[Dekzion]

A customer of mine used to have her customers handprints printed onto glass by someone else.
that someone else would get the wrong shades of background and handprints, was very expensive and the turnover was very slow.
So I have been pressing them for her. (we are next door)
The initial printer, because she approached my customer some years ago with samples, now reckons that she owns the copyright for the idea of putting childrens hand prints on Dye sublimation substrates! And of course is threatening legal action if she continues to have them printed.
I reckon she's just very angry because she isn't getting the work anymore.
What do you guys reckon? can you copyright putting handprints on glass?

 

[PatWibble]

You can't copyright an idea. Copyright only applies to tangible things, such as art, music, documents etc. Technically speaking copyright is automatically manifested in the person who created the original image - ie the owner of the hand! She is just using the handprint with their permission to make a product.

Patents protect inventions, but on its own an idea is not an invention. The sublimation process and the concept of printing babies handprints already existed independantly, and there is little of substance to differentiate her idea to warrant a patent.

 

[into the T]

ask her to show you a copy of the copyright,
or the number to look it up
that should quell their bluster and smoke

my guess is this would fall under 'industrial design',
but would fail the requirements test

it's like saying the first person to screen-print fabric 500 years ago owns the rights to that process

or the first person to air-brush a bike helmet

 

[WalkingZombie]

I highly doubt that's possible, to copyright an idea such as this. Especially when each press is of a different "hand". Ask her to show you her so-called copyright (should be tons of them). Now if she created a hand-print 'design' and pressed that same hand-print onto dyesub substrates, then she could copyright that design but we're talking about individual's hand-prints. I believe the old printer would have to get every customer (new and old) to sign a release of their hand-print to say they (the printer) owns the right to press their hand-print exclusively and would have to pay to have each hand-print copyright protected, which is highly doubtful.

Just like that business on shark tank where they started a tshirt business with the State silhouette with the word Home in the middle of it. You see that "idea" everywhere now. I'm sure their own silhouette designs and commercial font cannot be used but the idea can.

And it's not a technical process with proprietary materials that could be copyrighted either. She's just angry that you have the work now and not them.

That's my own personal opinion and I'm not an attorney but I've had a similar issue and the old printer couldn't do anything about it. Mine were a "feet-print" issue lol. Wife works in a hospital and I do newborn footprints on different substrates from time to time. When a customer told the old printer that they use ME now because I'm cheaper, they emailed me basically saying the same thing they telling you. I told them to go ahead and follow through with legal action and I would counter-suit. Then I started getting more business and I started getting wind from several of them that the old printer started contacting them saying they have new management and new pricing format and that the foot-prints are priced lower. LOL Like seriously? I told each of those customers that told me that, that it's their choice on who they want to use as their printer. If they wanted to go back to them, then it's fine with me as I have no control over that.

 

[Dekzion]

Thanks Guys, I've just pointed my customer to this thread, hopefully it will give her peace of mind and confidence to get those orders rolling again.
Me being a bit blunt would have told her where to go but when you are being threatened so cleverly you begin to doubt yourself and retreat too quickly.
Thanks again guys.

 

[mgparrish]

You can't copyright an idea. Copyright only applies to tangible things, such as art, music, documents etc. Technically speaking copyright is automatically manifested in the person who created the original image - ie the owner of the hand! She is just using the handprint with their permission to make a product.

Patents protect inventions, but on its own an idea is not an invention. The sublimation process and the concept of printing babies handprints already existed independantly, and there is little of substance to differentiate her idea to warrant a patent.

Nice post, the concept of inventions already existing independently in terms of patents is called "obvious".

When is an Invention Obvious? - IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law

Actually ideas can be patented, they are called business patents.

Business Method Patents - IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law

But these are not just simple ideas, but you can patent a concept.

A business patent need not encompass an invention or machine of sort specifically.

 

[Dekzion]

Nice post, the concept of inventions already existing independently in terms of patents is called "obvious".

When is an Invention Obvious? - IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law

Actually ideas can be patented, they are called business patents.

Business Method Patents - IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law

But these are not just simple ideas, but you can patent a concept.

A business patent need not encompass an invention or machine of sort specifically.

But then no-one would be allowed to print a hand print on a dye sub surface then or would they.
Because she's claiming she has the 'copyright' not a patent, so surely the copyright would only appertain to the way she puts the prints in a certain style on a certain substrate (which by the way we have been unable to find to purchase).

 

[NoXid]

But then no-one would be allowed to print a hand print on a dye sub surface then or would they.
Because she's claiming she has the 'copyright' not a patent, so surely the copyright would only appertain to the way she puts the prints in a certain style on a certain substrate (which by the way we have been unable to find to purchase).

