Classic & Vintage - Is it illegal to reproduce decals for vintage frames????

I am restoring vintage frames original paint re-chrome and I would also like to do decals of course to complete it. I was just wondering if you produce them yourself you need some kind of license or something or can you just do it since it is something you can just buy.

I'm sure you can find them on the net or eBay.

Technically, it isn't legal to make them for profit, but not one-offs for your own use.

Regardless, nobody has gone after Cyclemondo, HLloyd's, or Velocals - nobody in the legal departments of whoever might own the trademarks have put a stop to it, thank god. Lord knows the PR department would have an earful the next morning from irate C&V'ers demanding accurate decals directly from the present trademark holder.

-Kurt

It is not illegal.

^ And good thing it isn't - or shouldn't be - either. After waiting a month, I finally got an email back from Casati as to my query regarding obtaining a set of vintage decals from them for my restoration. Apparently, they have none; hard to believe, but straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. Bummer...

Guess I'll have to trace them, then have them done up for me.

DD

So is there any way to have permission to remake them? or would it be legal let say if you would offer paint and decals for the same price??

Technically, it isn't legal to make them for profit, but not one-offs for your own use.

Regardless, nobody has gone after Cyclemondo, HLloyd's, or Velocals - nobody in the legal departments of whoever might own the trademarks have put a stop to it, thank god. Lord knows the PR department would have an earful the next morning from irate C&V'ers demanding accurate decals directly from the present trademark holder.

-Kurt

This^^

Worked at a sign/decal shop.

Not for your own use.

Technically, unless the decal reproduction companies have agreements with the original copyright holders, what they're doing IS illegal. I won't tell if you don't tell though. ;)

In many cases, the legality of reproduction decals is going to be an incredibly complex issue that would probably require months of research to definitively answer 'yes' or 'no' to... Consider these example complicating factors:

Many of the manufacturers have passed on in the meantime, which would cause the copyrights in the decals to revert to some other owner, who you'd have to track down. In the US that owner is going to be the artist who did the work (or their heirs or assigns), but who knows what it's like in Italy, Japan, or where-have you.

Many of the manufacturers are located in other countries, so add on the complexity of the home country's copyright laws and the applicability of international copyright treaties. O_o

+1 to what Kurt said; thank goodness nobody cares. The chance of somebody pressing charges or suing over C&V repop decals is basically zero. :-D

If you start selling knockoff modern Cervelo decals, encouraging your buyers to use them to pass off other bikes as Cervelo bikes... then maybe you should worry!

Many of the manufacturers have passed on in the meantime, which would cause the copyrights in the decals to revert to some other owner, who you'd have to track down. In the US that owner is going to be the artist who did the work (or their heirs or assigns), but who knows what it's like in Italy, Japan, or where-have you.

This presumption is incorrect. The copyright will definitely not revert to the artist, unless specifically and contractually set up that way to begin with. Copyright ownership would remain in the hands of corporate or sole proprietor ownership and would pass on to legal heirs or to the individuals and entities who might later acquire said copyright, trademark, service mark, etc. A product trademark is a very, very valuable asset; modern corporations are often very aggressive in pursuing any instances they deem a "watering down" of, or infringement upon, their intellectual property and corporate image. When I was an art director at Hallmark, for instance, the company always went after groups who claimed to be "the Hallmark of bus lines" or "the Hallmark of ...whatever." Some went so far as to use the Hallmark logo, reasoning that do so was actually some kind of complimentary gesture! I'm certain Mercedes-Benz does the same thing. Closer to the topic, some companies in the bicycle world have been acquired by new owners - Rene Herse, for example. Along with the assets of the company, the new owners also have acquired the very valuable name, trademark, and logo. I feel confident in saying that they wouldn't want just any Tom, Dick or Harry applying their name onto the side of a Huffy. Now I know that this isn't the intention of folks in this group, but look at it from their point of view: such an act would negatively affect the opinion of someone who innocently purchased that hypothetical Herse/Huffy later on.

In actual practice, the folks who are selling us those decals are violating copyright and trademark laws, domestically and internationally. Even I, in applying decals for my own personal use, am on somewhat shaky ground, particularly if I eventually sell my freshly signed bicycle. But - as pointed out above - this isn't the French Connection, and most litigators have bigger fish to fry; clearly the intention is legitimate restorations. Just don't be surprised if (more likely, "when") some enterprising young corporate attorney eventually sends out a "Cease and Desist" letter on fine corporate stationary to one of these decal makers. In the meantime, let's enjoy our ability to bring our vintage rides back to the finery they had when they originally rolled off the show room floor.

