English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I WAS TOLD ITS OK AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT MAKING MONEY FOR IT LIKE SELLING PICTURES OR CHARGING FOR IT TO BE FILMED


HERE ARE A FEW LINKS

http://kingofthestreet.com/images/ecrphotogallery/2007/march_2007/index.htm

http://kingofthestreet.com/images/ecrphotogallery/2006/classics_orlando/pages/rborlando%20034.htm

http://mrscrape.com/gallery/gallery.html

http://mrscrape.com/gallery/gallery.html



http://kingofthestreet.com/images/ecrphotogallery/2006/classics_orlando/pages/rborlando%20114.htm


http://hiphopcars.com/cars/dooney_burke_ride.html.

http://www.hiphopcars.com/cars/phatwhipshookeduppictures.html

http://www.hiphopcars.com/cars/simposonswhip.html

2007-07-09 06:38:17 · 2 answers · asked by jam_3079 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

2 answers

All you need to do is change 10% of the major appierence of the piece being reproduced and it becomes the work of the artist doing the paintings.

2007-07-09 07:47:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Improper use of trademarks is actionable even if the use is not intended to make money, or occurs in a non-commercial context.

For example, a person can sue for dilution or taint of a trademark, even in non-commercial situations, if the infringing use reduces the value and integrity of the trademark.

So, just because the use is non-commercial, that doesn't make someone immune from an infringement suit.

2007-07-09 15:22:13 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers