New VDH Logo

[1969ivan1]

There are 2 kinds of people in the world. Those who produce and make the worlrd better in their own small way, like Bryan at VDH, and then there are the people who only consume and sit around the house smoking cigarettes waiting for the next paycheque from the Government. It is bad enough that our taxes have to support those sort of folks for eternity, but that is not enough for them. They also sometimes have to do things like this to hurt people. Idle hands are the Devil's workshoppe and this is a fantastic example. I just hope that he does not lay claim to inventing the FX cans, silicone hoses, and the voit logo also .

[Bryan]

BTW...He is a registered member of the website forum and can post anytime he likes. He has full access to the site and I can tell you by the IP logs that he spends a lot of time here.

If I was the owner of such a fine piece of work, I wouldn't be hiding under the cloak of anonymity. Maybe the artist could do us all a favor and post all pertinent documents proving ownership?

From my limited knowledge on the subject I believe that US Divers did not trademark the image. So they simply took the US Divers image made a couple of modifications to it and then got a registered trademark on it and claim ownership of it.

I tried to go back to the original US Divers advertisement, change it a little so there was no way mine could be confused with the original and use it for myself...But right now it's not going to happen.

[crimediver]

I am pretty sure I have the copyright for the Voit logo. Now if I can just remember where I put it....

[1969ivan1]

I guess I better send the royalties to Crimediver.

[adairrj]

I guess I better send the royalties to Crimediver.

No Rob...I have the VOIT copyright!!! Send the royalties to me in Brazil!!!

[1969ivan1]

As soon as The Scuba Museum turns a profit I wil do just that. I do the Scuba Museum as a labor of love more than a real money maker, hence me having a real night job ha ha. I do however appereciate all the support and well wishes in light of the recent attack against the much loved 1958 Diorama shirt that I was offering to you all. I wish I could still make it available, but I don't have old Uncle Sam paying my bills.

[SurfLung]

"Zazzle" will put anything on just about anything else.
Would be cool to see what that would look like...

I tried to get a coffee cup made by Zazzle three times and they turned down my order with some comment about trademarks. The cup had the round Aqualung logo on one side and the '58 diorama on the other... So, I don't know if one or both are what set them off. But, I always thought it isn't infringing on someones trademark if you aren't selling it... Just making it for personal use.
-But in Bryan's case, doesn't an Aqualung seller have the right to use Aqualung art in their advertising?

[Bryan]

I am not an Aqua Lung dealer but as far as the people I talked to at Aqua Lung they could care less what advertising is used as long as it's not modified. I would love to have the VDH logo on every diving site, boat, store etc I could get it on.....

[Drado]

I was rummaging through the website of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) but wan't able to find any link on the diorama version. Could the owner of the copyright/trademark please post a link to it?

[Aileron]

I was rummaging through the website of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) but wan't able to find any link on the diorama version. Could the owner of the copyright/trademark please post a link to it?

I'm not going to hold my breath. Who and/or what could using a slightly different version of this logo hurt? Wow.

[14020]

Bryan,

This is very sad and should not be happening to you or VDH.

I had every intention of pasting your image on every dive boat, dive resort and live aboard I used.

If there is anything I can do to help please don't hesitate to ask.

Tell them they're dreaming!

Regards,

[8dust]

ATTENTION **** DISCLAMER TO FOLLOW ****

Please do not misunderstand, I am not defending ANY of this heat or foolishness from those who may be dishing it out, HOWEVER, copywrites and intellectual property are a subject that comes up quite a bit around the water cooler here in Nashville.

AND, I’m NOT an attorney,… but I am bunch of other stuff...

That said, I feel pretty sure that, at least here in the US, at a most basic level, “things that you create, are yours.” Now, that sounds much much simpler than it really is, and as with most situations, the Devil is in the details, and so are the Lawyers. Additionally, this ownership is without regard to filing anything “official” somewhere. It is an inalienable right that flows from the act of creation. No body or agency bestows it upon you. It doesn’t require a little C in a circle in the corner or a TM somewhere. Filing papers is about establishing a timeline and detailing the intricacies of what you did, that make it fundamentally different than what the next guy will inevitably do.

