3d "soccer ball"...definitely NOT a fire pit

[DANIEL26]

Sorry DANIEL26 BUT THAT is some really bad advice.

might be bad advice to you but i might just make a few "planters"

[jakedog]

I have searched copyright.gov every way I can think of (multiple number formats, your name, title of work etc) and can not find your "copyright".

I love how someone says look at all the copyright infringement he has posted on his site with harley logos and school logos and all he says is "thanks for looking at my site", He'd make a good politician.

Just goes to show you what kind of person your dealing with. He is clueless. And the way he tries to go after people by sending personal messages through facebook is absolutely no way to per sue a " legal" matter by any means, more along the lines of harassment.

[motoguy]

I think he sincerely believes he has valid standing. He may even file suit. I suspect if it goes that far, it will only happen once. Anyone can pay the $50 and "register" something as a copyright. The lawsuit will determine if it's something that can be successfully defended. If he takes someone to court, I do not think it will end the way he anticipates.

It doesn't really matter to me. I think there's too much time/manual labor involved in a geodesic fire pit to be profitable. I'd rather cut more low $ parts than invest all the time and energy in one of these. I may make one simply as a display or personal model, for the "look what I can do!" aspect, but I'd have no desire to produce/sell them.

[PODNAH]

I have searched copyright.gov every way I can think of (multiple number formats, your name, title of work etc) and can not find your "copyright".

I love how someone says look at all the copyright infringement he has posted on his site with harley logos and school logos and all he says is "thanks for looking at my site", He'd make a good politician.

When you search Thor, you have to add zeros between VA and the other numbers with no dashes. I dont remember if its three or four zeros but it need to searched as such VA0001994623 then submit the search in the copyright website. But, you are only going to see the page that he has posted in this forum. It will not show you what images he submitted for copyright. However, you can call the copyright office toll free...you can get that number from the copyright website. follow the prompts to speak with a technician that answers technical questions pertaining to a copyright.

I actually did this, the answer that I got from the copyright tech was and I quote..."the copyright only pertains to the images that he submitted at his initial request". It does not mean that "any" image that is applied to a geodesic shape is now his property. Also, for the images that were submitted they should be "original artwork"; not artwork copied from some other source (such as sign torch, plasmacam or other venue of art purchase). A fleur de lis is in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted, as are some other images. The geodesic shape is also not able to be copyrighted or patented.

anyone is free to contact the U.S. copyright office toll free and ask these questions. they are more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

http://www.copyright.gov/


U.S. Copyright Office

101 Independence Ave. S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20559-6000

(202) 707–3000 or 1 (877) 476–0778 (toll free)

[beefy]

[quote="motoguy"]I think he sincerely believes he has valid standing. [/quote]

I don't believe that is true.

The lizard attempted to resort to blatant lies in the previous thread (which unfortunately was deleted despite having some fantastic copyright info that could have been very informative for members). The lizard accused me of previously BEGGING for his files. Why ??? because I kept asking him for PROOF that what he claims regarding copyright is true. What I did find out from him was that he does not like being questioned at all, but he expects you all to just cower in fear and promise you'll never attempt to take "his" design

He NEVER gave any proof but like this one just kept talking about his copyright. I finally managed to get whatever info was available on his copyright and displayed it on that previous thread, and then he wasn't happy about that either. Crikey you just can't win with this guy. Seriously he has no reason and can't talk reason. He refuses to answer very simple questions about his copyright because he basically doesn't have anything to back up his claims. But he will desperately threaten you left, right and centre.

My thoughts are that the lizard thought he was onto a quick get rich scheme at the expense of others, and now that everyone doesn't just bow down to his claims, he can't let it go, his dreams of wealth and owning his own island are shattered. I think he knows for sure he has no real claim, otherwise he would submit the much asked for PROOF. I was the very first one to question his claims and ask for some proof. He immediately reacted very aggressively and started saying he doesn't need me as a customer, blah, blah, blah. WTF, what was wrong with my question ?????????? That's a typical reaction of someone that's been caught out. Instead of just explaining, start attacking those who ask a question before handing over $400.

