Unfortunately, it appears that the solicitations are no longer limited to scams/foreign companies. I’ve actually had some clients tell me that they are now getting solicitations from US law firms offering to file responses to outstanding office actions. In Arizona, such practices would definitely be unethical. I would think the same would be true under other State Bar rules as well, but perhaps not…

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve advised clients on when they can ignore an official-looking letter asking for fees. Good to see the Office taking on this issue.

I agree wholeheartedly with Caleb.

If someone is paid to design a logo then the purchaser is paying for that service to be provided.

The logo itself can do nothing without the business people behind the company promoting their product and marketing their product to their prospective end-users. The logo becomes the ‘memory’ carrier for those ideas that we relate to the product but only after (usually) hefty and repeated advertising and marketing to make that logo become the ‘memory’ carrier. But the logo, in my opinion, should still remain the property of the purchaser.

I find it incredulous that some of your writers on the one hand think it is wrong to ‘take as free’ off the internet and yet find it acceptable to either ‘hold hostage a company’ or expect a ‘share’ of the company profits ‘if’ that company succeeds in the future!

What if we considered the reverse? What if the company failed? Is it then the logos fault? Does the company then have the right to come after the logo designer ‘demanding’ recompense? I don’t think your readers would find that totally un-acceptable.

The graphic designer who has been paid to design a logo and has been paid for that product / service has done their bit when they ‘deliver’ the final logo. With all due respect, and again, it’s in my opinion, that was the end of their role in the matter. If they believe so well in their work then they should charge accordingly and be upfront about their expectations.

If I pay for a logo then I would expect it to be mine and for my use as I see fit.

I think your article has brought up a very good topic Tom and in the end a contract should be written up to cover these ‘rights’ of ownership and copyright. I do feel however that it should not be necessary. The right of ownership is implied in the purchase of the product.

I really had not expected that this topic could turn into such an issue for a client paying for the service of designing a logo. It really is another case then of ‘buyer beware’.

Thank you for highlighting this ‘issue’.

Ian

I recently commissioned a local design company to help me with a logo. I gave some guidance about colors, and that I wanted a stylized version of the company’s initials as the logo. I paid for the work upfront; I signed a terms and conditions that said that any usage rights not exclusively transfered to the client were reserved by the company. So I looked at the usage rights paperwork and item #1 says that the Company releases all rights to any artwork or project with the exception of mutual use for advertisement and marketing purposes as well as editing rights. I read that as “they surrendered all rights to the artwork”. The logo went back and forth a few times with me providing input (so how much was his creativity and how much was mine?) and it got to the point that it was acceptable to me.

Then he springs on me that he owns the copyright to my company’s logo and that if I ever want to sell my company I can’t include the logo in the offering without written consent from him and additional renumeration…I did not sign the final document.

I find this idea that the logo belongs to the “person who created it” as a bit strange when the only reason they “created” it was because (in this and similar cases) someone paid you to create it using design elements from existing branding material of the company.

If you want to get rich off of your design abilities then charge the rate you want for the work. Don’t try to use the concept that a business that someone builds up until it’s worth something is taking advantage of you for logo work you were paid to do when it was a startup.

This idea that the Nike swoosh logo has intrinsic value and is worth something without the hard work of all of the employees of the company, it’s leadership, it’s innovation, the management of processes and systems that provide goods and services to more people, managing their costs, mitigating risks, managing supply chains and distribution channels (and the list goes on and on) is kind of incredible to me.

I’m not talking about a work of art that might have intrinsic value apart from the company, like an Andy Warhol painting or a statue or a photograph that another company might want to use in their branding because it has value. I’m talking about lines, colors, lighting effects etc that have no value apart from the company they were created to represent.

I finally told the guy I was not comfortable with the idea that he “owned” my company’s logo when I had paid him to create it but he too brought up the Nike swoosh…I think we have worked it out but I agree with you Tom – he has no real reason to keep the rights to my company logo (other than to advertise his capabilities which I am happy for him to do) except to extort money from me at some point in the future if I happen to build a company that has value and try to sell it. He needs to focus on building his own company’s value not hold copyrights to the logos he is paid to create for others.

C

You may want to expand your thoughts here to cover the case where the practitioner is a Patent Agent, not a Patent Attorney. In the case of a Patent Agent, like myself, an NDA is required in all cases.

Best Regards,
Jeremy