Anthony Ferguson on fri 29 jan 10
If she was doing the shooting on work time and or using their equipment,
they own it. If the cake was her own, made with her own tools, oven, on he=
r
time, materials, its hers.
She needs to send them a nice letter, thanking them for using her image(s)
while also asking why they used her image without her permission, credit or
compensation--now, as passive aggressive people are, she has to ask herself
if she wants to keep her job, have her hours affected, treatment, etc?
Obviously whoever used her image assumed they own her (as corporations tend
to view their workers) or simply lacks any awareness of intellectual
property rights and respect for the artist. Good luck.
Tony Ferguson
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Antoinette Badenhorst <
clayart_friends10@comcast.net> wrote:
> Guys:
>
>
>
> this is about cakes , but what if it was clay?
>
>
>
> my daughter is a cake decorator that decorated a cake for a magazine at t=
he
> company she worked for.
>
>
>
> When the magazine got released her images was published without recogniti=
on
> to her, but mentioning the company name as well as recognizing other
> persons involved in the article.
>
>
>
> In the same issue this company used my daughters image,
>
>
>
> taken by herself,
>
>
>
> of a cake she created herself,
>
>
>
> away from work, ( she were allowed to do private work)
>
>
>
> without her permission,
>
>
>
> without recognizing her in it
>
>
>
> for a commersial.
>
>
>
> Does she have any rights here and if so what are they and how should she
> address them?
>
>
>
> As always thanks.
>
>
>
> Antoinette Badenhorst
> Lincolnshire, Illinois
>
--
Cheers,
Tony
__________________________
Tony Ferguson, MA Visual Arts
Artist/Educator
http://www.tonyferguson.net
http://www.fergyphoto.com
Workshops, Training & Online Education
Antoinette Badenhorst on fri 29 jan 10
Guys:=3D20
this is about cakes , but what if it was clay?=3D20
my daughter is a cake decorator that decorated a cake for a magazine at the=
=3D
company she worked for.=3D20
When the magazine got released her images was published without recognition=
=3D
to her, but mentioning the company name as well as recognizing other perso=
=3D
ns=3DC2=3DA0 involved in the article.=3D20
In the same issue this company used my daughters=3DC2=3DA0image,=3DC2=3DA0=
=3D20
taken by herself, =3DC2=3DA0=3D20
of a cake she created herself,=3D20
away from work, ( she were allowed to do private work)=3D20
without her permission,=3D20
without recognizing her in it=3D20
for a commersial.=3D20
Does she have any rights here and if so what are they and how should she ad=
=3D
dress them?=3D20
As always thanks.=3D20
=3DC2=3DA0Antoinette Badenhorst=3D20
Lincolnshire, Illinois=3D20
Nancy Spinella on fri 29 jan 10
I'm no lawyer, so I can't give legal advice. I can say that if you look up
your state/county on this site:
http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/lris/directory/
you can find a lawyer who will offer a 30-minute consultation for around $3=
5
(rates vary per state; some are as low as $30, others as high as $45).
States have a listing of lawyers who participate in the Lawyer Referral
Service program.
My gut instinct is that it's wrong if the person had her image and her
personally taken photograph used without her permission. But my two cents
aren't legally worth anything. :)
--Nancy
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Antoinette Badenhorst <
clayart_friends10@comcast.net> wrote:
> Guys:
>
>
>
> this is about cakes , but what if it was clay?
>
>
>
> my daughter is a cake decorator that decorated a cake for a magazine at t=
he
> company she worked for.
>
>
>
> When the magazine got released her images was published without recogniti=
on
> to her, but mentioning the company name as well as recognizing other
> persons involved in the article.
>
>
>
> In the same issue this company used my daughters image,
>
>
>
> taken by herself,
>
>
>
> of a cake she created herself,
>
>
>
> away from work, ( she were allowed to do private work)
>
>
>
> without her permission,
>
>
>
> without recognizing her in it
>
>
>
> for a commersial.
>
>
>
> Does she have any rights here and if so what are they and how should she
> address them?
>
>
>
> As always thanks.