Now from what info I've came across since this matter started, a copyright is not like a patent which protects very specific designs/creations. A copyright is more along the lines of a registration and record of something you CLAIM (read that sentence again). I'm guessing that is why dear lizard cannot back up his claims. There is no black and write wording explaining what is lawfully his. As the previous post says the only thing he has any possible claim to is SOME drawings.

Think about it. The shape in question has been known about for ages and even occurs in nature. It is a shape, not a creation. So let's take another shape, a cube and stick some patterns in the side. Where's the difference attempting to get a copyright on this and say you are the only one who's ever allowed to put patterns in the sides of a cube, and make / sell it as a firepit. Yes you'll have a copyright on it but like I said a copyright is just you registering your design so you have proof that you created this. It is not a document STATING the design is yours. Then if you want to attempt to take others to court you have your copyright, but that doesn't mean the judge won't crack it with you for attempting to take something like that all for yourself.

PODNAH has got it from the horses mouth and the copyright office has clearly stated the lizard has no copyright on the geodesic shape at all.

My head is in other stuff not plasma related but one of the first things I think I'll do when I'm back into it is see if I can make any cash selling the firepit. If it's too time consuming for the financial return then I might make up a bunch of designs (my own patterns of course) and sell them for a price much less than the lizards. If they don't sell then I'll put them up for free just as a thank you for lizards lies about me begging him for his files.

Does anyone know if the copyright office would respond in writing, to clearly state in black and white that the lizard has no hold whatsoever on using the geodesic shape for a firepit (or anything else). That would clear this matter up once and for all.

And as for the patent thing, it's just getting better. At least a patent clearly spells out the CLAIMS and can be viewed in its entirety. Good luck with that one LOL.

Now here's a though. If lizard has no proof to back up his claims of ownership, is he committing a form of fraud and causing others to not make income from making and selling these firepits. Could people sue him for loss of income due to his claims of ownership and threats that he will take them to court if they make money from the said firepit. If people are paying him hundreds of dollars because he says he owns the right to put any pattern in the geodesic shape, and yet he does not own the rights, then I believe that is fraud.

[Lmpsr70357]

[Lmpsr70357]

[Lmpsr70357]

[mechanicalmongoose20]

Not this joker again....

If there is one thing I've learned in life, it's that people who are always talking don't have much to say. I wish LK the best and hope he sees how out of touch with reality he really is.

[bogger44]

Sorry for all hate towards me because I'm right.

I'm required for the first step is to inform you of the copyright, you all know from post on here it's copyrighted.

you are a moron you gave everyone the ok to use the pattern, idea, ect. told every one how to do it then changed your mind. get lost you looser!!!!

[Lmpsr70357]

[Lmpsr70357]

[ben de lappe]

Sorry for all hate towards me because I'm right.

I'm required for the first step is to inform you of the copyright, you all know from post on here it's copyrighted.

you are a moron you gave everyone the ok to use the pattern, idea, ect. told every one how to do it then changed your mind. get lost you looser!!!!

That's cool how did you turn the letters red? That's cool .. The rest is not true.

When you reply with quotes there is a little button above the field of text...on the far right, "Font colour"...Select and be "Amazed with the Possibilities"

Now, the button is not present if you just do a quick reply. Must quote or select full editor to have the font color option.

[Lmpsr70357]

[Lmpsr70357]

[jakedog]

Ok I'm done here,
I answered all the questions and not getting anywhere, don't really know where I was trying to get anyway.
I can't change all the myths and untruths or "knock down brick walls".
I've been called all kinds of names from those that are unsure about the truth thats ok, I kinda understand.
I will make most happy and keep my mouth shut,
but I will not quit. I know what I have to do.
I wish it could have been different.
Thanks and good luck.

One last question before you leave and go off to never never land. If I was to contact Jennifer Dopke of Harley Davidson and show her the screen shots would she tell me you have permission to be copying their emblem? I am strictly looking for a yes or no answer here not some long drawn out dumb reply. It's easy yes or no?

