark ? - It's a free market to some extent in that you can produce whatever you like whenever, provided it is not a >registered design or trademark or you don't get caught ! . Whilst I do understand the need to defend your business, I cannot >understand why there is a need to imply sole rights and restrict the availability when they are only copying. Many decal >manufacturers do not hold the rights to the work anyway - that belongs to the client.
>Bob Reid
>Stonehaven
>Scotland.

Bob has misread me, and suggests implications I do not support.

I was explaining why one rarely finds font matches to older logo type and frequently finds it in new ones. I revealed a bit of design philosophy in support on non standard letter forms for product identity.

I do not "to dismiss the use of modern technology as >being unimaginitive in comparison with years gone by." I was trying to explain why one will rarely find font matches to older logos and frequently find them in new ones.

Contemporary design tools are wonderful. Those who have mastered the old ways like Chuck Schmidt and myself have largely abandoned them to use the silicon based tools. If I have a critique of the impact of these tools is that they have put power and over-confidence into the hands of many with no imagination or design talent, while eroding the market for true artists. Used properly by talented people they are powerful and liberating.

As to Bobs question;

Decal manufactures clearly do NOT have the rights to decal art they print. Classic decals consisting of trade names and company logos are protected and restricted to exclusive use by the trademark owners. Reproductions may not be sold without their express written permission. In practice, trademark owners rarely pursue those who make replica decals, but I know of at least 18 cases were it has happened in the bike industry. Further, I think selling off 100 sets of surplus decals to cover he cost of a project, is difficult, irresponsible and disrespects the very brand you are enamored of. I don't think it's healthy for the hobby to have these floating around where they will be abused.

I'm not claiming sole rights. I have no right to sell the decals and I never do. I only use them as part of properly servicing the correct frames. This is a permitted use because we take responsibility for the frames correct identification and roadworthiness. We do not compromise the trademark owner's control or increase his liability on old product.

JFC