Vintage Coach Photos & Chat

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

#11,971
Hyacinth said:
I think it was Ebay that tried to put a stop to the sale of hangtags, since some fakes sellers were buying and attatching real hangtags to their fake bags. Coach, like too many other major companies, has tried to stop resellers from listing on Ebay at all, but all they can do legally is limit the number of items that one buyer can purchase from the store or website at one time. Unless you're Asian resellers on one of those shopping junkets, then you can buy out the entire store and Coach will even supply extra-large bags so you can carry your goodies back to the tour bus. :graucho:
Click to expand...

Nah, nah.... I do not believe you did all that to be able to help us out with our never ending questions..... You are the Purse Forum Coach "Yoda".... don't burst my bubble.... :lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gingerone, Transported and Ava_13579
#11,973
Ava_13579 said:
About the catalogs, have a feeling that the distribution might be fair use, but I'm definitely not a lawyer, never mind a judge. (And there could be a precedent to show that I'm wrong; I only went through a handful.)
https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub112/body/
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/ro-ebay-cdcal2015.pdf
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/authorsguild-google-2dcir2015.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm reading it a bit differently but I'm not a lawyer either, so let's just hope that Coach doesn't give a flying you-know-what. I'm just going by what's on their website (we've seen them take down fakes websites for using Coach's name and graphics without permission) and the website says
Tapestry owns or has rights to all of the wallpaper, icons, characters, artwork, images, graphics, music, text, software and other content of the Site (the “Content”), and all HTML, CGI and other code and scripts in any format used to implement the Site (the “Code”). You may not copy, modify, upload, download, transmit, re-publish, display for redistribution to third parties for commercial purposes, or otherwise distribute any Code or Content from the Site without the prior written agreement of Tapestry. All names, logos and trademarks which appear on the Site are the property of Tapestry or are used by Tapestry under license. Your failure to comply with this Terms of Use will constitute breach of contract and will violate Tapestry’s copyright, trademark and other proprietary and industrial property rights."

And that's why lawyers get paid the big bucks. The DMCA is probably the law that most closely applies to the situation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ava_13579
#11,975
Hyacinth said:
I'm reading it a bit differently but I'm not a lawyer either, so let's just hope that Coach doesn't give a flying you-know-what. I'm just going by what's on their website (we've seen them take down fakes websites for using Coach's name and graphics without permission) and the website says
Tapestry owns or has rights to all of the wallpaper, icons, characters, artwork, images, graphics, music, text, software and other content of the Site (the “Content”), and all HTML, CGI and other code and scripts in any format used to implement the Site (the “Code”). You may not copy, modify, upload, download, transmit, re-publish, display for redistribution to third parties for commercial purposes, or otherwise distribute any Code or Content from the Site without the prior written agreement of Tapestry. All names, logos and trademarks which appear on the Site are the property of Tapestry or are used by Tapestry under license. Your failure to comply with this Terms of Use will constitute breach of contract and will violate Tapestry’s copyright, trademark and other proprietary and industrial property rights."

And that's why lawyers get paid the big bucks. The DMCA is probably the law that most closely applies to the situation.
Click to expand...
Not an attorney either but I had to attend a work related seminar given by a former employer’s in-house counsel regarding copyright law. It’s clear that the sale of those images is not legal. But the burden is on Coach to stop it. Most proprietors of copyrighted content do not go after those infringing until it infringes on their financial gain, reputation, etc. eBay will most likely look the other way until they are presented with compelling reason not to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WishingonaCoach and Catbird9
#11,976
Hyacinth said:
I'm reading it a bit differently but I'm not a lawyer either, so let's just hope that Coach doesn't give a flying you-know-what. I'm just going by what's on their website (we've seen them take down fakes websites for using Coach's name and graphics without permission) and the website says
Tapestry owns or has rights to all of the wallpaper, icons, characters, artwork, images, graphics, music, text, software and other content of the Site (the “Content”), and all HTML, CGI and other code and scripts in any format used to implement the Site (the “Code”). You may not copy, modify, upload, download, transmit, re-publish, display for redistribution to third parties for commercial purposes, or otherwise distribute any Code or Content from the Site without the prior written agreement of Tapestry. All names, logos and trademarks which appear on the Site are the property of Tapestry or are used by Tapestry under license. Your failure to comply with this Terms of Use will constitute breach of contract and will violate Tapestry’s copyright, trademark and other proprietary and industrial property rights."