[beefy]

[quote="Lmpsr70357"]Proof he demands, when he gets proof he claims it's not good enough. Surprisingly not! [/quote]

What PROOF ??? The only thing I could find was a very vague document with very few words. No photos/images, no specifics on the exact type of shape (the one I read said geodesic shape of which there are many), no detailed description of anything. You call that proof ????

[quote="Lmpsr70357"]Sorry beefy it was not you who called me I found that out after I was removed. [/quote]

Thank you, but it seems you've replaced that retracted lie with some new one:

[quote="Lmpsr70357"]But your are the one that started the "so many possibilities" thread claiming you found this fire pit image like it was laying on the side of the road...you used my picture like it came from somewhere out of the wild blue sky...and wanted everyone else to help you figure out how to make it.... You used my picture with out every asking. You knew were it came from.you have been stocking my facebook page for years.[/quote]

WTF are you talking about and accusing me of (AGAIN).
What are you talking about "I used your picture" - where ??? Cmon show me where. Once again PROOF.
Also can you link to the thread in question.
And supposedly I wanted everyone to help me figure out how to make it. I drew it up myself and nested the parts on a standard sheet just for play. I haven't even cut one out. Please show me where I've been begging for all this.
I'll say to you again what I said to you in the deleted thread. Show me ANYWHERE in this forum where I've been asking (never mind begging) for such help on ANY graphics. I'm the opposite and learn how to draw. A quick run through my posts and you'll find many of my comments are pushing the need for people to take the time to learn how to draw and not just ask for the drawing. So cmon back up your accusations with proof.
It seems your lies and accusations never cease, or maybe like your interpretation of your copyright you just get things wrong all the time.


[quote="Lmpsr70357"]all it says is artwork not just my artwork not just your artwork[/quote]

That's exactly what I'm talking about, a very vague explanation. That is NOT proof or a black and white statement saying you are the only one allowed to apply ANY artwork to a very specific shape. And how was the shape described by the way.

[quote="Lmpsr70357"]it covers any and all artwork applied.. I know you got me wrong again. [/quote]

Can you show us the black and white statement clearly spelling that out. Or is that just how YOU want to interpret it.

[quote="Lmpsr70357"]The library of congress notified me that I can not copyright the shape but I can copyright applying 2-Dimensional images in that shape. [/quote]

Fine, but like I've asked you a zillion times, can you show us any black and white print clearly stating this. It doesn't quit cut it saying "they told me". Is your legal right to what you claim based on "Oh but they told me". Are you saying you don't have this WORDED in a legal copyright document ??? Please read that last sentence again because you seem to struggle greatly with the concept of "WORDED". For example take a look at any patent documentation and you'll get an idea of what I mean by WORDED. The inventors don't rely on "Oh but they told me".


OK here's some info I was given and put on the previously deleted thread:

It's obvious he is poorly informed on what a copyright is and what it protects. You CLAIM a copyright and register it . You can claim almost anything because it's not the job of the Copyright Office section to check the validity or accuracy of a claim. A copyright is not "granted". In fact a drawing, photo, song. movie. software code is copyrighted automatically as soon as it is created by the ORIGINAL author. Copyrights are to protect the author or artist of an original work . You cannot copyright a shape, an idea, a method , a general concept or anything already in the public domain . Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. He at most could only copyright a specific piece of artwork that is not based on prior art. If prior art is used then that artist, must be listed as a co-owner or there be documentation that the prior artist has conferred ownership to the new claimant. He can copyright a book or article explaining how to do a process but not the process itself. He can copyright specific drawings if they are his ORIGINAL drawings and not derived from another source. A variation of an existing design (i.e putting some clipart in a hexagon) is not In a copyright. You can CLAIM anything you want, but it may have no validity. The grant of a copyright is simply an acknowledgement you have filed the papers and paid the fee. It confers no judgement or validity of the claim. it is simply a statement of the obvious. Copyrighted articles, photos, manuals, etc do not have to be marked but should be to validate later claims.

