Some More Intellectual Property Information

[mbroberg]

This video may be of interest to some, while others probably don't want to hear it or will look for reasons that the information contained in the video does not apply to them . Etsy has just made some changes to their Intellectual Property reporting procedures which make it easier for owners of IP to report infringements involving their work. Here is a link to a video about the change as well as some good information about IP law in general. There is a lot of IP violations within the pen turning / blank making community and although this information is primarily concerned with Etsy. it is applicable to anyone who makes blanks, pens or anything else, and profits off of other peoples IP.

 

[jeff]

Mike - very interesting video! The part about not being able to use a purchased, licensed product will surprise some people. I know that many believe that once they own the product, whatever they do with it is fine.

 

[mbroberg]

Yes, that has always been a misconception. It is (my understanding that) the actual image that is protected. I know people do not want to hear it but if a person buys a Mickey Mouse Watch they are pretty much free to do what the want with it, including resell it, as long as it remains in it's original form, a watch. If the watch is taken apart and the face of the watch, which contains Mickey's image, is cast into a pen blank which is sold, that is a violation. Then to make matter worse, if a person buys that pen blank and turns it into a pen, then sells the pen, they are also in violation and can be held liable.

 

[jttheclockman]

Yes, that has always been a misconception. It is (my understanding that) the actual image that is protected. I know people do not want to hear it but if a person buys a Mickey Mouse Watch they are pretty much free to do what the want with it, including resell it, as long as it remains in it's original form, a watch. If the watch is taken apart and the face of the watch, which contains Mickey's image, is cast into a pen blank which is sold, that is a violation. Then to make matter worse, if a person buys that pen blank and turns it into a pen, then sells the pen, they are also in violation and can be held liable.

This question has been asked many times here. You do as you wish until caught I guess is the mantra.

 

[mark james]

This question has been asked many times here. You do as you wish until caught I guess is the mantra.

But shouldn't we try to pursue the correct, legal, ethical process? Doing things improper 'until caught' just seems wrong to me.

 

[mbroberg]

I do believe we should try to be above board but reality is some people just want to get away with as much as they can. I think what JT is saying is that the "I'll do it until I'm told not to" attitude is what guides many makers. Everyone has to do what they are comfortable doing. I personally find it kind of humerus that people think they can outsmart the high-priced Intellectual Property Lawyers and the multi-million companies that employ them by simply attaching the words "inspired by" or "in tribute to" images that they know good and well they have no right to use.

 

[KenB259]

Good video with lots of good information.

 

[mark james]

I do believe we should try to be above board but reality is some people just want to get away with as much as they can. I think what JT is saying is that the "I'll do it until I'm told not to" attitude is what guides many makers. Everyone has to do what they are comfortable doing. I personally find it kind of humerus that people think they can outsmart the high-priced Intellectual Property Lawyers and the multi-million companies that employ them by simply attaching the words "inspired by" or "in tribute to" images that they know good and well they have no right to use.

Just since we are talking ethics...

"Everyone has to do what they are comfortable doing". OK, but maybe they shouldn't, and NO, they don't have to if it is unethical. (my comment).

I have a hard time supporting anyone that is "comfortable being unethical" (and bluntly illegal). I simply can't reconcile that. Reality is some are willing to be unethical. Fine, but I feel they degrade everyone's reputation.

Should we try to be above board... Yup!

 

[jeff]

I had a friend who worked in the legal department at a car company. They had a team or people who scoured the internet looking for merchandise illegally using the company trademarks. They had another team of people writing cease and desist letters and filing lawsuits. She once showed me some photos of the offending merchandise. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, drink coasters, pens, key chains, all kinds of stuff. Putting some little guy out of business wasn't the goal, it was to set the precedent that they don't tolerate it so that when somebody making millions of dollars worth of stuff springs up that they have a solid legal history to rely on to shut down that guy.

 

[rixstix]

It works both ways. We once sponsored an event at a "Holiday Inn" and were directing attendees via our website to a specific Holiday Inn with a discount code.