I am restoring vintage frames original paint re-chrome and I would also like to do decals of course to complete it. I was just wondering if you produce them yourself you need some kind of license or something or can you just do it since it is something you can just buy.

It's technically illegal but if you are just restoring an old Colnago by putting Colnago decals on it, I wouldn't worry about it. If you were fixing up Huffys and putting Colnago decals on, that would be a big problem.

Which bikes do you need decals for? we need pictures.

This presumption is incorrect. The copyright will definitely not revert to the artist, unless specifically and contractually set up that way to begin with. Copyright ownership would remain in the hands of corporate or sole proprietor ownership and would pass on to legal heirs or to the individuals and entities who might later acquire said copyright, trademark, service mark, etc. A product trademark is a very, very valuable asset; modern corporations are often very aggressive in pursuing any instances they deem a "watering down" of, or infringement upon, their intellectual property and corporate image. When I was an art director at Hallmark, for instance, the company always went after groups who claimed to be "the Hallmark of bus lines" or "the Hallmark of ...whatever." Some went so far as to use the Hallmark logo, reasoning that do so was actually some kind of complimentary gesture! I'm certain Mercedes-Benz does the same thing. Closer to the topic, some companies in the bicycle world have been acquired by new owners - Rene Herse, for example. Along with the assets of the company, the new owners also have acquired the very valuable name, trademark, and logo. I feel confident in saying that they wouldn't want just any Tom, Dick or Harry applying their name onto the side of a Huffy. Now I know that this isn't the intention of folks in this group, but look at it from their point of view: such an act would negatively affect the opinion of someone who innocently purchased that hypothetical Herse/Huffy later on.

In actual practice, the folks who are selling us those decals are violating copyright and trademark laws, domestically and internationally. Even I, in applying decals for my own personal use, am on somewhat shaky ground, particularly if I eventually sell my freshly signed bicycle. But - as pointed out above - this isn't the French Connection, and most litigators have bigger fish to fry; clearly the intention is legitimate restorations. Just don't be surprised if (more likely, "when") some enterprising young corporate attorney eventually sends out a "Cease and Desist" letter on fine corporate stationary to one of these decal makers. In the meantime, let's enjoy our ability to bring our vintage rides back to the finery they had when they originally rolled off the show room floor.

A nuance that is important to acknowledge is that if the trademark is not protected in every way, in every case, even from some little collector/restorer guy, then that fact can be used by other trademark violators in a court case. This is why corporations are constantly going after little guys for seemingly innocuous transgressions - if they let them slide, it could come back to haunt them. Overaggressive lawyers take it from there.

A nuance that is important to acknowledge is that if the trademark is not protected in every way, in every case, even from some little collector/restorer guy, then that fact can be used by other trademark violators in a court case. This is why corporations are constantly going after little guys for seemingly innocuous transgressions - if they let them slide, it could come back to haunt them. Overaggressive lawyers take it from there.

+1

If you don't defend your trade or service marks aggressively you lose some of your rights.

One more point often misunderstood is that "for profit" has nothing to do with it. Copyrighted material cannot be distributed to the public, either free or for profit. You cannot, for example, make a zillion copies of your favorite DVDs and distribute them for free. At least in the entertainment business private use is allowed for material you already own. "Publication", i.e. distribution to the public is not.

One more point often misunderstood is that "for profit" has nothing to do with it. Copyrighted material cannot be distributed to the public, either free or for profit. You cannot, for example, make a zillion copies of your favorite DVDs and distribute them for free. At least in the entertainment business private use is allowed for material you already own. "Publication", i.e. distribution to the public is not.

+1 Napster

Of course we are definitely walking a fine line. It is illegal for us to buy and use the "counterfeit" decals, but isn't it also illegal to post catalogs and such on sites like Velobase. The trick is, will the true owners of that material ever come after us. Personally, I doubt it.

However, I won't be surprised if the people who own the Herse name go after Velocals or other decal makers.

Wabbits is pwactically chickens!

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/748/336051338349.jpg

The question is, are you planning on selling the bike? Because even if you're restoring it with decals from the same bike as it is, if you go claiming it as original when you sell it, then no it's not legal. But no one here would do that anyway, right, so I guess that didn't need to be said.

Technically, it isn't legal to make them for profit, but not one-offs for your own use.

Regardless, nobody has gone after Cyclemondo, HLloyd's, or Velocals - nobody in the legal departments of whoever might own the trademarks have put a stop to it, thank god. Lord knows the PR department would have an earful the next morning from irate C&V'ers demanding accurate decals directly from the present trademark holder.