So if you take a picture of your dog in your yard and submit a claim for a copyright it is ONLY for THAT photo. If your neighbor takes another picture of your dog (since a dog cannot sign a release) then they can claim a copyright on THAT photo. Neither of you can uphold a general copyright of a dog in a yard. If you submit your photo to a publication you will sign a release of any claim to that photo whether they use it or not. If they subsequently do not return it to you and toss it in the trash and a janitor finds it and offers to sell it on EBAY, there is no claim to ownership by any party but the janitor. If you compile a book of original photos the contents of the book including the photos are under one copyright. If you publish additional photos later they are not covered in the original copyright. You cannot copyright something you MIGHT do someday.
Copyrights are to protect original art, printed words or electronics from reproduction in part or whole (plagiarism).

What he (the pinhead making the claims) will find is that there is no enforcement mechanism for a copyright . He cannot simply tattle on a suspected infringer and a government agency steps in. He has to first notify the infringer (Cease and Desist letter) and then pursue a legal challenge at his expense. If the court finds the claim as outside the copyright statue it is simply thrown out of court and he gets to pay the court costs, his expenses and in some cases the expenses of the other person. As part of the action the copyright holder has to show some form of harm (typically a loss of a sale) that can be harder than it sounds because they have to prove the sale was to a person that had seen and considered buying the copyrighted object (willing buyer) and then was lured away by the infringer. The recovery then could not be more than the value of the lost sale(s).

Copyright was never intended to be a patent (which does cover things like How to do something (methods patent) or a design idea , Patents are expensive and more difficult to get because you have to PROVE to the Patent office there is no prior patent to what you are asking for and that the patent is not in the public domain. You have to disclose exactly how it works and enough information that it could be duplicated. Back in the Dot com frenzy everyone was trying to get patents on everything. One vendor filed a patent on the "Electronic Shopping Cart" and the word "Cart". They then started sending out cease and desist letters to every online vendor. It was later invalidated when it was proven that the concept had been described and offered to the public years before and the word "cart" was too generic to be used. One guy tried to patent the US flag! The only ones that made money on the patents were the lawyers!

Once again you have to show harm and willful intent and then prove that the device or method is close enough to your patent to confuse a buyer. Once again it's up to the holder of the patent to bring about the action and prove to the court they have been harmed. Often it opens up the patent for a challenge that could see them lose the patent if its declared vague or based on prior work. The chance for punitive damages are small and at the end the recovery may consist of only what would be a fair royalty to the patent holder provided the holder has ever licensed the patent to any other party. It is extremely expensive to defend a patent and lengthy. Ask some of the guys that had patented a tool , went to Sears , were rejected or even given a token order, and then found their tool being sold nation wide under another name. After years of legal bills they got restitution that hardly paid their legal fees.

Finally, Trademarks are another part of the law. (they are part of the Patent Office Jurisdiction) To apply for and get a trade mark you have to show the trademark shape and or phrase(s) are unique and instill in the mind of a buyer the link to a brand or company. This is a case where the term "confusion" is used . If a person would reasonably be confused as to a device, product or name that is similar to an existing trademark then the trademark holder can first ask the infringer to cease using the infringing trademark in which case the infringer can change the design and if the trademark holder still feels it is too close can object. This can go one for a long time until the one with the shortest pockets gives up.

If you don't think that schools and corporations will not defend their trademarks and logos then brace yourself. Individually they cannot afford to. They almost all belong to a nation wide intellectual property rights origination . Staffed by a bevy of lawyers. They (the trademark holder) simply reports the person to their organization and they (the organization) do all of the heavy lifting. The same organization sells the rights to manufacture any item with a logo or trademark and they can set any rules they want. Usually they want a large up front fee (licensing fee that they get to keep most of) and a per unit royalty and a guarantee of minimum sales per year. You may even be asked to pay the minimum sales fee up front
So the next time you decide to cut out more than a couple of a sports logo or corporate logo (unless the trademark holder hires you to do so) don't be surprised to hear from the legal guys.