The over zealous Holiday Inn sent a cease & desist letter to us for using the name "Holiday Inn" on our website and would not accept any explanation.

Our only recourse was to cancel all reservations until the local Holiday Inn could go up the chain to jump across to their contracted legal team that was blindly sending notices, racking up billable time.

 

[mbroberg]

Just since we are talking ethics...

"Everyone has to do what they are comfortable doing". I probably should have worded it "Everyone WILL do what they are comfortable doing".

I had a friend who worked in the legal department at a car company. They had a team or people who scoured the internet looking for merchandise illegally using the company trademarks. They had another team of people writing cease and desist letters and filing lawsuits. She once showed me some photos of the offending merchandise. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, drink coasters, pens, key chains, all kinds of stuff. Putting some little guy out of business wasn't the goal, it was to set the precedent that they don't tolerate it so that when somebody making millions of dollars worth of stuff springs up that they have a solid legal history to rely on to shut down that guy.

Etsy sellers violate copyright and trademark all the time. It's frustrating to those of us who try to do things legally. It is especially irratating to see someone selling something that I had contacted the IP owner to obtain a license only to be told that they do not allow there IP to be used for commercial purposes.

 

[leehljp]

I am glad to see this. I know that some are unaware of the illegalities when making a pen of their favorite team logo or colors, Pro or College, and then selling it. I think some are aware and think they can get away with it.

Using someone else's intellectual property work in any form for profit bugs me too.

Even In the early days of "shareware" software, If I used something more than twice, I paid for it. If I didn't pay for it, I deleted it. It cost the creators time and more keeping updates coming. They deserved something. Same with the creators and owners of intellectual property of all kind. It is theirs.

Great video.

I do think we need to make people here more aware that making pens with team logos and names, Pro and College are intellectual property. Without Consent or License, they are illegal to sell.

I do have a question though: making a black and silver pen, or blue and silver or red and white or an all orange pen or other color combinations, at what point do colors become a "violation"?

 

[Kenny Durrant]

We've been down this road before as mentioned earlier. I do understand the rights of businesses to protect their merchandise. Although I don't agree with some of it they didn't ask me my opinion when they wrote the laws. I've made several different college logo pens and posted several here just to show. The key word mentioned is illegal to sell. I've gotten permission by several colleges and a few professional teams to do whatever I wanted with their logos just don't sell any. I've talked to others here that tried reaching out to get permission to sell and was told no. They did say do anything as long as none are sold. I'm not saying everyone that makes a copyrighted pen has permission but thats why I don't worry about what I've done. When I first started pen turning I bought some DU tie tacks and soldered them on the pen clips. I bought the tacks from DU. They wanted the $6000 per year fee and I was out. That was 15-20 years ago so no telling what the cost is now. I contacted another pin company and they said do whatever but don't reproduce them. If you want to do what's ethical, as do I, why worry about others. They will eventually get caught. I've vented enough so I'll move on. Thanks

 

[mbroberg]

I do think we need to make people here more aware that making pens with team logos and names, Pro and College are intellectual property. Without Consent or License, they are illegal to sell.

I do have a question though: making a black and silver pen, or blue and silver or red and white or an all orange pen or other color combinations, at what point do colors become a "violation"?

I am not an attorney, I have done a lot of reading about IP law and I have my own opinion, which is in no way authoritative. My understanding is that color combinations can be used as long as NO, and I do mean NO, reference is made to a specific sports team that uses those colors as an identifier. Anyone can sell a "Brown & Orange" pen blank,, but you cannot sell a "Brown & Orange Cleveland Browns" pen blanks unless you are licensed to do so. Do not elude to the team name anywhere in the title of the ad or description. Do not use the team name, logo, mascot or anything associated with the team in the keywords to get hits in a search for that team name.

Also, keep in mind that IP only becomes an issue when a product is offered for sale. If you want to make a team logo pen to be given as a gift there is no problem. Unless, of course, the recipient of the gift decides to later sell the pen. He/she will then be in violation.

