It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A legal type question for experienced commercial artists

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:39 AM
I have been googling for like 2 hours, and I have yet to find an answer yet. The info I have found is all over the place.

Ok, I have an idea for a painting, that depicts my view of the world's condition. In this idea, I have a stage, on that stage's banners, I want to put some corperate logos that I feel are bad, such as microsoft and apple. Has anyone ever done something like this? Were you sued? Cease and desist letters?

Like I said, I have seen some lawyers saying it is OK to do, others saying it's not OK to do, looking to get some feedback on people that have actually done something similar before.

Thanks in advance.


posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:50 AM
its only illigal if you get caught!
the mickey mouse symbol is owned by disney,and you need their permission to use it.
but every day people get mickey mouse tattood on themselves with out any legal reprocussions!
i wouldn't worrie about it too much,unless your art sells for a lot of money,and or is a commercial success!
good luck!

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:55 AM

Let me know if that is what you are looking for. It falls either under lampooning or Free speech in a lot of cases.

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:55 AM
reply to post by TKDRL

Look for derivative works and fair use.

And another well-accepted category of fair use is parody: works that use copyrighted (for purposes of this conversation) works to make fun of, criticize or otherwise comment on those original works: 2 Live Crew’s use of Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman” is the best-known example of parodic fair use.

If it's obvious you are doing social commentary with your art it should be covered by fair use.

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:37 AM
Those corporate logos are TRADEMARKS. And trademark violation is a FELONY in the US. Its much worse and stricter than copyrights.

I own a trademark.

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:39 AM
PS If you ARE going ahead without permission...just dont sell it for money, or commercially display it anywhere;

Registered Trademark logos need permission to produce a work for the public...just dont commercially display it, or sell any copies of it.

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by mysterioustranger

But if he displays it for education-only purpose, not lucrative, is it OK? Does he still need a permission just to "talk about it"?

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:50 AM
I wonder if Andy Warhol got permission from Campbell's?

Here's a link to an interesting thread on the subject.

From what I understand parody is "Fair Use," and free speech.

Good luck!

EDIT: Here's another link.

Apparently, Andy Warhol's can were considered "fair use."

For instance, Andy Warhol's "Campbell's Soup" is an example of fair use. Though he reproduced the label of a Campbell's soup can, a trademark of the brand, he did it in a way considered "transformative," as a comment on American culture and the nature of mass production. His work said something that was not already inherent to the original work and was not meant to be seen, or sold, in the same way as the original.

Read more: Copyright Laws on Internet Graphics |

edit on 6-11-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:04 AM
I am pretty sure it would fall under fair use. The only problem with fair use, if I understand correctly, that is something you have to go to court after being sued, and the judge decides if it applies or not.

At first, I was wanting to put it in my gallery, where prints can be bought, but I am thinking this one is going to be for just my personal use. Posting on the internet, I will probably be printing one out for my personal home gallery, and that is about it. I certainly don't have the money to go to court against microsoft or any corps

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by swan001

I beleive it would be a form of "Disclosure" that he doesnt represent himself as a respresentative of that(those) companies.

If he did wouldnt be worth any company to go after "John Q. Public"...because it was stated that way.

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by TKDRL

Fair use does not let you SELL it in your gallery. A CEASE and DESIST order would prob be rt around the corner form Trademark owners.

"Fair use" si common place of course...but no SELLING it or copies of it.

We had some Art Fairs this summer where plain clothes officers went thru them looking for this very thing.

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:58 PM
I would have to guess there's the whole concept of slander as well. If you intend to slander or represent the trademark in an ill light, to make it look bad or unfavorable, basically in a political manner to sway the opinions about a trademark or company.

new topics

top topics


log in