-Kurt

Exactly right.

In the real world a company would only be interested in going after you if selling the reproductions was interfering with their profits in some way...either by causing branding problems or undercutting their sale of their own decals. Since none of these companies sells their decals, there is no real motive for them to be interested. Actually I think it's quite the contrary...beautiful restorations with their branding adds to their value and makes it look like their current bikes might have classic status some day too...and stand up to the test of time.

If a company were printing off Trek logos and applying them to old Huffys...Trek might be interested. If the people buying Trek logos were mostly applying them to old Huffys, they might be interested. They aren't going to have any reason to object to people restoring their Treks with Trek logos. Actually I'd think they'd encourage it.

Harley Davidson doesn't sue any people for trademark infringement when they are tattooing the copyrighted logos on their bodies...

These issues get batted around on the CR list fairly often. For example, here's Richard Sachs' take:

http://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.asp?Filename=classicrendezvous.10212.0435.eml

I do remember that a few years ago Cyclomondo/Greg Softley was shut down for a while due to some legal issues, apparently now resolved.

Neal

Harley Davidson doesn't sue any people for trademark infringement when they are tattooing the copyrighted logos on their bodies...

They call that free advertising!

Neal

If decals are NOT available commercially you can reproduce them legally for your own use. You don't have any rights to reproduce them for others uses, either for free or profit.

These issues get batted around on the CR list fairly often. For example, here's Richard Sachs' take:

http://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.asp?Filename=classicrendezvous.10212.0435.eml

Neal

These days anyone with Photoshop and a color laser printer can make exact replicas of anything using waterslide decal paper. I wonder if Sachs is upset now that he's not the only one with the control over these decals and anyone can put them on the incorrect Masi (or a Schwinn, for that matter (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/705536-Whats-your-take-on-Replica-frames)?)

Couldn't one make the argument that the restoration of a vintage bike has a "history" element? I mean, if I write a report on George Washington I'm not violating copyright by including his photo am I? Repro decals get made all the time for cars...why not bikes?

I agree with the "small fish in a big pond" argument...God knows there are more important things in the grand scheme of life and business than a bunch of crazy guys making 20,30,40+ year old bicycles look nice. Geez, if anything I'd think the manufacturers should be honored that someone though so much of their product that they cared enough to do it! :)

Couldn't one make the argument that the restoration of a vintage bike has a "history" element? I mean, if I write a report on George Washington I'm not violating copyright by including his photo am I? Repro decals get made all the time for cars...why not bikes?



If you write a report and borrow a picture, you would note where the picture came from. This is a bit different.

Harley Davidson doesn't sue any people for trademark infringement when they are tattooing the copyrighted logos on their bodies...

They call that free advertising!

Neal

I knew a guy in high school who got the nike swoosh tatooed on his ankle. My friends and I thought he was really dumb.

If you are seriously seeking a legal opinion, you should obtain the advice of an experienced intellectual property attorney. Answers to such questions are usually complicated.

I mean, if I write a report on George Washington I'm not violating copyright by including his photo am I?

mmm... a photo of George Washington. :D

Scott

Couldn't one make the argument that the restoration of a vintage bike has a "history" element? I mean, if I write a report on George Washington I'm not violating copyright by including his photo am I? Repro decals get made all the time for cars...why not bikes?

That takes you into the "fair use" argument, which applies to journalism, research, and scholastic use. Those only apply - up to a point - teachers, for example, used to use the "fair use" argument to copy sheet music so all students could have a copy. But it gets dicey and publishers lose money to people who copy, so districts tend to have policies that prevent teachers from copying because it takes money out of the pocket of the copyright owner. That is most likely the real 'test' (because everything else we talked about in this thread is purely academic) - and that is: what loss takes place? You or I restoring our bikes: no loss. Someone using another company's logo for reproduction decals: arguably, some sort of loss. There's a reason Nike protects the use of its logo.

In actual practice, none of this is going to stop me from the restoration, whether I purchase a bootleg decal or manufacture it myself!

Even if you make replacement decals for your own personal use it is still illegal.

I snapped this picture of a neighbor being busted for making his own replacement decals for a Peugeot UO-8.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/rizer_standoff1%20_met.jpg

For the written report it is my understanding that you need permission to include the borrowed image, and with that in mind I've also been told there is an academic usage allowance for reports written for a class and not for publication. I've also been told that "publishing" said article on some internet website might change things some.

H-Davidson Legal has gone after individuals selling their H-D engined custom bikes on the Bay and have had auctions shut down if the seller directly or indirectly included the H-Davidson name in the auction posting. The tattoo issue has been discussed many times as to why or why not does or does not H-D Legal go after tattoo shops and artists and those performing human engraving with corporate logo's.