Again, I do not claim to be an expert and nobody should rely on my OPINIONS without doing their own research.

 

[sorcerertd]

The Mickey Mouse watch example is interesting. I know from dealing with copyrighted content complaints at work that the mouse is vicious. Disney will find you. I guess you can't blame anyone for protecting their own creations and profits from them. I really wouldn't have thought about the watch parts being an issue, but it makes sense since you are using their IP to market your product.

 

[jttheclockman]

I do believe we should try to be above board but reality is some people just want to get away with as much as they can. I think what JT is saying is that the "I'll do it until I'm told not to" attitude is what guides many makers. Everyone has to do what they are comfortable doing. I personally find it kind of humerus that people think they can outsmart the high-priced Intellectual Property Lawyers and the multi-million companies that employ them by simply attaching the words "inspired by" or "in tribute to" images that they know good and well they have no right to use.

Yes Mike this is what I was trying to say. What is moral and not is an individual thing. Just go on ebay etsy and FB and so many questionable blanks are being sold. As far as Disney goes they are ones that follow their trademarks closely and have to say to ridiculous levels. They sell Disney cloth and there was a crafter at one of my shows and she made pillows and things with this cloth. Disney happened to visit out show and they shut her down along with Harley Davidson. There was a scroller that made plaques with the Harley brand on it and he too was told not to sell. You may try to do the right thing but someone will just look the other way and until caught continue. I have a huge problem with watch part pens being on that list because again the old adage is they made their money on the sale of the watch and you are just repurposing it into something it was not to be. Just too much grey area in this discussion all the time. As I said this question or comments come up here many times and will continue.

 

[edman2]

Some Universities sell "Crafter License" permits to allow a minimum amount of selling items with the trademarked logo. The University of Arkansas and Arkansas State University both sell crafters licenses with guidelines on what can be done with them. $100.00 per year. So, I sell a "Razorback" pen with their full permission.

 

[mbroberg]

I have a huge problem with watch part pens being on that list because again the old adage is they made their money on the sale of the watch and you are just repurposing it into something it was not to be. Just too much grey area in this discussion all the time. As I said this question or comments come up here many times and will continue.

Think of it this way. Watches are not what makes Disney money. It is there IP that makes them money. They put a lot of time and effort into creating that brand and creating a market for it. Mickey Mouse is popular because Disney made Mickey popular. So Disney grants a license, for a fee, to a watch company giving the watch company the right to manufacture and sell watches that contain Mickey's image. Disney got their money from the licensing, The watch company makes their money by selling the watches. So if Peter the Pen Maker takes that image off of the watch and repurpose it into another product, Peter the Pen Maker is using Disney's brand without paying Disney any money to do so. Peter the Pen Maker will make money off of the sale of the product, Disney will make nothing. As far as Disney is concerned using the old watch face with Mickey's image on it is the same as down loading the image off of the Internet. Peter the Pen Maker is profiting off of Disney's brand, which they developed, without paying for it's use. Face it, a Mickey Mouse image on a pen will bring a higher price than that exact same pen would bring if it had an image of a plain old mouse or no image at all. Peter used the image to increase the vcalue of his product. It is not the watch face that is the issue, it is the image on the watch face that is the issue.

I personally do not see a lot of gray area. If you don't have the right to use an image, do not use it. If you use an image because you believe it will increase the value of your product because of it's place in popular culture, you shouldn't use it. People create the gray area by trying to find a loophole to, or try to explain away their use of, IP that belongs to someone else.

Now I will say that everyone talks about how aggressive the IP owners are in protecting their IP. My question is, if they are so aggressive in going after violators, why is IP infringement so prevalent?

 

[Velcrodog]

The Mickey Mouse watch example is interesting. I know from dealing with copyrighted content complaints at work that the mouse is vicious. Disney will find you. I guess you can't blame anyone for protecting their own creations and profits from them. I really wouldn't have thought about the watch parts being an issue, but it makes sense since you are using their IP to market your product.