>
>
>
> Antoinette Badenhorst
> Lincolnshire, Illinois
>
Mea Rhee on fri 29 jan 10
Antoinette,
"for a magazine at the company she worked for"
This is the key phrase. Anything she created or photographed at the behes=
=3D
t of her=3D20
employer is the property of her employer. Even if she did the work offsit=
=3D
e. Even if her=3D20
usual job description has nothing to do with cakes. They didn't need her =
=3D
permission and=3D20
no credit was due to her.
She is still allowed to use the published image to promote her cake decor=
=3D
ating services.=3D20
"My work appeared in the January 2010 issue of XYZ Magazine." So she shou=
=3D
ld reap as=3D20
much value as she can.=3D20
But for the future, to retain her intellectual property rights she needs =
=3D
to sign a written=3D20
agreement with her employer covering future cakes. It's her responsibilit=
=3D
y to initiate this.=3D20
Sorry for the bad news ... if your daughter is serious about running a ca=
=3D
ke business, she=3D20
should use this experience as motivation to learn about her rights and ho=
=3D
w to manage=3D20
them.
Mea
steve graber on fri 29 jan 10
you certainly do have rights!=3DA0 sounds like a gross error on the editor.=
=3D
=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0Amy lawyer, matt taylor, also a good potter, took pains for =
me to =3D
get approval to use an image of=3DA0HIS little kid in a pot=3DA0HE made tha=
t i =3D
used for a christmas ad in clay times december 2009.=3DA0 and the picture o=
f =3D
HIS kids was taken by HIS sister in law.=3DA0 it's his business to make sur=
e =3D
we all were clean on what we did.=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0Areally cute kid!=3DA0 i ma=
de a sma=3D
ll poster for matt and need to make a few pots for the little kid too...=3D=
A0=3D
=3D0A=3D0Anow, for your daughter=3DA0the resolution might be a public "i'm=
sorry=3D
" or lifetime subscription to the magazine...=3DA0=3DA0=3D0A=3DA0Steve Grab=
er, Grab=3D
er's Pottery, Inc=3D0AClaremont, California USA=3D0AThe Steve Tool - for aw=
esom=3D
e texture on pots! =3D0Awww.graberspottery.com steve@graberspottery.com =3D=
0A=3D
=3D0A=3D0AOn Laguna Clay's website=3D0Ahttp://www.lagunaclay.com/blogs/ =3D=
0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D
=3D0A----- Original Message ----=3D0A> From: Antoinette Badenhorst _fri=3D
ends10@COMCAST.NET>=3D0A> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG=3D0A> Sent: Thu, Jan=
uary=3D
28, 2010 7:13:56 PM=3D0A> Subject: legal issues around images.=3D0A> =3D0A=
> Guys=3D
: =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> this is about cakes , but what if it was clay=
? =3D0A> =3D
=3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> my daughter is a cake decorator that decorated a cake =
for a =3D
magazine at the =3D0A> company she worked for. =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =
When the m=3D
agazine got released her images was published without recognition to =3D0A>=
h=3D
er, but mentioning the company name as well as recognizing other persons=3D=
A0=3D
=3D0A> involved in the article. =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> In the same is=
sue this c=3D
ompany used my daughters=3DA0image,=3DA0 =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> taken =
by herself, =3D
=3DA0 =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> of a cake she created herself, =3D0A> =3D=
0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D
away from work, ( she were allowed to do private work) =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A>=
=3D0A> =3D
without her permission, =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> without recognizing her=
in it =3D
=3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> for a commersial. =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> D=
oes she have any=3D
rights here and if so what are they and how should she address =3D0A> them=
? =3D
=3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> As always thanks. =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =
=3DA0Antoinette Bad=3D
enhorst =3D0A> Lincolnshire, Illinois =3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
steve graber on sat 30 jan 10
slavery was abolished around 1865 or thereabout.=3DA0 companies do not own =
us=3D
