Client supplied logo - Copyright

C

CTL Designs

Member
Hi all!

I’ve recently started my own signage and graphics company which also has a design studio. We have been running for around 4 month and we are very busy which is great.

I would like to see if anyone could provide any advise regarding copyright on supplied artwork? We have a lot of customers contacting us with there own branding in place already and are able to supply us with there logo files.

However there is a little bit of confusion when we ask them if they own the copyright for the design/logo branding, they automatically presume they do as they have paid for it to be designed.

It’s becoming a little tiresome as explaining to every customer who wants us to do work with there already designed branding about copyright takes far too long and isn’t cost effective. I’ve even had customer ask me to contact the original art worker to see about permission! Which I just don’t have the time to do for ever customer.

My question is, do any of you have anything in place which covers you as a company for supplied artwork from customers that think they own the rights to there branding? Sort of a disclaimer stating we will not be held responsible if the client doesn’t have copyright ownership after all.

Any advise would be appreciated.

Thank you

Chris

TSP Lincolnshire
CTL Designs
 
Yes and no, albeit slightly different field.

Now I'm not a legal person so no idea how this would stand up in court but I'm pretty sure that would cover you at the most basic level.

Personally I'd just add in something on the quote/invoice and in your t&c's similar to "It is the responsibility of you, the person supplying artwork, to ensure you own the copyright of supplied artwork and by accepting [insert company name] to work from supplied files you are confirming that you are the copyright owner.
 
Thanks Levi,

I think there has to be some sort of understanding in the industry else we would constantly be turning away work. The ideal scenario would be to rebrand, but not every customer wants this.
 
The thing is while most of us here would sign over copyright etc to a client when it comes to branding, not all companies would and it can also become a little more complicated depending on what type of work etc.

You see you can get situations like I do. I work in 3D design, where I create visualisations which can be based off of a supplied 3D file, I then produce my own files from original file which have lighting/materials etc and then these are used to produce the final imagery that I supply to the client. They 'own' the the original concept and the files supplied to me, I 'own' the work with the lighting on it (because it's in essence a new piece of work and it's 'created' by me), they do not get these unless it's in the contract, and the ownership/copyright of the finished imagery produced is also mine but this part is passed over (it's what they've paid for in essence) to the client so they can do as they wish with it etc.

Then there's working in or for a studio etc where they can own the copyright of your work etc even though you did it....isn't 'who owns what' fun in design lol.
 
Last edited:
Levi said:
You see you can get situations like I do. I work in 3D design, where I create visualisations which can be based off of a supplied 3D file, I then produce my own files from original file which have lighting/materials etc and then these are used to produce the final imagery that I supply to the client. They 'own' the the original concept and the files supplied to me, I 'own' the work with the lighting on it (because it's in essence a new piece of work and it's 'created' by me), they do not get these unless it's in the contract, and the ownership/copyright of the finished imagery produced is also mine but this part is passed over (it's what they've paid for in essence) to the client so they can do as they wish with it etc.
Click to expand...

I did some work via a studio a few years back for their client, a well-known communications company, who were using 3D type and imagery as part of their current branding an marketing. The company that did the original 3D modelling, lighting and renderings retained all the source files, but any work that needed to follow this style (for example, new 3D typography) had to be done by the original agency. The brand guidelines even stated that 3D work should only be done by the appointed studio "for consistency". This made the entire job a complete nightmare to produce work for as we had a finite amount of branded elements to work with and weren't easily able to create more. The agency were right to retain the files but ultimately it had a knock-on effect for the client.
 
Paul Murray said:
I did some work via a studio a few years back for their client, a well-known communications company, who were using 3D type and imagery as part of their current branding an marketing. The company that did the original 3D modelling, lighting and renderings retained all the source files, but any work that needed to follow this style (for example, new 3D typography) had to be done by the original agency. The brand guidelines even stated that 3D work should only be done by the appointed studio "for consistency". This made the entire job a complete nightmare to produce work for as we had a finite amount of branded elements to work with and weren't easily able to create more. The agency were right to retain the files but ultimately it had a knock-on effect for the client.
Click to expand...

