This is the heart of the question. What is their specific objection?
An image of Snoopy or a Road Runner are trademarked. Whoever owns the
trademark owns the rights to the specific representation of these
images (in other words, you could make a cartoon about a beagle, but it
couldn't look exactly like Charles Schulz's beagle). But you can take
pictures of a child holding a Snoopy toy or a guy standing beside his
Road runner all day long.
I guess the question is, are you using the images of the cars to sell
or promote a product? Yes, so maybe . . . maybe there is some logic
there. What if you simply accepted $20 "donations" for the IML and the
person making the donation received a free complimentary calendar as a
thank you?
Mark
trying to think like a lawyer
On Saturday, November 1, 2003, at 10:41 PM, Hugh & Therese wrote:
> Hmm. I imagine Cafe Press has extraordinarily strict rules on this
> kind of
> thing, since the liability would be on them. We could not appropriate
> an
> image of Snoopy or a road runner for example. I wonder if it is the
> cars
> themselves that are the issue or is it the use of the name Imperial
> itself
> that is problematic. In other words, did they say what they would
> allow if
> changes could be made.
>
> I also wonder if my museum used a picture of one of our locomotives at
> the
> museum would we have to get the permission of Baldwin or General
> Electric?
> What about, say, Missouri Pacific, swallowed up by Union Pacific some
> twenty
> years ago. It is kind of mind boggling.
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network