|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/31/2004 09:38:19 PM · #1 |
i know i can't take pictures of something that says "Sprint" or "Pepsi" and then sell them as my stock images (or am i wrong?).. however, is taking pictures of recognizable objects also prohibited.. for example: a cell phone that is clearly a specific samsung model, but has all model names/makes cloned out, allowable? or, perhaps a picture of a globe that some company can come out and clearly state "that is our design"? in another realm, what about recognizable public objects/designs, such as the Golden Gate Bridge or an overhead of Fenway Park? just thoughts that have crossed my mind (not all of which are applicable to me, but would be nice to know), since i've started playing with my crude studio setup.
i know that i always see shots of potentially recognizable things, but wonder if these may include some contract or anything else with the original manufacturer.
Message edited by author 2004-12-31 21:49:57.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2004 10:08:22 PM · #2 |
You're actually wrong, in a way. Suppose you had a stock photo of a pedestrian drinking a Pepsi with gusto, on the run. If you have a model release, that's YOUR picture; the Pepsi is incidental to it. And besides that, the Pepsi people would love it; every time their product shows up, they are happy, especially if they don't have to pay to place it.
On the other hand, a "stock" photo of nothing BUT a Pepsi can is an infringement. You are copying their trademark. Are they going to complain? Depends on how it's used. If it's the key photo in a "soft drinks are bad for you" campaign, they're gonna be pissed. If it's an illustration in a dictionary under "soft drink can" they are gonna love it.
There's a sort of a de-facto reality, wrapped up in all sorts of legal phrases, about this stuff. The fact is, virtually everything that surrounds you in an urban environment is in some way already copyrighted. Do you expect Ralph Lauren to sue every time his Polo logo shows up in a published shot? Of course not. Beyond that, if your client is a store that stocks Ralph Lauren, and you shoot some of their merchandise for them, you are immune from Ralph Lauren, they have the right to do that. These would be shots that FEATURE Polo gear.
You basically can't copyright anything monumental and visible to the public. Like a bridge. Back in the late 70's, I think it was, Christo did "Running Fence" in Sonoma County, north of San Francisco. Thousands, Millions of pictures of that showed up, in the unlikeliest places. We were one of the "official" photographers, and there was little demand for our work because images were available from so many sources.
On the other extreme, between Carmel and Monterey is a peninsula that is privately held by an investment group, the real estate on which lives Pebble Beach, Cypress Point, and which is traversed by 17-mile Drive, a toll road owned by the corporation. The tickets they sell have on them the "rule" that you cannot sell, without their permission, any images made of or from their proprty. This is the "Lone Cypress" provision, referring to the most-photographed tree in the world. When I lived in Carmel, on a very spectacular day you could hardly see the tree for the pro's clustered around it shooting.
I don't know if they apply this stricture to "art" photos, I think and hope not, but for SURE it has cut down on thre number of local car dealerships hogging the limited parking for their photoshoots, and suchlike.
So we have a world-famous piece of view being controlled by a corporation... The National Park Service (rightly) regulates commercial use of their properties, and charges a fee for approved shoots.
This may be off-topic, I don't know. Last rant of 2004.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2004 11:03:48 PM · #3 |
According to istock, no you can not have ANY logos or information in the picture. So that guy drinking a pepsi on the run, you'd have to smear or otherwise delete the logo. The guy wearing the polo polo, get rid of the logo. Nothing can be left. If it is a design that is obvious, sometimes you can get rid of the brand name and sometimes even if you get rid of the name it can not be sold as stock because it's the design that's protected. I think there are a few car companies that don't allow any of their cars to be in stock. There are buildings that can't be taken as stock. They have a big list over at istock of objects, cars, toys and buildings that are protected.
Istock may be more strict than most stock sites, but the list they have pertains to all stock photos everywhere so even if you are shooting for getty, they can't be sold. |
|
|
|
12/31/2004 11:52:49 PM · #4 |
interesting responses - thanks to both of you for the detailed info.. learned a lot in this thread. i guess that pretty much addresses all my questions.. will make my way over to istock and see what they have to say in specific. thanks bear and cody!
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 02:19:45 AM · #5 |
Another site which might provide some very useful information on copyright and fair use is here.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 09:18:47 AM · #6 |
good info guys.
I'm still wondering if I can take pictures of my own, very recognisable car (well recognisable to 4x4 enthusiasts)
and use it as a t-shirt design, for simplicity it will be vectorised and simplified but it will still be recognisable as a Land Rover. Can I do this? |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 10:17:52 AM · #7 |
Cbon,
For all practical purposes, all of this applies to the COMMERCIAL USE OF IMAGES. We arent' so draconian, yet, that we will send people to jail for putting their own car on their own tee-shirt. Now, if you want to make a Land Rover tee shirt design and sell them over the parts counter at your local dealership, you'd be wise to get permission of course.
But hell, what do I know? I'm just an armchair lawyer, talking commonsense. Others here are being a lot more specific, and people are apparently MUCH more uptight than they were back when I was doing professional photography, so take everything I say with a grain of salt...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 10:21:48 AM · #8 |
When I first signed up, I submitted a picture of my jeep (You couldn't read jeep or anything) -- and they rejected it because of a recognizable trademark or whatever. So I would say probably no on your vehicle there, but that's a guess. You'd have to submit it to find out :-D
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 10:39:25 AM · #9 |
I don't have the copyright statute in front of me (and I'm too lazy,er hungover, to look it an New Years morning). Off the top of my head, for US copyright purposes, the copyrightable features of the design of the 4x4 would fall under "useful articles" under Chapter 13 of the copyright act (www.copyright.gov). Industrial design is something of a grey area since you have to work out separating the copyrightable design elements from the non-copyrightable functional elements.
In any case, if you read the act, it will tell you specifically what protection (i.e. exclusive rights)is being afforded to the copyright holder. In this case, I'm pretty sure the statute says it protects their right to make, import, and sell vehicles with this design. As I recall (I don't regularly deal with this in my practice), I do not think it extends to creating "derivative works" such as T-shirts, photo's and art. This is different than copyrights in art/music/etc. which does grant rights to make derivative works. The rights are different, for both author and consumer, depending on the nature of the work. In this case, you shouldn't even need to get to fair use.
As far as the logo's, that is generally a trademark rather than a copyright issue. As such, placing a Ferrari logo on a shirt would encroach on their registed trademark (under the theory that you were trading commercially on their protected brand).
I would not use what the stock companies say as a source of what is/is not permissable. They are understandably conservative and are often selling in multiple countries with differing laws. They also tend to use copyright as a blanket term for alot of different issues (which I've seen to be an issue on photography sites as well).
Mandatory Disclaimer: Not Legal Advice, for discussion purposes only. |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 02:36:25 PM · #10 |
| Sorry. I go into warning mode when I think of logos and stuff. Like I said, istock probably is stricter with their inspections than other places but since I'm in the habit, it's hard not to pay attention to all that stuff. And from my understanding of the op, he was asking about stock pictures. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/25/2025 11:31:38 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/25/2025 11:31:38 AM EDT.
|
