[CR]legal rights/snubbed/decals/hoods


Example: Books

To: questor@cinci.rr.com
Cc: Philcycles@aol.com, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 15:01:14 -0400
From: Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com>
Subject: [CR]legal rights/snubbed/decals/hoods

On Mon, 13 May "Steve Neago" <questor@cinci.rr.com> writes: <...The central problem is that many OEM companies won't get involved in licensing their trademarks/copyright logos. Their retain their legal right to sue if duplication gets out of hand, but don't seem to enforce this right. Steve Neago ///////////////////////////////////////////// is there anyone who can explain to the list in a concise way, without alot of legal-eze, what the ramifications of producing/applying/selling decals that are copies of original art that are not sanctioned by the companies whose names are on the art? everyone is aware that there is a cottage industry producing this stuff, but is it legal? ethical? approved?

i don't think companies are bound to their past clients to provide old art, dated decals, or archival materials for research. it is cool when they do, but it's their choice either way. are they wrong, or bad, for not taking part in preserving their past, if you will? are those who reproduce the out-of-production material for the sake of profit wrong? or criminal?

this reminds me of the 'hoods' issue from 2 weeks ago. i spent an hour on friday speaking with the principles at campagnolo. i see their point in the whole copyrights and trademark issue and agree with them while i also empathize with some list posts about the subject.

i know i am fracturing the thread, but 'replacement decals', 'counterfeit hoods', 'restoring-for-profit', ...is it a black and white issue?
e-RICHIE
chester