I have lawyer buddy who is on prrmanent retainer by Disney to prosecute CR infringenents. Internet, trade shows, flea markets, ebay, eysy are all fertile hunting grounds for the vilolation hunters. No piece of cheese is to big or too small for these giys.

 

[leehljp]

Michael, your post # 18 says it clearly. Thanks.

What if someone gives away a MM pen with the purchase of a second pen unrelated to the MM pen? The MM IP is used as a bait to sell the unrelated pen, and therefore comes under the brand used for profit.

Making something NOT for sale and for one's personal use is OK, but once offered for sale, even a generation or two later is still illegal.

 

[mbroberg]

What if someone gives away a MM pen with the purchase of a second pen unrelated to the MM pen? The MM IP is used as a bait to sell the unrelated pen, and therefore comes under the brand used for profit.

In my non-professional, not an attorney, really means nothing to anyone but me opinion if you are using the MM pen "as bait" to sell the unrelated pen it is a violation. Is the second pen being offered by itself at a lower price than what it is being offered for with the MM pen? Would you get your asking price for the second pen if it were not for the MM pen? Are you using the MM brand to increase the value of your product? Would you give away the MM pen without a purchase of the second pen? I doubt it, otherwise why would you make the "gift" of the MM pen contingent on the sale of the second pen. If it were me I would not do it without an IP attorney telling me, in writing, that it was ok to do, just to be cautious. Then, if an issue arose I could at least show my due diligence. In reality I wouldn't go through the hassle. I just wouldn't do it.

 

[Sataro]

Very good video! Brings back eBay memories. During early years of eBay selling, I started selling online. I would find Louis Vuitton purses at garage sales. Would list them as real Louis Vuitton purses. Lawyers came after me & eBay shut sales down. Lawyer said did not matter if purses where real or fake, I could not use their name. Learned my lesson & I've been on the careful side since then.

 

[mbroberg]

Very good video! Brings back eBay memories. During early years of eBay selling, I started selling online. I would find Louis Vuitton purses at garage sales. Would list them as real Louis Vuitton purses. Lawyers came after me & eBay shut sales down. Lawyer said did not matter if purses where real or fake, I could not use their name. Learned my lesson & I've been on the careful side since then.

Did they give any other reason? It would seem that selling a Louis Vuitton purse as a Louis Vuitton purse would not be any problem. If you couldn't use a company's name to sell the company's product (as long as it is in it's original form) the used car industry would cease to exist! No one could ever sell anything that they no longer needed on line or in classified ads. I'd be interested in knowing what the problem was.

 

[leehljp]

Wow, Billy, that hurts. I just did a google of "used levis for sale" and came up with numerous hits. Where is the line on that vs Louis Vuitton?

 

[KenB259]

Did they give any other reason? It would seem that selling a Louis Vuitton purse as a Louis Vuitton purse would not be any problem. If you couldn't use a company's name to sell the company's product (as long as it is in it's original form) the used car industry would cease to exist! No one could ever sell anything that they no longer needed on line or in classified ads. I'd be interested in knowing what the problem was.

With no expertise in this at all, my guess would be that it has to do with so many fake products available, especially virulent in the designer purse, clothing, etc merchandise arena. You can't really fake a Ford F150.

 

[jttheclockman]

Oh Mike there is definitely is a ton of grey area. Even lawyers who work in that line will tell you this. I am not going to start looking back at some of prior discussions about this and you can if you want. I will tell you what I SEEN. In the scrollsaw world these same discussions are happening because we make like images and patterns and things and it does get grey. If you are saying this stuff is so illegal than maybe we need to check our own site out and hire a lawyer because I am sure there are some violations. I had a booth at a show and the guy next to me was making intarsia projects. All well done. He had tons of what you can call Disney look alikes. But no where was a title on them and he did not advertise. This is the same show that I mentioned earlier about Disney being there and them asking a lady to shut down her booth because she was using Disney cloth that they sell, to make pillows and other items and was selling. Those same people stop at this guys booth and told him he had to stop as well. He refused and told them he will fight it. as I said just because it looks like a Disney character does not mean it is an exact replica. There are pattern makers that run into this same thing. It is just a generic mouse. I have seen so called forum lawyers on both pen turning sites and scrolling sites and in fact woodworking sites say different things. The moral thing as I said is an individual thing and for one person to say one way or other is political in my eyes and if you want to open that can of worms be careful.