just because they see our face from 7am to 5pm.=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3DA0S=
teve Grabe=3D
r, Graber's Pottery, Inc=3D0AClaremont, California USA=3D0AThe Steve Tool -=
for=3D
awesome texture on pots! =3D0Awww.graberspottery.com steve@graberspottery.=
co=3D
m =3D0A=3D0A=3D0AOn Laguna Clay's website=3D0Ahttp://www.lagunaclay.com/blo=
gs/ =3D0A=3D
=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A----- Original Message ----=3D0A> From: Mea Rhee EPHANT.C=3D
OM>=3D0A> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG=3D0A> Sent: Sat, January 30, 2010 6:=
22:0=3D
8 AM=3D0A> Subject: Re: legal issues around images.=3D0A> =3D0A> Hi Tony,=
=3D0A> =3D0A=3D
> "If the cake was her own, made with her own tools, oven, on her=3D0A> tim=
e,=3D
materials, its hers."=3D0A> =3D0A> I'm afraid this isn't true in this case=
, be=3D
cause she is an employee of the =3D0A> company that =3D0A> used her cake an=
d ph=3D
oto. Fair or not, the employer does own her. =3D0A> =3D0A> Back when I was =
an e=3D
mployee, I did plenty of photo shoots for work, at home on =3D0A> my own =
=3D0A>=3D
time with my own camera. Those photos belonged to my employer. My rights w=
=3D
ere =3D0A> limited to claiming credit for purposes of self-promotion. =3D0A=
> =3D
=3D0A> This is why I became self-employed. An independent contractor has wa=
y =3D
more =3D0A> rights. But =3D0A> even still we have to state them in writing =
and =3D
defend them sometimes. =3D0A> =3D0A> I think she has some moral rights here=
, ev=3D
en if the law is not in her corner =3D0A> this time. She =3D0A> should talk=
to =3D
her boss about the situation, in way that states she understands =3D0A> the=
=3D
=3D0A> company was within their rights, but they were inconsiderate to her,=
a=3D
nd an =3D0A> apology =3D0A> would settle the matter. And would they agree t=
o a =3D
written contract covering =3D0A> future =3D0A> cakes?=3D0A> =3D0A> Mea=3D0A=
=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A =3D
Mea Rhee on sat 30 jan 10
Hi Tony,
"If the cake was her own, made with her own tools, oven, on her
time, materials, its hers."
I'm afraid this isn't true in this case, because she is an employee of th=
=3D
e company that=3D20
used her cake and photo. Fair or not, the employer does own her.=3D20
Back when I was an employee, I did plenty of photo shoots for work, at ho=
=3D
me on my own=3D20
time with my own camera. Those photos belonged to my employer. My rights =
=3D
were=3D20
limited to claiming credit for purposes of self-promotion.=3D20
This is why I became self-employed. An independent contractor has way mor=
=3D
e rights. But=3D20
even still we have to state them in writing and defend them sometimes.=3D20=
=3D
I think she has some moral rights here, even if the law is not in her cor=
=3D
ner this time. She=3D20
should talk to her boss about the situation, in way that states she under=
=3D
stands the=3D20
company was within their rights, but they were inconsiderate to her, and =
=3D
an apology=3D20
would settle the matter. And would they agree to a written contract cover=
=3D
ing future=3D20
cakes?
Mea
May Luk on sat 30 jan 10
Hello Antoinette:
If she was an employee, she has no right to anything. The company owns
all the rights. But she could use the prints for her portfolio.
If she was a independent contractor / freelancer, then the right is
discussed before any work is done. It would be part of the contract.
These things need to discuss before hand because they affect the
pricing structure.
May
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Anthony Ferguson wrot=
=3D
e:
> If she was doing the shooting on work time and or using their equipment,
> they own it. =3DA0If the cake was her own, made with her own tools, oven,=
o=3D
n her
> time, materials, its hers.
>
> She needs to send them a nice letter, thanking them for using her image(s=
=3D
)
> while also asking why they used her image without her permission, credit =
=3D
or
> compensation--now, as passive aggressive people are, she has to ask herse=
=3D
lf
> if she wants to keep her job, have her hours affected, treatment, etc?
>
> Obviously whoever used her image assumed they own her (as corporations te=
=3D
nd
> to view their workers) or simply lacks any awareness of intellectual
> property rights and respect for the artist. =3DA0Good luck.