And that's why lawyers get paid the big bucks. The DMCA is probably the law that most closely applies to the situation.
Click to expand...

Yes, that makes sense! A company can’t pretend to be Coach. Doing so could undermine Coach and undercut the company’s sales.

However, I believe the catalogs are a bit different. In the first link I posted, the article describes the factors that are used to determine fair use (https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub112/body/).

When looking at the purpose and character of the digitized Coach catalogs, they’re intended for vintage Coach collectors to be able to access the catalogs. Digitizing these catalogs makes them more accessible to the public, rather than being limited to the finite number of physical catalogs available. Having access to digital reproductions of catalogs can help consumers who want to purchase items in the legal, second hand market for vintage Coach goods.

When looking at the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, the digitized coach catalogs don’t supplant the market for coach catalogs currently being sold by Coach, because you can’t get them from Coach anymore. And Coach never sold them at all; they were free.

So even though they’re complete copies, and even though they’re being sold for profit, I have a feeling that they’d be fine if a decision is ever made on this.
 
#11,977
Ava_13579 said:
Yes, that makes sense! A company can’t pretend to be Coach. Doing so could undermine Coach and undercut the company’s sales.

However, I believe the catalogs are a bit different. In the first link I posted, the article describes the factors that are used to determine fair use (https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub112/body/).

When looking at the purpose and character of the digitized Coach catalogs, they’re intended for vintage Coach collectors to be able to access the catalogs. Digitizing these catalogs makes them more accessible to the public, rather than being limited to the finite number of physical catalogs available. Having access to digital reproductions of catalogs can help consumers who want to purchase items in the legal, second hand market for vintage Coach goods.

When looking at the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, the digitized coach catalogs don’t supplant the market for coach catalogs currently being sold by Coach, because you can’t get them from Coach anymore. And Coach never sold them at all; they were free.

So even though they’re complete copies, and even though they’re being sold for profit, I have a feeling that they’d be fine if a decision is ever made on this.
Click to expand...
Those are interesting points. But one might consider more than just undercutting company sales. Coach might not care for distribution of its cartouche logo, aka the brand, in this manner. The point is, who is it up to decide?
As far as finding out if Coach is fine with this, one who would like to copy vintage catalogue images for sale, would only need to request a written agreement from Coach, as noted on their website.
 
Last edited:
#11,978
Lake Effect said:
Those are interesting points. But one might consider more than just undercutting company sales. Coach might not care for distribution of its cartouche logo, aka the brand, in this manner. The point is, who is it up to decide?
As far as finding out if Coach is fine with this, one who would like to copy vintage catalogue images for sale, would only need to request a written agreement from Coach, as noted on their website.
Click to expand...

Yup, interesting conversation!
I'm not saying that the company would like the sale of digitized vintage catalogs. They wouldn't agree to it. It'd be up to a court to decide about distribution and fair use. However, things like this rarely get that far. The annoyed company will send a cease and desist letter, and the other company or individual will just stop. I'd really like to see a decision on something like this.
Personally, I feel that people who want to collect vintage items should be able to access the information from vintage catalogs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catbird9
#11,979
Ava_13579 said:
Yup, interesting conversation!
I'm not saying that the company would like the sale of digitized vintage catalogs. They wouldn't agree to it. It'd be up to a court to decide about distribution and fair use. However, things like this rarely get that far. The annoyed company will send a cease and desist letter, and the other company or individual will just stop. I'd really like to see a decision on something like this.
Personally, I feel that people who want to collect vintage items should be able to access the information from vintage catalogs.
Click to expand...

Since AFAIK there's never been a test case, we may never know. Which is fine with me. But over the years we've seen Coach (and plenty of other companies too) try really pissy intimidation tactics to "protect" their market and what they claim are their legal rights, so after all these years, not much would surprise me. Let the lawyers thrash it out in the courtroom if it comes to that. Since the sale of old digitized catalogs has no provable economic impact on Coach, I doubt if a judge would waste much time on it.

