Something that’s going to keep popping up: leaving off name/logo on recreations will often leave much blank space on the watch face. Like this example here, I was up late trying to make the disk work right in this interesting (and/or goofy) “parking meter” watch. Once I finally got it right, I was left with a vast background of nothingness.
I have not much use for this particular watch, but once I came across it and learned how it’s supposed to work, it became a challenge to make it work on here… which turned out to be easy once I played with more tags I had not used before.
I just got a very interesting (and/or confusing) response from a watch company regarding trademark/copyright.
Background first: one of the more stunning antique designs I’ve recreated is a pocket watch from 1904. The company that made it ceased to exist, but the rights were still held by their parent company. Last week I found out a new startup with the same name has acquired all those rights. So I wrote them, explained my desire to recreate antique/vintage designs and to publish them here, and officially asked for written permission for this one design.
They just replied giving me the green light, while also saying this:
“We do own the trademark rights to [name withheld], however as far as we know there’s not a way to claim a dial design. If you plan to put the name [name withheld] on your recreation then that would be infringing on our trademark and we’ve been advised to not allow that.”
That specific design in question does not have the company name on it (or any other text on the dial, for that matter), but the part about “claim a dial design” has me somewhere between confused and intrigued.
As long as you do not use the name. I would avoid Refrence to the original manufacturer as well. Those who know watches that well will know who made it. In representing it , your changes ie Font are that significantly different to avoid copyright infringement. It is what you type that gets you into court. As long at it can be seen that there is a little difference it is not a problem. You would think the Startup would be Delighted for the exposure. Publish and be Damned.
They definitely would be delighted for the free advertising, they asked that I properly credit them, even granting permission to publish with their name on the dial (which is not there on the original antique, so they did not closely look at the photos I sent them!).
But another aspect of this just got more serious/mysterious: I believe I’ve found a sister design of this particular pocket watch, also circa early 1900, with a VERY strikingly similar design. But… it has three Louis XIV style hands. The one I’m working on has only one plus 2 generic looking blue steel hands, so now I’m sure the original had three Louis XIV hands as well. Both of these seem to be rare, even just finding photos of them: I’ve only found one set of photos of each so far.
So based on that, the nameless parking meter watch I posted earlier is okay to publish on here? Until now, I had always thought the dial designs in general also fall under copyright, name issues set aside.
I love it . Classic Understatement , Parking Meter Thing . I would just Invent a Logo or some gadget data in a similar Font the space above 6 is crying out for some attention . I like some sort of Battery Indicator on my Face . Do your hand s Lume SR SS . Some put a glass refection on the face ???
Wonderful News the Start Up is keen for you to Credit them . I hope they give you a massive Sponsorship Deal .
All these Faces that get taken down because of Copyright infringements, but they still allow Faces like these to be Published AND be in the Top 50 List
Hey guys, I thought I might chip in my 2 cents worth…
Copyright, trademarks, registered designs, etc. are all legislative creations - that is, they are defined and controlled by national laws and generally differ in each jurisdiction. In particular, the length of time that each can be enforced varies.
Generally ( not always ) copyright expires after a fixed number of years after the artist has died or in some cases after the publication date. Because it varies it is necessary to check the origin of each item, the nationality of the artist and where and when it was created and published. Then one needs to check the relevant rules that apply.
From a copyright standpoint, I imagine that copying a design from an 1800’s watch would be unlikely to breach copyright laws.
Trademarks and registered designs are different - these can be renewed ( generally copyright cannot ) and ownership transferred. Other than finding the owner and asking permission ( which I imaging would almost always be refused without a licensing agreement ), using any of these would be a breach of the relevant legislation and the owner could insist that you delete the infringing items.
If an owner believes that their rights have been infringed upon by a face on Facer ( copyright, trademark or otherwise ) then the owner can issue a take-down notice and the item will be removed. In addition, the automatic check system will also try to catch common trademark infringements - it is this processes that deletes infringing faces as soon as they are published. It does not catch them all but it does seem to address many/most of the watch maker’s trademarks.
My advice, for what it is worth, only use images that you are certain you have the rights to use ( copyright has expired or you have a licence/permission to use it ), never use someone else’s trademarks ( incl. brand names, model names, images etc. ) and never copy a watch design unless you are confident that it is in the public domain ( expired copyright and, if relevant, expired design registration ) or you have a licence/permission to use it.
There are more personal preferences for what a watch should look like than there are designs on Facer. Trying to gatekeep the type of watch that someone likes is a fruitless endeavor.
Interestingly, I’m finding a lot of “dial designs” – not mechanisms – that were actually patented in the 1800’s. Many of them are simply artistic designs, such as a painted windmill scene. And being pre-1995 patents, they expired 17 years after their applications (or 20 years after 1995).
Technically, those are all fair game.
1800s should be fine but don’t forget that patents, design registration and copyright can all apply at the same time. One might expire but the others may still be live. Copyright in particular can exist for a very long time - death of artist + 70 years in some cases.