Copyright would only pertain to a specific piece of art. The how of it or the style are not something one can copyright. For example, a book would have a copyright, as would a painting. But anyone could write in the style of that writer or paint in the style of that painter. You just couldn't reproduce their actual book/art and sell it as your own.

Patent and Trademark are the other categories, and neither would apply. As stated by others, the process itself is obvious, just a trivial use of existing materials and techniques that this person themself did not invent and holds no rights to, thus unprotectable.

If they did claim to have a patent on some process, ask for the patent number and then either license the use of the patent from them or use a different process or wait for the patent to expire, as all do according to the laws of where you are.

That they said copyright rather than patent shows that they are blowing hot air and probably don't know the first thing about either.

 

[Dekzion]

So where does intellectual property come in to all this then.
I understand that to be an image that you use on say,, your website, and no-one else can use that image of yours to advertise a product of theirs, but if you make your own image and use that it will be okay, correct?

 

[PatWibble]

She could possibly register the item as a 'registered design' under UK IP law, but it is doubtful that she would meet the criteria. The design idea must be new, which probably doesn't apply to printing babies handprints onto pieces of glass.

Is the other printer seriously claiming to be the first person to print a babies hand print onto glass or any other sublimation product? I have just done a quick google search and come up with half a dozen UK companies offering printed glass tiles and other objects with hand and footprints. There are thousands of people offering sublimation products in th UK - many of those will have done something involving handprints.
She is offering nothing new.

 

[Dekzion]

Totally and absolutely agree with all you guys imput.
Like I said I would have told her to wind it in but there are more delicate people around that don't want to hurt peoples feelings and run at the first hint of litigation.
Thanks for all your help guys, I'm now going to try out those new clear glass tiles from Longforte! anyone tried them yet?
A Very Merry Christmas to all who read this and I hope the 'last minuters' don't give too much hassle to you. My wish to you all is that the ice you skate on is thicker than mine in 2018!

 

[mgparrish]

She could possibly register the item as a 'registered design' under UK IP law, but it is doubtful that she would meet the criteria. The design idea must be new, which probably doesn't apply to printing babies handprints onto pieces of glass.

Is the other printer seriously claiming to be the first person to print a babies hand print onto glass or any other sublimation product? I have just done a quick google search and come up with half a dozen UK companies offering printed glass tiles and other objects with hand and footprints. There are thousands of people offering sublimation products in th UK - many of those will have done something involving handprints.
She is offering nothing new.

Another "twist to the plot" ...

Most of the Copyright and Patent laws are now somewhat "harmonized" between the US and the UK, mainly through international treaty, however the "twist" here to be considered is the issue of privacy rights.

In the US the privacy rights are not under US Federal jurisdiction but rather bound by State by State laws. But more or less the States have similar laws regarding privacy rights.

Case in point; If I take a photo of someone I own the copyright to that specific image, but I may not be able to benefit financially or be able to share or publish that photo.

For this reason when using models for product advertising we use a "Model Release Form" where the person being photographed would sign a release form allowing use of their image, even though technically the person who took the picture has a legitimate claim to copyright. Just the copyright cannot be "exploited" and really can only be used for ones own "personal consumption" unless the person in the picture allows it.

But of course in the case of a photo unless that person was a celebrity then there really isn't any commercial value except to the party wanting the photo. But a baby footprint since it is unique to the baby, then that baby (actually the parents) has privacy rights along with the person creating the art has a copyright. Of course a copyright that can't really be "exploited".

So the person taking the picture and creating art from it should still be able to claim a copyright as the the footprint is unique. Of course the footprint came from someone that is allowing you to use it to create a product, no different than if someone wanted their babies picture on a tshirt to give to Grandma.

In this case the idea or concept is not able to be copyright, nor patentable, but certainly the image as it is unique could have copyright.

So I would throw out there that the specific "art" is subject to copyright (but can't be exploited), the subject of the art has privacy rights, and the concept or idea of this generically can neither be copyrighted nor patented.

Just FYI on privacy rights here in the US ...

Privacy and Publicity Rights

In the US we have what we call "design patents" which are not "utility" patents that encompass functional inventions. But these are not intended for "flat" art like a photo but rather a product shape or sculpture. These are typically designs that are in 3 dimensions, for example an iPhone case which isn't flat. The term "ornamentality" is used and really means is has 3 dimensional elements in it and the entirety is not a flat surface.

https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getti...-applications/design-patent-application-guide

So I think at least in the US you couldn't get a "design patent" for a hand or fingerprint, unless it was cast in plaster or something. I suspect that a 'registered design' in the UK is something similar.