What we have in the diorama sticker is not a steam engine, it’s not even a story or a song, it’s a 2-D mono-color image, lines on a page, and nothing more. The real lynchpin in the above statement is “CREATE.”

No matter how much you think it, want it, hope it, say it, or even pay to have someone fight about it on your behalf, YOU did NOT CREATE a B-flat. Even if you put 4 or 5 of them right in a row, you STILL did NOT CREATE anything. If, however, you put those notes together, along with enough of their friends, at SOME point, you MAY HAVE created something, MAYBE, but there are fewer notes then letters, and at the end of the day, there’s only so many ways to move them around. EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE.

How is this relevant, WELL..., drawing isn’t all that different. Again, the key concept here is “CREATE” so lets get into that for a minute... There are really only two ways the issue breaks down: 1) the person in question DID “create” something new by “copying” the original image and including a few subtle modifications.... OK, But here’s the thing.... Then by entirely the same simple logical extension, VDH did ALSO “create” something, with all the same rights of ownership, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SEED FROM WHICH IT SPRUNG or in simpler terms “you copied it, it’s yours, somebody else copies it, it’s theirs.” DONE, THE END.... or... 2) the person in question DID NOT “create” anything when they copied the original artwork, and therefore did NOT generate any proprietary rights to something that was never at any point, theirs, and as such has no standing whatsoever to claim harm. Again, in simpler terms, “it wasn’t yours then, so it can’t be any less yours now.” DONE, THE END….

I know I said there were only two ways to look at it and really that’s how, rationally, it breaks down. Just to say that all bases were explored, however, let’s suspend the laws of the universe for a moment and think a bit on THE ONLY OTHER conceivable outer-edge of space arguments.... 1) the person in question drew the original artwork in ~1955 while either A) on contract to USD for said services or B) as a full-time employee of USD.... But here’s the thing about that.... It still ain’t yours, it’s the companies. Just ask all the science professors who come up with something cool while also being on faculty at a university. See just whom those patens belong to.... DONE, THE END.... SO, FINALLY, all that would leave is for USD to have assigned THEIR ownership of the image over to this individual at some point. Given what little back-story I have heard.... Well.... the only objective thing I can say is that it isn’t likely. IT WOULD, however, create a clear paper trail that does not seem to exist. DONE, THE END.

That’s the out-in-the-sunshine reality of the matter. The dark, damp, evil, fumunda-cheese stink, side of it is, that what is legal and what happens anyway, have absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with each other. Some sadist with a grudge has a very effective tool at their disposal in the form of our court system, and can pay someone with a bunch of names on their letterhead to gratuitously assert “It’s mine! It’s mine! It’s mine! It’s mine! until the cows come home, and at some point, you’ll be forced to deal with it, one way or another. That’s your punishment for sticking your head up out of the gopher hole and trying to do something good. It is also often true that the best defense is a good offence, but as with most endeavors, there comes a time when you reach a point of diminishing returns.... and in the classic modern pyrrhic victory,... only the lawyers are left standing.

Sounds like you have extended some reasonable offers that were, sadly, rejected out of hand. It’s certainly a shame because what other market is there for these things? A real nose-to spite-the-face move on their part, that would seem to me....

It would be my most thoughtful council on the subject, to ask these folks to blow you, and then see what floats in on the tide.

[14020]

Well put Freddo, and at the end of the day no body wins. I'm a firm believer in what goes around comes around.

I know where I wont be buying a certain item

[Drado]

This whole thing kind of reminds me of the case of the copyright for the song "Happy Birthday."

[Bryan]

Fred's post has inspired me to consult a professional on this issue. In 2007 when I made the stickers it was a way to raise money for the American Heart Association and I donated 100% of the proceeds to them. These are the type people that would sue a charity because they are "owed" something. I hope this does not happen but it would not surprise me in the least.