| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/18/2009 06:05:19 AM · #1 |
Let me start off by saying that I have no clue about legal stuff but I am interested in exploring this issue; partly because of something that happened to me this week.
Let's try a thought experiment - I take part in the Automobile Ad Challenge; I shoot a Bentley (no, not mine! (wrong color!!), I give it a caption, I call it, 'Bentley - Elegance and Power', I win the challenge (dream-on!) so the image gets a fair bit of traffic, it becomes easily found on Google Images.
How is that I don't leave myself open to legal action by Bentley (VW/Audi) for messing with a brand they actively manage and control? Do we all need to add a bit of disclaimer text to such images?
By way of a bit of related context, last week I had cause to shoot in a (quite iconic - seen on DPC and 1x) Shopping Mall; I got pulled up by a security guard and was told I needed a 'pass'; I went to the Management Centre to apply for one and was told that it was £150 per hour to shoot in the mall (or outside it within the footprint they owned); the justification was that they 'Shot their own photos and they didn't like seeing other images on the Internet all the time'. Slightly different I know, but it got me thinking about the rights companies have in managing and marketing their own brands.
In the end, we could contend that people take photos of cars all the time - but is this different? As a faux advert, with a caption etc, are we at risk of litigation by the brand owners?
I am sure there will be some experts here who can put my worries to rest.
Paul |
|
|
|
05/18/2009 06:20:27 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
Let me start off by saying that I have no clue about legal stuff but I am interested in exploring this issue; partly because of something that happened to me this week.
Let's try a thought experiment - I take part in the Automobile Ad Challenge; I shoot a Bentley (no, not mine! (wrong color!!), I give it a caption, I call it, 'Bentley - Elegance and Power', I win the challenge (dream-on!) so the image gets a fair bit of traffic, it becomes easily found on Google Images.
How is that I don't leave myself open to legal action by Bentley (VW/Audi) for messing with a brand they actively manage and control? Do we all need to add a bit of disclaimer text to such images?
By way of a bit of related context, last week I had cause to shoot in a (quite iconic - seen on DPC and 1x) Shopping Mall; I got pulled up by a security guard and was told I needed a 'pass'; I went to the Management Centre to apply for one and was told that it was £150 per hour to shoot in the mall (or outside it within the footprint they owned); the justification was that they 'Shot their own photos and they didn't like seeing other images on the Internet all the time'. Slightly different I know, but it got me thinking about the rights companies have in managing and marketing their own brands.
In the end, we could contend that people take photos of cars all the time - but is this different? As a faux advert, with a caption etc, are we at risk of litigation by the brand owners?
I am sure there will be some experts here who can put my worries to rest.
Paul |
The advertisement doesn't have to include the logo - in fact, it might not even matter as long as the logo wasn't placed into the advertisement after the fact. As long as it's part of the car, that's fair game - you can't avoid that and frankly, if it's your or somebody's car, it's part of the car.
And the challenge criteria say to create an advertisement to increase sales for cars - doesn't have to be a specific make/model of car.
I don't think there is a problem - although you do live in the Euro Zone and the rules might be different. |
|
|
|
05/18/2009 06:31:34 AM · #3 |
Hi,
I make no claim that I'm any kind of expert, but this is my opinion (and from a United States perspective).
Regarding your first scenario of an image of the Bentley (or any brand X product), if it's "art" and you're not benefiting financially, I don't see how Bentley can pursue you "in a legal action." Its your art work.
Regarding your second scenario, images shot in a mall. The persons in authority for the mall (which is private property) can control their property by charging a fee to shoot in the mall or on their property; restricting, controlling activities on their (private) property. However, if you're on public property (the public sidewalk), I don't see how they can stop/prevent you from shooting images of the mall while you are on public property where you have every right to be.
As stated above, my opinion is strictly a USA perspective.
I don't have any answers regarding the "risk of litigation" aspect. Sorry if this doesn't help... |
|
|
|
05/18/2009 06:39:47 AM · #4 |
| No time to really contribute, but I do recall a while back Ford aggresively targetting photos on Flickr. I can't remember the details, but I'm sure someone else can. |
|
|
|
05/18/2009 08:55:36 AM · #5 |
|
|
|
05/18/2009 01:04:39 PM · #6 |
You'll get, at worst, a cease and desist. You're not using the logo or name for competition or defamatory purposes.
They could never prove (or try) that you caused them irrepairable (or repairable) harm.
I truly think this is a non-issue. |
|
|
|
05/18/2009 01:12:36 PM · #7 |
| Some companies will push on this- but I have never heard of one that immediately goes straight to legal action. Hawkeye is totally right, a cease and desist is the worst that would likely happen (unless of course, you ignored that). Furthermore, you won't be profiting off of the image, so I can't imagine that it would be an issue most of the time. The companies that I have heard are real sticklers about this though, are Coca Cola and Disney. |
|
|
|
05/18/2009 01:45:51 PM · #8 |
| That all makes a lot of sense - thanks for your thoughts. |
|
|
|
05/18/2009 05:05:04 PM · #9 |
Which car company can afford to sue anybody? They are all going broke.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2009 02:38:54 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by rrdjserv:
Which car company can afford to sue anybody? They are all going broke. |
Good point |
|
|
|
05/19/2009 02:48:20 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by rrdjserv:
Which car company can afford to sue anybody? They are all going broke. |
perhaps lamborghini? |
|
|
|
05/19/2009 02:56:10 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Originally posted by rrdjserv:
Which car company can afford to sue anybody? They are all going broke. |
Good point |
Somehow, I think their lawyers will be the next-to-last in line to be fired, and they'll be on the hunt for any source of revenue they can dig up. |
|
|
|
05/19/2009 03:00:45 AM · #13 |
was reading the Ford article on the internet and came across some funny comments from the readers. Below is one:
"Does this mean the GAP owns every picture of myself that I've taken while wearing a shirt I bought from there? Or Nike owns every picture of me playing basketball in high school?
Absolutely, completely, totally, utterly, redundantly retarded.
Talk about a way to lose business. What happened to companies that encourage you to explore and actually have fun with their products?" |
|
|
|
05/19/2009 04:53:13 AM · #14 |
I see no infringement of the company's rights. The owner of the car may request removal of the image (in case the car may be identified). This is subject to national regulation, but since the company is not the owner of the car its only rights relate to the fair use of its trademarks/logos.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2009 06:37:38 AM · #15 |
Having been in the automotive industry for over 35 years, the only time I've seen a car company go after an individual or group is when their logo was used to promote something outside their scope, such as a club, event, or service, i.e. a Ford specialist who advertises in the phone book and uses the "Blue Oval".
In most cases, the phone companies, or most other advertising venues for that matter, will not print the logo without written permission from the manufacturer, which you will never get.
That said, in the case of an old logo that the company does not use, or that of a defunct company, you can do with them as you please.
This was my business card......
All the insignias/logos except the Jaguar leaping cat are useable by anyone for media advertising. The only reason I used the Jaguar logo on my business card was that I was careful not to pass them out indiscriminately.....I used an older logo in my print advertising.
I have never heard of a car company going after anyone whose use of their logo was used in a manner that promoted their product......doesn't mean it never happened, but the automobile world is pretty incestuous and that's the kind of thing that becomes legend in a heartbeat.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 01:01:38 AM EDT.