I will give you an example in the penturning world. It is illegal to use our military insignias and names with out permission. Nasa is another one. That space shuttle pen kit that is out, maybe the owner has the rights to sell the kit but you do not have the rights to make pens for sale using it. The phrase using it for personal use gets thrown around alot. Is it moral?

 

[jttheclockman]

Did they give any other reason? It would seem that selling a Louis Vuitton purse as a Louis Vuitton purse would not be any problem. If you couldn't use a company's name to sell the company's product (as long as it is in it's original form) the used car industry would cease to exist! No one could ever sell anything that they no longer needed on line or in classified ads. I'd be interested in knowing what the problem was.

This happens on FB marketplace too. they will pull the ad. Have to watch how you word things. Marketplace is just an on line garage sale.

 

[mbroberg]

Oh Mike there is definitely is a ton of grey area. Even lawyers who work in that line will tell you this.

Yes, lawyers will tell you this because lawyers are paid to create gray areas. I don't see a lot of gray area because my philosophy is quite simple and very black & white. Don't use someone else IP without permission. Don't attempt to profit off of someone else's brand without permission.

It kind of reminds me of the debates I use to have with the Columbus Police Legal Advisors (back in days of yor when I was a cop). The one thing we always agreed on is that cops live in a world of black & white, lawyers live in a world of gray.

 

[Woodchipper]

This has been very interesting. A friend had a business and got onto the IP turf. It cost him a chunk of money. Any oldtimers like me remember the VW Beetle trunk replacement that looked like the old Rolls-Royce grill? Yep. the company got into lots of hot water as R-R had a patent on the build and all rights to the actual look. Trivia- once there were only six people in the world authorized to build the old R-R grill. Alas, it has been replaced with a more modern version.

 

[MRDucks2]

I have recently began to interface with my employer's IP lawyers while some folks do not like those calls I find them both educational and entertaining. The call involves our head IP lawyer and two lawyers who work for him. They each have different thoughts and approaches to what is and is not IP and how to try and capture it for our company.

Some tidbits gleaned from these calls:
- a company wants to try and define their individual IP pursuits as broadly as possible as this gives them more leeway to pursue violations in the future. Example: patent your chair as a device with legs on which you can sit. (Covers a lot of ground)
- if patentable, a lot depends on the individual assigned by the patent office to review your patent. Example: Some will let more generalizations pass and others want it very tight and specific.
- one of the conversations in pursuing IP is how difficult or easy it will be I'm the future to discover violation of your IP. Example: if it is not easy to notice how can you protect it.
- Just as fascinating is the volume of stuff that cannot be protected. Examples: you cannot claim IP on a color. You cannot claim IP on a word that can be considered common. Example: Army, football, shuttle.

I always assumed that IP was fairly black and white but it is obviously very gray once you get to work on it first hand.

 

[mbroberg]

Oops, It seems that I posted some incorrect information (I told you I wasn't an expert) that I want to correct. Per 15 USC 1114 "distribution" of copyrighted or trademarked is infringement,. with or without sale. If you make something that contains copyrighted or trademarked material for your own personal use, there is no distribution, but when you distribute them that is certainly distribution and as the statute says that is infringement."

You cannot legally make a pen with a copyrighted or trademarked image and give it away as a gift.

Just to be clear, I am not trying to be the IP police of the IAP, nor am I trying to rain on anyone's parade. I posted that video as information for interested individuals. If a person believes the reward of a sale warrants the risk of violating IP law then have at it. It's just that I don't and I really do not want to see any of my IAP family get jammed up. Like it of not, the law is what it is. Don't shoot the messenger or even believe the messenger. Do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Share those conclusions with the community for the benefit of all.

