[FYJX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xguntherc /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't tell the faceplate are different. They look like one solid piece

I'm not saying the faceplate is broken into pieces. Since the faceplate is a separate piece to the body of the shell, it has to be put on later. I'm saying it's easy to see that the faceplate is a separate piece for Fisher Hearings job, while it's much harder to see on a Unique Melody monitor/remold. However, i'm sure build quality wise both are top notch.

 

[ravissimo]

got a calendar of scenic america from fisher hearing in the mail today. thanks FH! now i'm just waiting for my right shell to come back for a refit... got to FH on wed, 12/30/09. hopefully i'll get the reshelled shell sometime early this decade!

 

[xguntherc]

Is it just me or has it seemed like most of the time people need the right refit. Or am I just crazy on that thought.

 

[pseudohippy]

I needed the left refit, I think you might be crazy lol.

 

[immtbiker]

I'm not the "logo"police, but I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to put another company's logo on your product, even if that product is inside yours. You would have to get permission from that company otherwise it makes it seem like it's made by that company, which is copyright infringement.

I'll stick to some clip art.

You can't just put "Kleenex" on any box of tissues or call any copier a "Xerox".

 

[elnero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not the "logo"police, but I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to put another company's logo on your product, even if that product is inside yours. You would have to get permission from that company otherwise it makes it seem like it's made by that company, which is copyright infringement. I'll stick to some clip art. You can't just put "Kleenex" on any box of tissues or call any copier a "Xerox".

But what if the tissue inside the box are actual "Kleenex" brand or the guts of the copier are "Xerox"?

I do agree though, I think legally they probably would need permission as the product as whole is not that of the innards. Would those companies really care though, it seems like it would actually be free advertising that they wouldn't get otherwise.

 

[SenorLoco]

Wow. I just finished reading all 71 pages and I'm kinda bummed I don't have more to read

I actually had a pair of TripleFi 10s on their way before seeing this thread and I'm already picking out colors and logos

This is a bad place that is going to cost me a lot of money....and I love it!

 

[intoflatlines]

Welcome to Head-Fi, and sorry about your wallet!

I can't wait to get mine back, I hope there's no fit issues.

 

[Darkon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not the "logo"police, but I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to put another company's logo on your product, even if that product is inside yours. You would have to get permission from that company otherwise it makes it seem like it's made by that company, which is copyright infringement. I'll stick to some clip art. You can't just put "Kleenex" on any box of tissues or call any copier a "Xerox".

I'll start this off by saying I'm not a lawyer, but I think this situation is (or would be) different than you describe.

Fisher isn't putting another company's name on their product and promoting it as the "real thing". Rather, Fisher's product is a custom ear mold with user-supplied internal components with the option of including a customer-specified (and possibly user-provided) customized graphic. If the customer provides a graphic that infringes on the copyright of another company, I'd consider that as the customer is violating the copyright rather than Fisher.

For example, it is easily possible that a customer could provide Fisher with a graphic or name that is used by some company that Fisher knows nothing about. According to your logic, you are saying that Fisher would be violating copyright or somehow has a responsibility to research every logo provided by every customer to ensure it doesn't violate another company's copyright, but I think this would be an unreasonable burden on any company. Your logic would also put any print house or copier company at legal risk if you went there and use their equipment to make a copy of something that was copyrighted by another company.

Instead, I say it is Fisher's customer that is possibly at risk here rather than Fisher. But even in that case, as long as you aren't reselling your customized IEMs, you should be completely safe...as safe as you would be if you put the logo on them after you got them back from Fisher.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but using the above logic I don't see how Fisher could be held liable for any copyright infringement unless Fisher are providing the copyrighted logos from other companies for the customer to choose from rather than the customer providing the logo.

 

[intoflatlines]

Regardless of who is in the wrong, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to use a registered trademark without the owner's permission.

 

[intoflatlines]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xguntherc /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a silver color. And it's shiny and looks great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaoDi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Its the powdery silver i believe, it should be something similar to this.

xguntherc - does the silver look like this close up? I can't tell from the pics.

 

[Darkon]

It depends on what you mean by "use".

