a few years ago -- bought this useful waterproof vinyl beachbag --
close-up its amazing how tight the print rez is --no easy trick on a piece of cloth !!

yesterday - got my first gf9494 --

look at all the identical details -
and then --all the EXTRA doo-dads on the bag-

asking --if anyone knows if boombox designs are 'protected' ??
and thus the bag designer had to alter their replica ?

I assume the copywrite on the design of that box would run out over time. I'm just guessing.

well it does have extra tweeters.......

the copyright for this has prolly long expired. i mean i think its 25 years i think. not to mention its a tote bag so i dont think that sharp is venturing into that market so they prolly wouldnt care much if at all.

Copyright or not... if it's no longer made or out of print, it's usually an indication that the copyright holder doesn't care about it anymore. So, in that case - fk em'.

I'd hazard to guess if someone were even to make an exact copy of an old school box it could remain in production.Nobody would care about copyright.They've all moved on,died,don't remember or even care,etc.It's just permanently under the radar.One difference would be perhaps a model whose styling is still considered (and still is) marketed today as with Lasonic's 931 series.Even so I feel an aftermarket parts market for old Lasonics (gears,switches,etc.) might not be considered an issue by the company.Believe it or not,we are a community of oddballs,a subculture of sorts .

thanks --
tend to agree with all these opinions -

plus --what better free promotion can sharp, etc ever have --than their exact designs appearing on big bags, beach towels and t-shirts - worldwide

The Sharp brand name, however, is copyrighted and trademarked. Note how they left it off. The APLD may also fall under that category, who knows.


Retro's futuristic designs (which have been lifted by folks selling mousepads on Epay), I wonder if he has any protection from folks using his artwork for profit. I bet he does.

here is what i know/knew about this :

the US patent office had recognized that many artists, designers and musicians were self employed, independent 'start-up' people -

and their fees for copyrights were dirt cheap (like 50 bucks for years of protection)

unlike patents which are very costly-and require an attorney (to get it right)

the copyright applications were fast and easy -

so - if retro or anyone - wanted an exclusive on their own artwork --it was available.
---------------

in the above case --if Sharp did/does have the legal rights to this beautiful design--

then the bag maker probably could have 'rented' the copyright for only about 5% royalties --and had a much nicer bag to sell