 

[RunnerVince]

I will give you an example in the penturning world. It is illegal to use our military insignias and names with out permission. Nasa is another one. That space shuttle pen kit that is out, maybe the owner has the rights to sell the kit but you do not have the rights to make pens for sale using it. The phrase using it for personal use gets thrown around alot. Is it moral?

I would never even have thought for a moment that selling a pen made using such a kit could be infringement. I would HOPE that the kit manufacturer had some understanding with Nasa that the licensing would extend out to sale of the finished product. But now I'd be extremely hesitant.

Legality aside, I find no ethical reason why people shouldn't be able to sell such items. Whether it's a Nasa pen kit or a Mickey Mouse fabric, the product is meant to be made into something else. You pay a premium for such products vs. a comparable non-logo pen kit or standard print fabric, so you have paid the license holder. It just doesn't make sense to me. But then again, when have laws ever been required to make sense.

 

[penicillin]

I am not a lawyer. I am not directly affected, because I don't make art like that.

What caught me by surprise were the statements above that you cannot legally purchase a Mickey Mouse watch and then take it apart, remove the watch face with the copyrighted image of Mickey, and put it in a pen or other art object that you create. I assumed that the First Sale Doctrine applies and should allow you to do just that. I started by looking at the Wikipedia article on First Sale Doctrine.

The Limitations section of the Wikipedia article on First Sale Doctrine presents two conflicting US Court of Appeals opinions. One says yes, one says no. I read the two opinions that were mentioned. Even though I am not a lawyer, they are written in English and were understandable to me. I can't say which is right, although the (7th Circuit) Lee vs. A.R.T. came later and cites the (9th Circuit) MIRAGE vs. Albuquerque ART opinion.

Lee vs. A.R.T. (7th Circuit) says that it is not a copyright violation to buy a book, tear out pages from that book (which had artistic images), and then mount them on separate tiles to sell. Under First Sale Doctrine, the original copyright holder of the book did not prevail in their copyright infringement lawsuit.

-> If the court has ruled that it is permissible to tear pages from a copyrighted book and then mount them to separate tiles and sell the tiles, can someone explain to me why is it not permissible to "tear out" the Micky Mouse face from a watch and then mount it to a pen blank or the final result, a pen? In that case the image itself has not been modified, just as in the Lee vs. A.R.T. case. In other words, is the 7th Circuit opinion sufficient precedent and justification that allows people to take a Mickey Mouse watch and mount the watch face in a pen?

Are there any intellectual property lawyers here who can answer the question definitively?

Links:
Wikipedia on First Sale limitations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Limitations
9th Circuit Court Opinion in MIRAGE vs. Albuquerque ART (1988):
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1465323101896646559
Later 7th Circuit Court Opinion in Lee vs. A.R.T. (1997):
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7811317241368435030

 

[penicillin]

Related to this discussion, but patents, not copyrights:

A few years ago, I saw a woodworking jig that I liked. The jig looked simple enough for me to build for myself. One of the ads said that it was patented, and I wanted to do the right thing. The question arose: Is it legal to make your own personal copy of a patented device if you never sell it?

I AM NOT A LAWYER. Got it? Based on my web research at the time, I believe that the answer is:

You are allowed to build a copy of a patented device for research purposes only. Maybe you are working on a competing product. Maybe you want to understand how it works. Maybe you are interested in negative health impacts. All of those are okay.

According to what I learned, you cannot make one for your own personal use or other non-research activities. If you want to use that patented device in your woodshop, you must get it from an authorized source, approved by the patent holder. Basically - you gotta buy one.

 

[mbroberg]

I'm just doing the Internet Forum equivalent here of "Thinking Out Loud". What if we were to seek out an actual Intellectual Property Attorney and pay that attorney to write an opinion that answers all the questions that we have and provide to him (or her). Ask for a clarification on all the issues. It would probably be a piece of cake for the attorney. We could take up a collection to pay for it. Of course, a lot depends on how much the attorney would charge.