Corporations and private individuals have gone aftter offenders and have sought retroactive recovery. I don't know any specific outcomes.

Coming to the internet to ask for legal advice is like coming here to ask for medical advice or to ask if a frame is safe to ride. Those who answer may or may not be opening themselves up to some potential liability should something happen or should someone get injured or sued. YMMV

If you're running a business then do your due diligence and keep good records. If it is just a hobby then the rules may or may not be different.

All my opinion and subject to verification or change or denial.

(Note: I'm currently in the bathroom relieving myself and I left my phone at my desk and someone else may or may not be typing this.)

<{[(Insert appropriate disclaimers here)]**>

Even if you make replacement decals for your own personal use it is still illegal.

I snapped this picture of a neighbor being busted for making his own replacement decals for a Peugeot UO-8.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/rizer_standoff1%20_met.jpg

Damned Peugeot legal department!!!

I am restoring vintage frames original paint re-chrome and I would also like to do decals of course to complete it. I was just wondering if you produce them yourself you need some kind of license or something or can you just do it since it is something you can just buy.

IANAL, but for the best legal position, it comes down to whether the builder is still in business or not,

If the builder is still in business, then write or email them looking for decals, stating that if none are available you would like permission to reproduce the ones you have already on the bicycle.

Builders fall into five camps.

1) They have decals available and will sell them to you.
2) They don't have decals available, but do have copies of the art work from that time, and will make a copy for you, this may or may not cost money.
3) They don't have decals available, but will permit you to make your own reproductions.
4) They don't have decals available and will not permit you to make your own reproductions.
5) They have gone out of business, and it's not an issue.

The forth option is the only one that really matters, and reproducing the decals could land you in court. Mind you once decals are installed and clear coated over, it's going to be tough to prove they are reproductions, unless the reproduction is of very poor quality or the decals are on a different make or model bicycle.

Builders fall into five camps.

1) They have decals available and will sell them to you.
2) They don't have decals available, but do have copies of the art work from that time, and will make a copy for you, this may or may not cost money.
3) They don't have decals available, but will permit you to make your own reproductions.
4) They don't have decals available and will not permit you to make your own reproductions.
5) They have gone out of business, and it's not an issue.

The forth option is the only one that really matters, and reproducing the decals could land you in court.

+1, that's basically how I see it as well. But there is probably a gray area as well, where a builder has gone out of business but sold their name to someone who sold it to someone else, who sold it.... For example, the Norman factory in Ashford, Kent, was started by two brothers named Norman; they sold out to TI in the 50's. TI subsequently bought Raleigh, and after 1961 the bikes labeled Norman were made by Raleigh. That ended in the early 70's. By now, even the Raleigh name has changed hands more than once. But what of the Norman name? I have no doubt someone owns it. I can only speculate who that would be, though.

Not that I'm planning to repaint my Normans, of course.

I will make sure to take pictures and post some of the frames here. My intentencions is not to upgrade the sticker on the frame to make it look higher end. Some bike companies are off the map or hard to track down thats why I thought of a remake sticker. I mean there is a website where they sell remake cannondale 1980's stickers. I will probably post some pictures tonight.

This collector wants to get restored a peugeot px-10
a schwinn paramount
so I really need remake for those.

copyright
trademark
and Registered trademark:
3 different things, and different rules apply.
The most important: is said trademark registered (and current, therefore legally binding) in the country in question? If not, it can't be enforced no matter how energized that company's legal department may be to protect some "intellectual property".

Yes, I think you are correct. I am also fairly sure that trademarks in the US are only valid for a period of years & must be reregistered periodically to be valid.
I also do not believe that any bike company that still exists has any problem with someone restoring their vintage machines. Even people who produce decals for sale i think are in safe territory because it is more a hobby than a business. While these people may make a decent income producing decals the numbers are very very small comparatively.
copyright
trademark
and Registered trademark:
3 different things, and different rules apply.
The most important: is said trademark registered (and current, therefore legally binding) in the country in question? If not, it can't be enforced no matter how energized that company's legal department may be to protect some "intellectual property".

+1, that's basically how I see it as well. But there is probably a gray area as well, where a builder has gone out of business but sold their name to someone who sold it to someone else, who sold it.... For example, the Norman factory in Ashford, Kent, was started by two brothers named Norman; they sold out to TI in the 50's. TI subsequently bought Raleigh, and after 1961 the bikes labeled Norman were made by Raleigh. That ended in the early 70's. By now, even the Raleigh name has changed hands more than once. But what of the Norman name? I have no doubt someone owns it. I can only speculate who that would be, though.

