There are plenty of mistakes that were made in this arrangement. First of all, it is described as a "handshake deal," which is always a mistake but more so with something that is on-going. Then Wyland, an artist whose murals I've seen in several places (but didn't connect with the license plate until this article) claims he can change the terms of whatever agreement he had because he's the artist and owner of the intellectual property. Uh, that's a pretty stupid statement in terms of business arrangements which were done on a hand-shake. He's claiming the "license" was only for a term that is now over. If that is true, he could indeed ask for different terms to extend the use and the state has the right to find another artist.
If the new image looks too much like Wyland's, he might have a case for suing for copyright infringement but not if it's an independently created new image. Wyland doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of using a whale's tail to decorate a license plate for charitable purposes--despite the fact that the article quotes him as basing some of his claim on his "idea." Nope, only the expression is protected.
Wyland now gets 10%
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a664f/a664fa6b96a4dd051104914bdfd8a242cedb067a" alt=""
It will be interesting to see what happens with this dispute. I've got a button which reads "This job would be great if not for the clients" and I sure wouldn't want either of these clients knocking on my door.
Here's my big advice for the day: even if it is for a cause you believe in, get the terms in writing. It protects both sides.
Personally, I've got the picture of Yosemite on my plates.
No comments:
Post a Comment