While the person on the list offering "rights" to reuse the designs can probably legally charge whatever he wants it may be fraudulent to claim he is transferring the rights to make an object from his designs (that may not even be all his exclusive work) simply because he claims to hold a copyright on the specific designs. This is no different than buying a photo from a stock agency to use in a website or printed publication. In most cases the "right " is limited to a specific type of use and frequency.

Most clipart is "royalty free" and your purchase price allows you to use it and resell it in a different form without paying a royality to the artist. You cannot simply copy it and turn around and resell it intact as your own collection. Giving something away does not cancel your copyright but its does set and action that could negate any calm for compensation later

[mechanicalmongoose20]

Holy wall of text batman.

I'd love to see this play out over on PBB.

[beefy]

[quote="beefy"][quote="Lmpsr70357"]Proof he demands, when he gets proof he claims it's not good enough. Surprisingly not! [/quote]

What PROOF ??? The only thing I could find was a very vague document with very few words. No photos/images, no specifics on the exact type of shape (the one I read said geodesic shape of which there are many), no detailed description of anything. You call that proof ????

[quote="Lmpsr70357"]Sorry beefy it was not you who called me I found that out after I was removed. [/quote]

Thank you, but it seems you've replaced that retracted lie with some new one:

[quote="Lmpsr70357"]But your are the one that started the "so many possibilities" thread claiming you found this fire pit image like it was laying on the side of the road...you used my picture like it came from somewhere out of the wild blue sky...and wanted everyone else to help you figure out how to make it.... You used my picture with out every asking. You knew were it came from.you have been stocking my facebook page for years.[/quote]

WTF are you talking about and accusing me of (AGAIN).
What are you talking about "I used your picture" - where ??? Cmon show me where. Once again PROOF.
Also can you link to the thread in question.
And supposedly I wanted everyone to help me figure out how to make it. I drew it up myself and nested the parts on a standard sheet just for play. I haven't even cut one out. Please show me where I've been begging for all this.
I'll say to you again what I said to you in the deleted thread. Show me ANYWHERE in this forum where I've been asking (never mind begging) for such help on ANY graphics. I'm the opposite and learn how to draw. A quick run through my posts and you'll find many of my comments are pushing the need for people to take the time to learn how to draw and not just ask for the drawing. So cmon back up your accusations with proof.
It seems your lies and accusations never cease, or maybe like your interpretation of your copyright you just get things wrong all the time.


[quote="Lmpsr70357"]all it says is artwork not just my artwork not just your artwork[/quote]

That's exactly what I'm talking about, a very vague explanation. That is NOT proof or a black and white statement saying you are the only one allowed to apply ANY artwork to a very specific shape. And how was the shape described by the way.

[quote="Lmpsr70357"]it covers any and all artwork applied.. I know you got me wrong again. [/quote]

Can you show us the black and white statement clearly spelling that out. Or is that just how YOU want to interpret it.

[quote="Lmpsr70357"]The library of congress notified me that I can not copyright the shape but I can copyright applying 2-Dimensional images in that shape. [/quote]

Fine, but like I've asked you a zillion times, can you show us any black and white print clearly stating this. It doesn't quit cut it saying "they told me". Is your legal right to what you claim based on "Oh but they told me". Are you saying you don't have this WORDED in a legal copyright document ??? Please read that last sentence again because you seem to struggle greatly with the concept of "WORDED". For example take a look at any patent documentation and you'll get an idea of what I mean by WORDED. The inventors don't rely on "Oh but they told me".

I think you may be digging your own grave here because despite being repeatedly asked to provide proof, you give only vague explanations and "they told me so". Based on that you expect others to "cease and desist" and cough up $400 to have the right to place their own images on that shape. It seems the only thing you are doing is using scare tactics in an attempt to keep this venture all to yourself.

I'd be careful if I was you. You may end being the one who is taken to court and pays out.