Not that I'm planning to repaint my Normans, of course.

Of course, that is always possible, the company has gone out of business, and someone else owns the name and logos and stuff, in many cases Google is your friend, a quick search on Norman Cycles shows that it is owned by Raleigh which is a going concern, so contact Raleigh.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a57/crazy-b/done1Large.jpg
Imade these. Trek hasn't busted me yet. Bet they don't care.

So is there any way to have permission to remake them? or would it be legal let say if you would offer paint and decals for the same price??

The trend of your inquiry is drifting. If you need legal advice, pay for it. If the brand you need is still made, ask there first for replacements, be sure to supply documentation to show that you are not attempting to delude anyone. Tangent to this, I was watching a Masi decorated frame with a plummeting buy it now price, it is not a Masi, no one who knows the brand would confuse it for one, and the market is not interested in such fakes.

I will make sure to take pictures and post some of the frames here. My intentencions is not to upgrade the sticker on the frame to make it look higher end. Some bike companies are off the map or hard to track down thats why I thought of a remake sticker. I mean there is a website where they sell remake cannondale 1980's stickers. I will probably post some pictures tonight.

This collector wants to get restored a peugeot px-10
a schwinn paramount
so I really need remake for those.

Waterford has the Paramount transfers. They are the direct descendants to the Paramount room at Schwinn. Peugeot is out of the Bike biz essentially, ebay has a number of quality offerings listed very periodically.

First of all, someone ought to get rid of this thread before it starts showing up in Google. No sense in instigating some legal department to realize that they have yet to make the C&V bike world miserable either.


I made these. Trek hasn't busted me yet. Bet they don't care.

They're also in a completely different font, so it can't be nicked for copied artwork, and only one set of transfers uses the trademarked TREK name (which can be argued is being used in the context of the term itself, and not as a brand name).

-Kurt

Oh no! I'm in the middle of repainting a Raleigh head badge -am I violating the trademark by reproducing the pattern on the brass???

I think I need a lawyer!

I think I need a lawyer!

There will come a time when every product will come with a living lawyer in the box. Break the seal, and the lawyer will pop out and prepare your product liability lawsuit immidiately.

This concept is feasible, for lawyers are spore-based organisms, and can last for years without air.

-Kurt

Harley Davidson doesn't sue any people for trademark infringement when they are tattooing the copyrighted logos on their bodies...

maybe not but if your small company has a shield loosely resembling that of harley embroidered on a leather jacket for a giveaway you may hear from their legal department. (i cant recall what company it was but i believe it was only one jacket)


from professional experience most of these reproductions are illegal (if sold) but it is rarely worth the time/effort to pursue it.

That is because Harley doesn't make motorcycles for profit these days -it's just a background operation to fuel their merchandising. At one time they used to race to fuel sales. Now they don't race and instead build motorcycles to fuel merchandising. Pretty soon they'll even stop doing that and keep cardboard cut-outs of motorcycles in their dealerships..err..merchandise outlets after they are moved to the shopping malls.

It's a good business if you can get into it.

That is because Harley doesn't make motorcycles for profit these days -it's just a background operation to fuel their merchandising. At one time they used to race to fuel sales. Now they don't race and instead build motorcycles to fuel merchandising. Pretty soon they'll even stop doing that and keep cardboard cut-outs of motorcycles in their <s>dealerships</s> merchandise outlets after they are moved to the shopping malls.

It's a good business if you can get into it.

that may have been a satire, but i have in fact seen a harley "dealer" in the mall.

i agree with you though. it is a great business model. harley has perfected it and john deere is right behind them. it both cases they are selling their brand, not a "product" (and this includes their whole goods business)

i am actually surprised that we have not seen apple fall in line. (they already have the branding established)

I'm sure you can find them on the net or eBay.

+ Yes. Why go through the bother of making some fake when it costs so little for a real one?

that may have been a satire, but i have in fact seen a harley "dealer" in the mall.

i agree with you though. it is a great business model. harley has perfected it and john deere is right behind them. it both cases they are selling their brand, not a "product" (and this includes their whole goods business)

i am actually surprised that we have not seen apple fall in line. (they already have the branding established)

The difference between Apple and one-time durable goods manufacturers like Deere and Harley is that what Apple is selling is basically very expensive ice cream (or crack). You use it for a few months or maybe as long as a year and then buy another as the original product has melted and is now worthless.

At least Tractors made by Deere and Harley will last for many decades and be just as useful then as the day they were made.