>
> Tony Ferguson
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Antoinette Badenhorst <
> clayart_friends10@comcast.net> wrote:
>
--=3D20
http://twitter.com/MayLuk
Fred Parker on sat 30 jan 10
Antoinette:
Throughout my career in architecture and also in marketing I have wrestle=
=3D
d
with this issue. Sadly, I never resolved it because it involves so many
more issues that simple copyright infringement. Specifically, it involve=
=3D
s a
healthy dose of client/employer intimidation. Although rarely spoken the=
=3D
implied threat is this: "Go ahead and make something of it. We will neve=
=3D
r
hire you again..."
Architects often do "go ahead and make something of it" because in
architecture it usually is about unauthorized use of a set of design
drawings -- an action that stiffs the architect out of his design fee, wh=
=3D
ich
can be many thousands of dollars depending on the project size and
complexity. It still happens -- many times with land speculators looking=
=3D
to
make their $$$ off the labors of others. In those cases architects often=
=3D
treat it as a wager. "It might hit big" if the project goes ahead, etc.=3D=
20=3D
However, for those who deal in smaller projects like cakes, graphic desig=
=3D
n
services et. al. the instigator knows two things: 1) many simply do not k=
=3D
now
enough about it to make it an issue. They want more work, so the instiga=
=3D
tor
assumes they will shut up and treat it as a "marketing cost" in an effort=
=3D
to
avoid "offending" the client/customer/employer; and 2) those who wantonly=
=3D
steal from others (and that is what it is) typically weigh their prospect=
=3D
s
very carefully before doing the thievery. They know few people are so
passionate (or wealthy) to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to hire=
=3D
a
pricey lawyer over a relatively small copyright claim, especially when th=
=3D
ey
aren't sure if they even have a case.
There are distinctions made regarding copyright ownership depending on
circumstances of the situation. It is true that work done while an emplo=
=3D
yee
of a company generally accrues to the company. There are exceptions, but=
=3D
generally they have to be decided in advance. However, simply because on=
=3D
e
might be an employee of a company does not mean the company then has full=
=3D
ownership of every creative product the employee produces with her own
equipment on her own time.=3D20=3D20
For more information there is a good discussion of U.S. copyright law at
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ if you want to read it. I am inclined t=
=3D
o
recommend to your daughter that she take this as a learning/growing
opportunity instead of an adversarial challenge. In the future she can h=
=3D
ave
a simple agreement or "memorandum of understanding" stating what credit s=
=3D
he
wants for the use of her images. It is not uncommon for companies to cre=
=3D
dit
employees for photography, especially companies that try hard to have
better-than-average employee relationships.
Good luck. It's a tough nut to crack.
Fred Parker=3D20
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:13:56 +0000, Antoinette Badenhorst
wrote:
>Guys:=3D20
>
>
>
>this is about cakes , but what if it was clay?=3D20
>
>
>
>my daughter is a cake decorator that decorated a cake for a magazine at =
=3D
the
company she worked for.=3D20
>
>
>
>When the magazine got released her images was published without recognit=
=3D
ion
to her, but mentioning the company name as well as recognizing other
persons=3DC2=3DA0 involved in the article.=3D20
Steve Slatin on sun 31 jan 10
No, Steve, they don't own us -- but they may own
the right to use pictures of us at work, or the
work that we perform at their behest even away=3D20
from the worksite, and so forth.
The law books are full of cases where people=3D20
thought they owned what they did but it turned
out their employer did.
Basically, the idea is -- no, you're not a slave --
you're free to quit.
Steve Slatin --=3D20
--- On Sat, 1/30/10, steve graber wrote:
> slavery was abolished around 1865 or
> thereabout.=3DA0 companies do not own us just because they see
> our face from 7am to 5pm.=3DA0=3D20
>=3D20
>=3D20
=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
Barry Porter on sun 31 jan 10
It is interesting the differing viewpoints that an artist in general woul=
=3D
d have vs=3D20
folks in other professional fields. ie;copyright and patent issues
In short, I am an Engineer for the paying gig and they(the company I work=
=3D
=3D20
for) own everything I do whether at work or on my own time. Period.
Its been that way at most Engineering firms for just about forever.=3D20=3D=
20=3D
I urge folks to really take a hard look at employment contracts - I think=
=3D
most=3D20
would be shocked in modern days to see just what they give up in order to=
=3D
=3D20
work for someone else.
