Ask HN: Are non-exclusive licenses common for logos?
5 comments
Normally exclusive and non-exclusive logos or designs are based on the amount you are paying for the work. Normally the more expensive logos are exclusive and in the contract the designer has a license to display the logo as the work they did for you along with a case study or summary of the client.
A non exclusive would not be good for a business as the designer at any time could make small changes and then use that logo for other clients in a template format (You want original work). In which someone else that purchases services from them could them come after you for having a similar logo.
It is all in the wording of the contract that you have to careful with. Normally all work by a contractor is owned in full by those paying for the work unless otherwise stated in black and white. If you need further guidance I recommend talking with a lawyer to insure a proper contract is created that is fair to you and any contractors that you may work with.
A non exclusive would not be good for a business as the designer at any time could make small changes and then use that logo for other clients in a template format (You want original work). In which someone else that purchases services from them could them come after you for having a similar logo.
It is all in the wording of the contract that you have to careful with. Normally all work by a contractor is owned in full by those paying for the work unless otherwise stated in black and white. If you need further guidance I recommend talking with a lawyer to insure a proper contract is created that is fair to you and any contractors that you may work with.
Usually it's the reverse. You own the full rights, and they have a non-exclusive usage license. I'd also restrict their use in some way, too.
"I'd also restrict their use in some way, too."
It seems like once you start actually doing business with the logo, trademark should do the most important restricting. It may or may not still be a good idea to restrict it further.
It seems like once you start actually doing business with the logo, trademark should do the most important restricting. It may or may not still be a good idea to restrict it further.
This artist is NOT your choice.
You must demand all rights in the artwork, and you may, if you wish, offer the artist, a limited right to display his or her work.
You do NOT want to have partial rights to your own logo.
You want a work for hire agreement, in which you OWN ALL of the work produced. Hire another artist if this is not acceptable to the artist.
You must demand all rights in the artwork, and you may, if you wish, offer the artist, a limited right to display his or her work.
You do NOT want to have partial rights to your own logo.
You want a work for hire agreement, in which you OWN ALL of the work produced. Hire another artist if this is not acceptable to the artist.
This is pretty much the conclusion I came to. Fortunately, I got many replies to my original ad so there are many others to chose from.
Should I be requesting full rights and then agree to license it back to them to display in their portfolio?
I guess I'm not really seeing what is protecting me wrt my logo.
What have others done to protect their rights wrt to their logo?