- MemberJanuary 5, 2011 at 8:13 pm
This is an interesting area and one that I have a strong view on. We are actively pursuing a number of ‘signmakers’ (used loosely) for breach of copyright and the term mentioned above does not mean anything. I agree with David about the right of use and the owner of the copyrighted material should be paid the appropriate fee. It is also worth considering that they may not agree to their images being used in such a way. I would not hide behind the excuses either because for many copyright holders it is a matter of principle that companies and individuals should be pursued. Remember your assets can be seized along with materials in relation to this.
In terms of Rolls Royce, isn’t there a clause in the terms of the sale that express permission has to be sought from Rolls Royce if you want to change the ‘look’ of the car and this is passed from owner to owner for the lifetime of the car.
Find answers, ask questions, connect with our community.