Having said that, if I create something that is patent worthy, I am named=
=3D
,=3D20
along with the company as the patent holder and I do get a piece of the p=
=3D
rofit=3D20
above my salary. I can't image trying to defend a patent these days on m=
=3D
y=3D20
own anyway!!!!
I asked one of our Patent Attorneys a few years back just how hard it had=
=3D
=3D20
gotten to defend patents with China in the mix. The answer, "how much do=
=3D
=3D20
you want to spend in legal fees, know that up front". Apparently, patent=
=3D
s are=3D20
as good as your legal team and depth of pockets?
Porter
The Cottage Crafter
Randall Moody on sun 31 jan 10
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:35 AM, steve graber wrote:
> slavery was abolished around 1865 or thereabout. companies do not own us
> just because they see our face from 7am to 5pm.
>
>
> Steve Graber, Graber's Pottery, Inc
>
>
True but many times they do own your intellectual property rights. Check th=
e
contract and see. Also, it probably has been said before that if the person
"wronged" pushes too far she may not have anything to worry about. Many
times you have to ask yourself, "Is this the hill I want to die on?"
--
Randall in Atlanta
Antoinette Badenhorst on mon 1 feb 10
There are many lessons to be learned from this kind of situation and too of=
=3D
ten we as artists are too eager for exposure to really act out our rights. =
=3D
Seems to me that we are dealing with the old old story of make a contract o=
=3D
r read the contract.=3D20
Thanks for all the input on this. I am not sure if it is worth fighting ove=
=3D
r. B est will probably as many of you suggested to add this to ones portfol=
=3D
io, which I can say my daughter is building at a speed. Here she cooks: htt=
=3D
p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DRa0FeeWrOaM =3DC2=3DA0=3D20
Antoinette Badenhorst=3D20
Lincolnshire, Illinoise=3D20
Hank Murrow on tue 2 feb 10
On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:03 AM, steve graber wrote in part:
> Barry - when i created my little texture tool, the patent-trademark
> lawyer told me to expect to pay a minimum of $250,000 to attempt to
> defend a patent. with an upfront fee of around $5000 to even APPLY
> for the patent, it shows how it's a process geared for the mega
> rich. so i did a trademark which is on par with say Coke for a
> trademarked beverage... i call the fancy US paperwork my "self
> paced MBA". besides, wheels have been making marks in clay since
> the first wagon rolled thru mud... some companies do not file
> patents because the approval process basically anounces to the
> world that they did something new. they find by skipping the
> process they sneak something to the market without fan fair and
> capture the higher market share. statistics say the first to the
> market retains some 60% and higher of market share even when copy
> cats come on board with their product.
Hank continues the Theme......
After developing my Doorless Fiberkiln, I asked a designer friend
about patents. He asked how big the market was for ceramic kilns. I
didn't know, but asked several kiln companies how many they sold in a
year. It seemed that only around 70 a year in the US & Canada was an
average total! My friend said..... "Don't bother about a patent,
there is no market to defend."
Good advice. In the thirty years since it appeared on the market, no
one has produced a copy, and I am exceedingly glad to be firing mine
rather than making them. 20 was enough!
Cheers, Hank in Eugene
PS: John Dix's workshop was superb!