OK here's some info I was given and put on the previously deleted thread:

It's obvious he is poorly informed on what a copyright is and what it protects. You CLAIM a copyright and register it . You can claim almost anything because it's not the job of the Copyright Office section to check the validity or accuracy of a claim. A copyright is not "granted". In fact a drawing, photo, song. movie. software code is copyrighted automatically as soon as it is created by the ORIGINAL author. Copyrights are to protect the author or artist of an original work . You cannot copyright a shape, an idea, a method , a general concept or anything already in the public domain . Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. He at most could only copyright a specific piece of artwork that is not based on prior art. If prior art is used then that artist, must be listed as a co-owner or there be documentation that the prior artist has conferred ownership to the new claimant. He can copyright a book or article explaining how to do a process but not the process itself. He can copyright specific drawings if they are his ORIGINAL drawings and not derived from another source. A variation of an existing design (i.e putting some clipart in a hexagon) is not In a copyright. You can CLAIM anything you want, but it may have no validity. The grant of a copyright is simply an acknowledgement you have filed the papers and paid the fee. It confers no judgement or validity of the claim. it is simply a statement of the obvious. Copyrighted articles, photos, manuals, etc do not have to be marked but should be to validate later claims.

So if you take a picture of your dog in your yard and submit a claim for a copyright it is ONLY for THAT photo. If your neighbor takes another picture of your dog (since a dog cannot sign a release) then they can claim a copyright on THAT photo. Neither of you can uphold a general copyright of a dog in a yard. If you submit your photo to a publication you will sign a release of any claim to that photo whether they use it or not. If they subsequently do not return it to you and toss it in the trash and a janitor finds it and offers to sell it on EBAY, there is no claim to ownership by any party but the janitor. If you compile a book of original photos the contents of the book including the photos are under one copyright. If you publish additional photos later they are not covered in the original copyright. You cannot copyright something you MIGHT do someday.
Copyrights are to protect original art, printed words or electronics from reproduction in part or whole (plagiarism).

What he (the pinhead making the claims) will find is that there is no enforcement mechanism for a copyright . He cannot simply tattle on a suspected infringer and a government agency steps in. He has to first notify the infringer (Cease and Desist letter) and then pursue a legal challenge at his expense. If the court finds the claim as outside the copyright statue it is simply thrown out of court and he gets to pay the court costs, his expenses and in some cases the expenses of the other person. As part of the action the copyright holder has to show some form of harm (typically a loss of a sale) that can be harder than it sounds because they have to prove the sale was to a person that had seen and considered buying the copyrighted object (willing buyer) and then was lured away by the infringer. The recovery then could not be more than the value of the lost sale(s).

Copyright was never intended to be a patent (which does cover things like How to do something (methods patent) or a design idea , Patents are expensive and more difficult to get because you have to PROVE to the Patent office there is no prior patent to what you are asking for and that the patent is not in the public domain. You have to disclose exactly how it works and enough information that it could be duplicated. Back in the Dot com frenzy everyone was trying to get patents on everything. One vendor filed a patent on the "Electronic Shopping Cart" and the word "Cart". They then started sending out cease and desist letters to every online vendor. It was later invalidated when it was proven that the concept had been described and offered to the public years before and the word "cart" was too generic to be used. One guy tried to patent the US flag! The only ones that made money on the patents were the lawyers!

Once again you have to show harm and willful intent and then prove that the device or method is close enough to your patent to confuse a buyer. Once again it's up to the holder of the patent to bring about the action and prove to the court they have been harmed. Often it opens up the patent for a challenge that could see them lose the patent if its declared vague or based on prior work. The chance for punitive damages are small and at the end the recovery may consist of only what would be a fair royalty to the patent holder provided the holder has ever licensed the patent to any other party. It is extremely expensive to defend a patent and lengthy. Ask some of the guys that had patented a tool , went to Sears , were rejected or even given a token order, and then found their tool being sold nation wide under another name. After years of legal bills they got restitution that hardly paid their legal fees.

Finally, Trademarks are another part of the law. (they are part of the Patent Office Jurisdiction) To apply for and get a trade mark you have to show the trademark shape and or phrase(s) are unique and instill in the mind of a buyer the link to a brand or company. This is a case where the term "confusion" is used . If a person would reasonably be confused as to a device, product or name that is similar to an existing trademark then the trademark holder can first ask the infringer to cease using the infringing trademark in which case the infringer can change the design and if the trademark holder still feels it is too close can object. This can go one for a long time until the one with the shortest pockets gives up.