Is it illegal if a kid draws a picture of Mickey Mouse on their refrigerator door? I don't think so.

Is it illegal to get a tatoo of Mickey Mouse on your arm? I don't think so.

Is it illegal to put a picture of Mickey Mouse on your personal custom IEM's? I don't think so.

Is it illegal to put a picture of Mickey Mouse on your product and then profit form the sales of that product? - Yes, I think so, but this isn't what Fisher would be doing because they are only charging for the service of putting the customer-provided art on the IEMs (much like the tatoo artist).

There are also exceptions to copyrights where you can have limited use of copyrighted information. I don't know what all of th exceptions are, but there are definitely some exceptions and this could be one of them.

Again, I'm not a laywer and could be wrong, but until a copyright lawyer steps into this discussion I'd avoid making such strong statements about what is or isn't illegal.

 

[immtbiker]

Again, I am saying, what I am saying, as a member and not a moderator, but when someone is walking around with those UE branded customs, it appears to any outside viewer, that it was made by UE, eg.
If you sold hamburgers made at home and sold them (even for friends) with the McDonald's arches on them, I don't think McDonald's would appreciate it.
Companies pay lots of money to preserve their trademarks.

It's what separates them from the rest.

 

[a.dickens]

@Darkon, I see where you are coming from. You are claiming that Fisher adding the logo to their product as simple art is fair use of a logo.

However, I err on the side of immtbiker and Fisher with this issue. Fisher is putting another company's logo on their product which is the same logo that another company is using for the same product. This issue doesn't fall under the issue of copyright, but rather the issue of using a company's trademark. There is fair use (regarding the legal definition) in the use of trademark, but branding a product, which in effect is what Fisher would be doing, with another company's logo is sketchy at best. Companies spend a great deal of time and money to protect their trademarks.

Now I understand that applying UE's trademark on the custom IEM is at the request of a customer, but I think Fisher is relying on their better judgement with this matter. I actually was surprised that they put the Shure logo on another customers IEM's.

"I never passed the bar but I know a little somethin"

 

[Darkon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.dickens /img/forum/go_quote.gif @Darkon, I see where you are coming from. You are claiming that Fisher adding the logo to their product as simple art is fair use of a logo. However, I err on the side of immtbiker and Fisher with this issue. Fisher is putting another company's logo on their product which is the same logo that another company is using for the same product. This issue doesn't fall under the issue of copyright, but rather the issue of using a company's trademark. There is fair use (regarding the legal definition) in the use of trademark, but branding a product, which in effect is what Fisher would be doing, with another company's logo is sketchy at best. Companies spend a great deal of time and money to protect their trademarks. Now I understand that applying UE's trademark on the custom IEM is at the request of a customer, but I think Fisher is relying on their better judgement with this matter. I actually was surprised that they put the Shure logo on another customers IEM's. "I never passed the bar but I know a little somethin"

For the most part, I think we are in agreement.

I think the key point of disagreement is that I'm saying that if the logo is PROVIDED by the customer, then Fisher (or any company) would be in the clear for the same reason that Kinko's is able to stay in business. It is simply not reasonable to expect Fisher (or Kinko's) to determine if something they are given by a customer is copyrighted or not. And in most cases, it is simply not possible for them to make this determination.

Of course, if Fisher is the one to seek out the copyrighted graphic and use it (even at the customer's request), then I agree with you that this would quite possibly be a violation of the copyright because in the process of obtaining the copyrighted information it would be implausable that you wouldn't know it was copyrighted.

In the first case, I don't think you would get sued for copyright infringment as long as you didn't try to sell your IEM's to someone else. It doesn't mean you CAN'T get sued, but the owner of the copyright would have a hard time building a case to demonstrate how your use of their copyrighted item had any negative impact on them or any positive financial benefit to you.

That said, I completely understand Fisher not wanting to put another company's logo on their custom molds. You don't actually have to do anything wrong to get sued, and sometimes just the risk of getting sued is enough reason to not do someting because even if you win, you still end up losing due to time spent defending yourself. In court, the only real winners are the lawyers.

I think that's about all I have left to say on the matter to try to clarify my point. Now back to waiting for my TF10's to come back from Fisher.