The thing is those 3D files are the equivalent to an illustrator file in as much as if you supply them then the client can 'get someone else to do it' and as shown in your example could cost them future work. Most of us are happy to release the files but it has to be part of the contract and have the increased cost associated with this sort of release in files.

Not to mention the odds are that the studio you were in likely didn't have anyone who works with the same 3D programs etc and so you'd need to outsource again anyway. It's kind of a double edged sword in as much as yes you want to be able to quickly change stuff in house but at the same time you likely don't know what you're doing because you haven't specialised in the programs that are used etc. It does sound like the 'agency' your studio contacted was a middle man though rather than a 'direct contact' with the 3D designer.
 
Levi said:
The thing is those 3D files are the equivalent to an illustrator file in as much as if you supply them then the client can 'get someone else to do it' and as shown in your example could cost them future work. Most of us are happy to release the files but it has to be part of the contract and have the increased cost associated with this sort of release in files.
Click to expand...

My comment was more that this very niche approach to the branding, and the reliance on the original creator, made using that branding as a third party difficult. It's great for the agency in question who get the recurring work though (and I secretly do hate handing over source files). It wouldn't surprise me at all if this was just a one-off for an advertising campaign that the client decided they wanted to incorporate fully and was never intended to be used outside of it's original context.

Not to mention the odds are that the studio you were in likely didn't have anyone who works with the same 3D programs etc and so you'd need to outsource again anyway.
Click to expand...

Ironically they did have a freelancer in who could handle the 3D side of it, though the complexity of the source files is another matter. It probably wouldn't have been a case of opening up the C4D file and changing the text because there were elements that looped and merged and linked. But your argument is valid, most clients don't have the means to open files, let alone the knowledge of what to actually do with them. I guess they just like to have a copy for safe keeping.
 
I recently read an article about branding/logos and who owns the rights to them.

It was pretty interesting and I wish I'd have posted it here now as I've forgotten where it was.

It boiled down to the fact that if a logo was designed by an external source to the company, whoever did it still owned the rights unless it was signed over.
SO few people realise this and it can lead to complications down the line.

Personally, I usually point this out to clients and hand over the rights on completion as I think this fair and less complicated.
I also feel that the client appreciates the fact that I'm being open and that they're getting added value.

I've worked at plenty of places where we've worked with a cents branding/logos and I can't recall a single time when ownership has been called into question.

Maybe who owns the rights doesn't affect a third party like yourself? I dunno?
I'm no copyright lawyer but if there was an issue then I'd imagine that it'd be between the Designer and the client as you're just providing a service.
 
scotty said:
I recently read an article about branding/logos and who owns the rights to them.

It boiled down to the fact that if a logo was designed by an external source to the company, whoever did it still owned the rights unless it was signed over.
SO few people realise this and it can lead to complications down the line.
Click to expand...

This is how I've always understood work-for-hire agreements, you are the content creator and retain the copyrights automatically, but the client has use of the IP since that's what you both originally agreed to when work commenced ("I the designer will create XYZ for you the client to use.") Some agencies like to lay claim to everything you create, even as a freelancer and will not like the idea of you showing work you produced for them as your own portfolio, presumably because it makes them look watered down.I'm not sure where I stand legally here as a freelancer producing something in-house but I should probably find out…
 
Paul Murray said:
This is how I've always understood work-for-hire agreements, you are the content creator and retain the copyrights automatically, but the client has use of the IP since that's what you both originally agreed to when work commenced ("I the designer will create XYZ for you the client to use.") Some agencies like to lay claim to everything you create, even as a freelancer and will not like the idea of you showing work you produced for them as your own portfolio, presumably because it makes them look watered down.I'm not sure where I stand legally here as a freelancer producing something in-house but I should probably find out…
Click to expand...

As an outside agency or a freelancer (work for hire) I understand you'd own the rights to anything you make.

As an employee the company owns them.

As a freelancer working for an agency in-house then I 'think' the former applies as your location isn't really a factor but they usually have you sign an agreement up front.