steve graber on tue 2 feb 10
Barry - you have a nice company to cut you in on the profits.=3DA0 my first=
p=3D
atent with a tractor part company didn't even yield me a handshake.=3DA0 no=
$=3D
5 bonus, nada.=3DA0 goes to show you what some companies are like.=3DA0 i e=
ven =3D
worked at a company where the two key people on a design were NOT named on =
=3D
the patent!=3DA0 i talked with a lawyer friend about "how come" writers get=
a=3D
piece of the action for a lifetime and engineers - who create quite a bit =
=3D
- get nada?=3DA0 a lack of a union much less strong union...=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0=
Awhen i =3D
created my little texture tool, the patent-trademark lawyer told me to expe=
=3D
ct to pay a minimum of $250,000 to attempt to defend a patent.=3DA0 with an=
u=3D
pfront fee of around $5000 to even APPLY for the patent, it shows how it's =
=3D
a process geared for the mega rich.=3DA0 so i did a trademark which is on p=
ar=3D
with say Coke for a trademarked beverage...=3DA0 i call the fancy US paper=
wo=3D
rk my "self paced MBA".=3DA0 =3DA0besides, wheels have been making marks in=
cla=3D
y since the first wagon rolled thru mud...=3DA0 some companies do not file =
pa=3D
tents because the approval process basically anounces to the world that the=
=3D
y did something new.=3DA0 they find by skipping the process they sneak some=
th=3D
ing to the market without fan fair and capture the higher market share.=3DA=
0 =3D
statistics say the first to the market retains some 60% and higher of marke=
=3D
t share even when copy cats come on board with their product.=3DA0 =3D0A=3D=
0Amean=3D
while, compaines do not own "everything" by default.=3DA0 if i design somet=
hi=3D
ng on my own time that is not in line with a company's business plan, or co=
=3D
mpete with them, it's mine, not theirs.=3DA0 if however i design something =
ri=3D
ght down the line of what they do, it's theirs no matter how much personal =
=3D
time and money i spend on it.=3DA0 it is a troubling area and there are man=
y =3D
cases of people trying to break away and do their own product from learning=
=3D
how it's done at an employer.=3DA0 recently that Bratz doll was a break aw=
ay=3D
guy from Matel.=3DA0 even though he offered it to Matel when he worked the=
re=3D
, and Matel said no, he left to release it in another company.=3DA0 then lo=
st=3D
the court battles.=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0Aanother comapny i worked with filed pate=
nts on=3D
ly for bragging rights.=3DA0 they'd see their products directly copied and =
di=3D
d nothing about it.=3DA0 go figure.=3DA0 why spend the money?=3DA0 they lik=
e havi=3D
ng a conference room with official US Patents hanging on the walls...=3DA0 =
it=3D
looks really cool...=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3DA0Steve Graber, Graber's Pottery, I=
nc=3D0ACla=3D
remont, California USA=3D0AThe Steve Tool - for awesome texture on pots! =
=3D0Aw=3D
ww.graberspottery.com steve@graberspottery.com =3D0A=3D0A=3D0AOn Laguna Cla=
y's we=3D
bsite=3D0Ahttp://www.lagunaclay.com/blogs/ =3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A----- Origin=
al Message=3D
----=3D0A> From: Barry Porter =3D0A> To: Clayar=
t@LS=3D
V.CERAMICS.ORG=3D0A> Sent: Sun, January 31, 2010 3:06:52 PM=3D0A> Subject: =
Re: =3D
legal issues around images.=3D0A> =3D0A> It is interesting the differing vi=
ewpo=3D
ints that an artist in general would have =3D0A> vs =3D0A> folks in other p=
rofe=3D
ssional fields. ie;copyright and patent issues=3D0A> =3D0A> In short, I am =
an E=3D
ngineer for the paying gig and they(the company I work =3D0A> for) own ever=
yt=3D
hing I do whether at work or on my own time.=3DA0 Period.=3D0A> Its been th=
at w=3D
ay at most Engineering firms for just about forever.=3DA0 =3D0A> =3D0A> I u=
rge fo=3D
lks to really take a hard look at employment contracts - I think most =3D0A=
> =3D
would be shocked in modern days to see just what they give up in order to =
=3D
=3D0A> work for someone else.=3D0A> =3D0A> Having said that, if I create so=
methin=3D
g that is patent worthy, I am named, =3D0A> along with the company as the p=
at=3D
ent holder and I do get a piece of the profit =3D0A> above my salary.=3DA0 =
I ca=3D
n't image trying to defend a patent these days on my =3D0A> own anyway!!!!=
=3D0A=3D
> =3D0A> I asked one of our Patent Attorneys a few years back just how hard=
i=3D
t had =3D0A> gotten to defend patents with China in the mix.=3DA0 The answe=
r, "=3D
how much do =3D0A> you want to spend in legal fees, know that up front".=3D=
A0 A=3D
pparently, patents are =3D0A> as good as your legal team and depth of pocke=
ts=3D
?=3D0A> Porter=3D0A> The Cottage Crafter=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
| |
|