Meanwhile I'll just browse through the trademark and copyright pages at www.tabberone.com (speaking of intimidation tactics) and try to figure out what would happen, if anything. But that can wait until tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lake Effect, Catbird9 and Ava_13579
#11,980
Ava_13579 said:
About the catalogs, have a feeling that the distribution might be fair use, but I'm definitely not a lawyer, never mind a judge. (And there could be a precedent to show that I'm wrong; I only went through a handful.)
https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub112/body/
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/ro-ebay-cdcal2015.pdf
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/authorsguild-google-2dcir2015.pdf
Click to expand...
Hi. I am a lawyer. Selling copyrighted items for profit is definitely not fair use. Coach owns the copyright. The images are being copied without authorization for profit. There is really no legal argument that this fair use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lake Effect, BeenBurned, whateve and 1 other person
#11,981
Ava_13579 said:
Yup, interesting conversation!
I'm not saying that the company would like the sale of digitized vintage catalogs. They wouldn't agree to it. It'd be up to a court to decide about distribution and fair use. However, things like this rarely get that far. The annoyed company will send a cease and desist letter, and the other company or individual will just stop. I'd really like to see a decision on something like this.
Personally, I feel that people who want to collect vintage items should be able to access the information from vintage catalogs.
Click to expand...

There are literally hundreds of cases where courts have protected copyrights. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds. I understand you may want to access the catalogs, but the seller is profiting off Coach's copyright. Coach spent thousands of dollars producing those catalogs and the pictures and copy in those catalogs. Copyright law makes it illegal for someone else to profit from that effort.

Think about pictures you produce to sell your bags on eBay. You take effort to produce those images. Imagine someone else stealing those pictures and then selling them for profit. You wouldn't be happy about that, would you? That is what copyright law is designed to protect.
 
Last edited:
#11,983
Hyacinth said:
Since AFAIK there's never been a test case, we may never know. Which is fine with me. But over the years we've seen Coach (and plenty of other companies too) try really pissy intimidation tactics to "protect" their market and what they claim are their legal rights, so after all these years, not much would surprise me. Let the lawyers thrash it out in the courtroom if it comes to that. Since the sale of old digitized catalogs has no provable economic impact on Coach, I doubt if a judge would waste much time on it.

Meanwhile I'll just browse through the trademark and copyright pages at www.tabberone.com (speaking of intimidation tactics) and try to figure out what would happen, if anything. But that can wait until tomorrow.
Click to expand...

100% :smile:
 
#11,984
Lake Effect said:
Interesting, a double sided bag, Courier style pockets. I saw this once before. Boy, if this bag could talk, I would love to have a cup of coffee with it . . . Why do I think it went to Woodstock, or hitch hiked cross country? Well, yeah, the obvious use :lol:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-19...410526?hash=item3b31e8cb9e:g:JJ0AAOSw-PFc5ejl
Click to expand...
I'd for sure make sure that bag has no mold. I used to live in that area and where the seller is they had floods in the "antique" area of the city, rebuilt and then had another one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lake Effect
#11,985
coach943 said:
There are literally hundreds of cases where courts have protected copyrights. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds. I understand you may want to access the catalogs, but the seller is profiting off Coach's copyright. Coach spent thousands of dollars producing those catalogs and the pictures and copy in those catalogs. Copyright law makes it illegal for someone else to profit from that effort.

Think about pictures you produce to sell your bags on eBay. You take effort to produce those images. Imagine someone else stealing those pictures and then selling them for profit. You wouldn't be happy about that, would you? That is what copyright law is designed to protect.
Click to expand...

I am fascinated by this conversation, I am no lawyer either but my pictures have been used by others on Ebay and they have been taken down when I reported them, same on Mercari, I definitely was not happy.

And regarding Coach..... I recall the time I was part of the Fan Club of a very famous rock band. Some people were taking pictures at the concerts and then selling them, they claimed they were "their pictures" because they took them, but this band had their name and image copyrighted, so it was a no go, the pictures were taken down by Ebay. So wouldn't be with Coach a similar thing here? Simply that simple? LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top