In the past I've worked for a company as an employee for a few years on a standard contract and then they brought in new ones.
They included a "Designs And Inventions" clause which stated "The company owns the right to any design or invention made by the individual be it for the company or in their own time" ...or words to that affect.

I was working on my own projects and freelancing on the side at the time and signing that meant they owned EVERYTHING I did even outside work.

I refused to sign it unless the clause was removed.
I was told "Don't worry, we'd never enforce it" to which I replied "Then don't include it".

Thing is, later down the line I left under the usual bitter circumstances and it could have gotten really complicated for me if they wanted a little pay back.

Point being. It's worth having a look at your contract or agreement to see where you stand.
 
If you're happy to and over the rights to a client for say a logo than I really do think it's worth the time to explain this.

So few people (even the Designer) realise that the Designer retains the rights and if the client runs out their logo on a fleet of vans or in a commercial the Designer can legally demand a further fee.
In essence they're kind of renting their own logo in a way which I don't really find fair.

When I've explained this I usually get "Wow! I didn't know that!".

I recently saw on a new agencies site an explanation of the above for potential clients and I think it's worth doing as it puts you in a better light.
 
scotty said:
if the client runs out their logo on a fleet of vans or in a commercial the Designer can legally demand a further fee.
In essence they're kind of renting their own logo in a way which I don't really find fair.
Click to expand...

Same, ideally a designer should be quoting a fee based on it's value to the end client, not just based on how long it takes them to complete. It's a shitty move to turn around when you see the logo you charged £300 for being plastered all over a TV advert and demand more money because it's outside of what you agreed to. If you're letting a client use the logo for their needs, that really should cover everything, and if you don't charge accordingly at the start, well too bad.
 
Paul Murray said:
Same, ideally a designer should be quoting a fee based on it's value to the end client, not just based on how long it takes them to complete. It's a shitty move to turn around when you see the logo you charged £300 for being plastered all over a TV advert and demand more money because it's outside of what you agreed to. If you're letting a client use the logo for their needs, that really should cover everything, and if you don't charge accordingly at the start, well too bad.
Click to expand...

I agree I have always included copyright ownership to the client once I have been paid in full. With that being said, there is no real way to know what your logo (for argument's sake) may be used for in future. At the time £300 may be a perfectly reasonable fee for your design based on the intentions of the client etc... but what if in the future that client does use it for TV ads and such mayor advertising and marketing? Then that £300 was not nearly enough. There no real way of knowing, as clients themselves don't always know.
 
Exactly.

I think by explaining this to a client up front can also eliminate that "Why does a logo cost so much" question.
They're not only getting a bespoke identity. They are also getting one that they own out right.
This is something that I was considering adding to my site as a bit of a "Did you know?" explainer.
 
scotty said:
Exactly.

I think by explaining this to a client up front can also eliminate that "Why does a logo cost so much" question.
They're not only getting a bespoke identity. They are also getting one that they own out right.
This is something that I was considering adding to my site as a bit of a "Did you know?" explainer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they can then argue that they can still get all those things cheaper. Best thing to do is just avoid clients that ask such questions. They wouldn't ask a mechanic that question to get a new alternator fitted in.

But I do have something along those lines in my Ts & Cs regarding ownership of copyright....
 
Paul Murray said:
You would ask for the original alternator though, ya know, just to make sure they actually change it :unsure:
Click to expand...

If your car needed a new alternator, it will be pretty evident whether it has been changed without needing to see the original :D but each to their own I guess.
 
@GCarlD said:
If your car needed a new alternator, it will be pretty evident whether it has been changed without needing to see the original :D but each to their own I guess.
Click to expand...

Going OT again but not always.

I had a head gasket go and the garage insisted it was the water pump and not the HG.
Problem wasn't sorted and I'd no idea if they had swapped the pump just £100 the lighter for it. :(
 
scotty said:
Going OT again but not always.

I had a head gasket go and the garage insisted it was the water pump and not the HG.
Problem wasn't sorted and I'd no idea if they had swapped the pump just £100 the lighter for it. :(
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, does OT = Off Topic? haha

Guys, why don't we open a "Is my mechanic a con-artist?" thread and take this discussion in there? :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top