If you don't think that schools and corporations will not defend their trademarks and logos then brace yourself. Individually they cannot afford to. They almost all belong to a nation wide intellectual property rights origination . Staffed by a bevy of lawyers. They (the trademark holder) simply reports the person to their organization and they (the organization) do all of the heavy lifting. The same organization sells the rights to manufacture any item with a logo or trademark and they can set any rules they want. Usually they want a large up front fee (licensing fee that they get to keep most of) and a per unit royalty and a guarantee of minimum sales per year. You may even be asked to pay the minimum sales fee up front
So the next time you decide to cut out more than a couple of a sports logo or corporate logo (unless the trademark holder hires you to do so) don't be surprised to hear from the legal guys.

While the person on the list offering "rights" to reuse the designs can probably legally charge whatever he wants it may be fraudulent to claim he is transferring the rights to make an object from his designs (that may not even be all his exclusive work) simply because he claims to hold a copyright on the specific designs. This is no different than buying a photo from a stock agency to use in a website or printed publication. In most cases the "right " is limited to a specific type of use and frequency.

Most clipart is "royalty free" and your purchase price allows you to use it and resell it in a different form without paying a royality to the artist. You cannot simply copy it and turn around and resell it intact as your own collection. Giving something away does not cancel your copyright but its does set and action that could negate any calm for compensation later[/quote]

[Lmpsr70357]

[Lmpsr70357]

[beefy]

[quote="Lmpsr70357"]
Sorry I got you mixed up with someone else again. My bad , I apologize.[/quote]

Do you see what I mean about digging your own grave............. That's twice you've spouted ridiculous lies and accusation about me. What will the next one be. Your credibility and honesty leave a lot to be desired.

Oh and "your" design is all over the internet. I'd say a lot of them are "illegally infringing" so looks like you have a lot of court appearances ahead of you.

If anyone knows lizards facebook page or whatever other website he has could you post a link here, I'd like to visit

[beefy]

For anyone interested here's what was saved of the previous thread, saved in a Word file.

[Larry83301]

If anyone knows lizards facebook page or whatever other website he has could you post a link here, I'd like to visit

Lizard King Metal Art Store

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1743126542574342/

https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q= ... etal%20art

https://www.facebook.com/lizardkingmetalart/

Google is your friend!


Larry

[Thor]

The bigger question here is what 14 images did you submit with the copyright application? Those and only those might be protected under your copyright. I imagine though most of those are public domain images so then those get thrown out as anyone can use those images, its not original artwork. So you are left with maybe 2 or 3 that you actually drew that would be protected under your copyright when placed on to a geodesic sphere. I could take those same images and put them on a icosahedron sphere and your copyright would not cover that.

What you have and are claiming is like saying you have a copyright on a song that lasts 4 mins exactly with any musical notes in it. It just doesn't work like that

I'm not yelling at you or chewing you out, just trying to explain to you what a copyright means and covers and that your are fraudulently taking money from people to "allow" them to make a geodesic shape which is a federal crime that can be prosecuted with severe fines and jail time.

Now if you had come up with some new method of applying images to a geodesic shaped firepit (say by photo etching, but in some method not previously done like being able to photo etch after its a 3d sphere or something) then you could get a patent for that method of applying that would cover any and all images done to that shape with that method. But it would take lots of money to research that no one has done it before, or even filed patent on it before and then more money to file the patent.

You say you applied for a patent on it as well, but I can not see how a plasma cut image on a flat piece, later welded up into a 3d shape will ever pass for a patent as it has been done for literally decades.

And as far as cutting the Harley logo for market research, you would first have to have a letter from harley stating that you are allowed to use their logo for a limited time for market research into possibly entering a licensing agreement with them. and if you think they or schools with logos youve cut wont come after you, go ahead and cut a mickey mouse ears logo and sell it on amazon and see how long it takes for Disney to be breathing down your neck with a whole slew of lawyers. They go after anything that even looks close to the mouse ears logo and hard.