Author
|
Topic: 264970727637: NASA Twins Study patch
|
KSCartist Member Posts: 2948 From: Titusville, FL Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 12-09-2020 02:38 PM
In 2014, I was commissioned by NASA's Twins Study science team to create a patch for the mission. Due to the complexity of the design the official patch was 5 inches in diameter.This listing is for an unauthorized replica. Note the size, buyer beware. |
Liembo Member Posts: 682 From: Bothell, WA Registered: Jan 2013
|
posted 12-09-2020 05:44 PM
I've had to contact a few vendors for copyright voilations. If they don't respond to a personal request, you can file through eBay's Verified Rights Owner Program.On other platforms, like TeePublic, RedBubble, CafePress, etc., you may have to file a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violation request. I filed one last week with TeePublic and it only took a day for them to respond and take action. It's an easy process. |
Liembo Member Posts: 682 From: Bothell, WA Registered: Jan 2013
|
posted 12-09-2020 06:39 PM
Wouldn't a patch commissioned by NASA fall under the public domain? I had to sign designs commissioned for NASA to the public domain with a release. |
usafspace Member Posts: 149 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Registered: May 2006
|
posted 12-10-2020 11:35 AM
Liem, yes you are correct. But as you know, the seller in question is ripping everyone off. |
David C Member Posts: 1203 From: Lausanne Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 12-10-2020 12:27 PM
Thanks for the heads up. I didn’t realise. I just bought something from him. |
Liembo Member Posts: 682 From: Bothell, WA Registered: Jan 2013
|
posted 12-10-2020 01:37 PM
If the design is in the public domain, is it "ripping everyone off"? At that point it's a replica. A lot of patch suppliers would be considered counterfeiters if this were the case (Lion Brothers, Cape Kennedy Medals, even myself [Retrorocket Emblems]). I respect that that from a collectable standpoint (and the original artist's position) that such a patch is certainly less desirable, but I don't think they're doing anything unsavory if the design is indeed in the public domain. There are other considerations, too, but as long they're abiding by all the other requirements that may revolve around matters like promotional use, specific logo limitations or surname usage, they're technically not doing anything wrong for those specific designs. Having said that, there are a number of patch vendors like this plying their trade on eBay who are selling a large number of unlicensed patches of various program and manufacturer, such Peanuts and SpaceX. Designs of which I would be quite surprised to learn that they have taken the steps to secure proper permission to reproduce. Now it becomes an issue with supporting vendors who are reproducing public domain designs in one hand but creating unlicensed copies in the other. |
usafspace Member Posts: 149 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Registered: May 2006
|
posted 12-10-2020 03:45 PM
Wow, a lot to take in Liem. When a seller or his alter ego seller name lists other items being sold as original and they are clearly not? |
Liembo Member Posts: 682 From: Bothell, WA Registered: Jan 2013
|
posted 12-10-2020 05:08 PM
Listing in the OP has no mention of "original." Claiming a reproduction as "original" is another matter, but does not apply to the case above. I suppose it could be a lie through omission by omitting the word "replica," but that's somewhat of a slippery slope because it's not applied or required everywhere. |
usafspace Member Posts: 149 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Registered: May 2006
|
posted 12-10-2020 06:27 PM
Liem, you sell patches and we sell patches. I really believe that at least 95% of the folks reading this know that. You know exactly what patches I am referring to. You also know which sellers that I am referring to. But just having this exchange should help a lot of folks so that's a positive. Thank you. |