 

[KenB259]

I'm just doing the Internet Forum equivalent here of "Thinking Out Loud". What if we were to seek out an actual Intellectual Property Attorney and pay that attorney to write an opinion that answers all the questions that we have and provide to him (or her). Ask for a clarification on all the issues. It would probably be a piece of cake for the attorney. We could take up a collection to pay for it. Of course, a lot depends on how much the attorney would charge.

My opinion, for what it's worth, even what a lawyer says is basically their interpretation of the law. Pretty much what lawyers do is argue both sides of any given issue.

 

[leehljp]

I have seen some very nice wood turned bowls that I wish to duplicate in the future. They don't have names to copy, it was ages ago on some, but how does copying a pen design of one persons or copying a bowl design of another - how does that figure into copyright or IP infringement?

The ideas are designs I saw years ago and they are still in my mind. I have no idea what magazine or web site I viewed them. IS there an IP on items like that? What is the consensus on items like that?

 

[monophoto]

I am not a lawyer. I am not directly affected, because I don't make art like that.

What caught me by surprise were the statements above that you cannot legally purchase a Mickey Mouse watch and then take it apart, remove the watch face with the copyrighted image of Mickey, and put it in a pen or other art object that you create. I assumed that the First Sale Doctrine applies and should allow you to do just that. I started by looking at the Wikipedia article on First Sale Doctrine.

The Limitations section of the Wikipedia article on First Sale Doctrine presents two conflicting US Court of Appeals opinions. One says yes, one says no. I read the two opinions that were mentioned. Even though I am not a lawyer, they are written in English and were understandable to me. I can't say which is right, although the (7th Circuit) Lee vs. A.R.T. came later and cites the (9th Circuit) MIRAGE vs. Albuquerque ART opinion.

Lee vs. A.R.T. (7th Circuit) says that it is not a copyright violation to buy a book, tear out pages from that book (which had artistic images), and then mount them on separate tiles to sell. Under First Sale Doctrine, the original copyright holder of the book did not prevail in their copyright infringement lawsuit.

-> If the court has ruled that it is permissible to tear pages from a copyrighted book and then mount them to separate tiles and sell the tiles, can someone explain to me why is it not permissible to "tear out" the Micky Mouse face from a watch and then mount it to a pen blank or the final result, a pen? In that case the image itself has not been modified, just as in the Lee vs. A.R.T. case. In other words, is the 7th Circuit opinion sufficient precedent and justification that allows people to take a Mickey Mouse watch and mount the watch face in a pen?

Are there any intellectual property lawyers here who can answer the question definitively?

Links:
Wikipedia on First Sale limitations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Limitations
9th Circuit Court Opinion in MIRAGE vs. Albuquerque ART (1988):
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1465323101896646559
Later 7th Circuit Court Opinion in Lee vs. A.R.T. (1997):
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7811317241368435030

Be careful about what you find on Wikipedia.

There is no 'peer review' or 'curation' process on the articles published on Wikipedia. While some articles may have been written by authorities, it is also possible that articles published by Wikipedia are little more than the opinions of people whose understanding of the subjects they are writing about is seriously flawed.

 

[mbroberg]

My opinion, for what it's worth, even what a lawyer says is basically their interpretation of the law. Pretty much what lawyers do is argue both sides of any given issue.

Yep!

 

[monophoto]

Yep!

And I believe that it is also the case that assertions made by lawyers may be exaggerated - they often claim more than they could actually defend/prove if they are challenged in court.

Especially in this area of IP law, its very much a David vs. Goliath game with the supposed owner of the IP and its lawyer in the role of Goliath, and the crafter who is making and selling stuff as David. So Goliath (the lawyer) swoops in asserting all kinds of things with the intention of scaring David (the crafter) into capitulating, knowing that few crafters are in a position to defend themselves in court. And often, those asserted claims may exceed what the IP owner might actually be able to defend in court. Its pure bullying and intimidation, but that's what the lawyers are paid to do.

That's not to say that crafters aren't violating the IP rights of others, but it does mean that process sometimes results in crafters being intimidated into conceding more than they would be required if the situation were to be adjudicated in a court.