Using Copyrighted names

[Scarter275]

I was wondering if there are any issues with using/selling this photo in my online portfolio, under my art section.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o12/scarter05/myspace%20pictures/arttitleist.jpg


Or would there be a problem because the name is copyrighted?

[SlowBlink]

Yes, it's copyright and trademarked. I'm betting the company can afford to defend it as well. It would only be a matter of time before their legal department contacted you. If you remove the graphics you may get away with it as it's not readable. Not sure though.

Thnaks Paul

[EnronRocks]

I was wondering if there are any issues with using/selling this photo in my online portfolio, under my art section.

Or would there be a problem because the name is copyrighted?

And selling yes it would be "illegal", displaying it would be a iffy. I would do it for a gallery until someone sent me a cease and desist.

Yes, it's copyright and trademarked. I'm betting the company can afford to defend it as well. It would only be a matter of time before they're legal department contacted you. If you remove the graphics you may get away with it as it's not readable. Not sure though.

I think you meant their.

[Jayson Prentice]

I think the picture would be fine, as you can't read 'Titleist' on the golf ball. However, the additional text is what will likely get you in trouble. Is there any particular reason you have to have the brand name in the image, what about just putting something about golf in general?

[ibdb]

The company name is printed on the balls in a very distinct and instantly recognizable script. Whether the whole word is visible or not seems irrelevant if everyone can still recognize it. I'd say you're better off to eliminate the name completely from the entire image.

[FlyingPhotog]

I'll bet you a dollar that the dimple pattern would also be considered "intellectual property..."

This happens to be the #1 area on which golf ball makers spend their R&D money.

[mr_e]

I'll bet you a dollar that the dimple pattern would also be considered "intellectual property..."

This happens to be the #1 area on which golf ball makers spend their R&D money.

Haha probably, but unless the dimple pattern would cause confusion among the public as to Titleist's association with whatever the ad is for, I don't think it'd get too far.

[SlowBlink]

In the end It comes down to a question. Do you want your copyright respected?

[amfoto1]

Hey, I ain't no attorney, but I have to respectfully disagree with much of the above response.

I really don't think there is any problem at all using the image itself in an editorial context (which includes websites, portfolios, and as fine art). There wouldn't be any problem even if the Titleist logo were very much more clearly shown on the ball, let alone the proprietary dimple design.

The text on the right may be a problem, but not the photo itself.

Personally, I'd remove the text since I don't think it adds anything to the image anyway.

Unless it's intended as a "sample ad design". Then if it were clearly labeled as such, it still might be okay.

Or unless Titleist is your client, they used your image along with the text as shown, and it's part of your "brag book". In this case, the entire thing would certainly be fine as a part of your portfolio, whether online or in printed form.

Just think about it. Logos appear in photos all the time. Manufacturers strategically place them for this very purpose, to get them seen, photographed and recognized. Heck there have been huge paintings of the Campbell soup logo. Manufacturers even pay big bucks to have a glimpse of their logo shown in movies.

You would be in trouble only if you sold this image for commercial purposes, especially to MaxFli, Ping or some other competing golf ball manufacturer who perhaps wanted it for an ad! You can't make t-shirts or baseball caps or coffee mugs with it, without Titleist's express, written permission.

But, for editorial usage, the photo itself is fine.

If you are still worried, you might just write to them and ask permission. Who knows, maybe they'll buy some use of the image from you!

[ibdb]

I was wondering if there are any issues with using/selling this photo in my online portfolio, under my art section.
...
Or would there be a problem because the name is copyrighted?

Hey, I ain't no attorney, but I have to respectfully disagree with much of the above response.

I really don't think there is any problem at all using the image itself in an editorial context (which includes websites, portfolios, and as fine art). There wouldn't be any problem even if the Titleist logo were very much more clearly shown on the ball, let alone the proprietary dimple design.

The text on the right may be a problem, but not the photo itself.

Personally, I'd remove the text since I don't think it adds anything to the image anyway.

Unless it's intended as a "sample ad design". Then if it were clearly labeled as such, it still might be okay.

Or unless Titleist is your client, they used your image along with the text as shown, and it's part of your "brag book". In this case, the entire thing would certainly be fine as a part of your portfolio, whether online or in printed form.

Just think about it. Logos appear in photos all the time. Manufacturers strategically place them for this very purpose, to get them seen, photographed and recognized. Heck there have been huge paintings of the Campbell soup logo. Manufacturers even pay big bucks to have a glimpse of their logo shown in movies.

You would be in trouble only if you sold this image for commercial purposes, especially to MaxFli, Ping or some other competing golf ball manufacturer who perhaps wanted it for an ad! You can't make t-shirts or baseball caps or coffee mugs with it, without Titleist's express, written permission.

But, for editorial usage, the photo itself is fine.

If you are still worried, you might just write to them and ask permission. Who knows, maybe they'll buy some use of the image from you!
I'm not a judge or a lawyer, either. If you really wanted to go forward with selling this as is, or even modified, you should probably consult with someone who gets paid to know these things. But we're here, and we need something to do, right? ;)

I would agree that editorial use, in its strictest sense, would probably be fine. I would think that the image, particularly with the added graphic and text, would cross the line from editorial use, however. And the OP made clear in the original post he intended to sell the image or use it to promote his business -- not just display on his website.

I would view this as the photographer having some sort of relationship with the trademark holder, and benefiting from that relationship by selling this image. Without the added text, you could probably argue that there's not the same sort of implied relationship.

The question would be whether it would be worth it to the photographer (financially) should someone with deep pockets (like Titleist) choose to make an issue of it.

[Scarter275]

so the only way i could really get in trouble is if they ask me to take it down, and i don't?

[SlowBlink]

A warning is a courtesy they're not required to give. Depending on how bad a day the legal department is having you could be hit with costs. Probably not going to happen but if you're selling the image it's a possibility. It might be better to just re shoot without the trademark showing. Either way I doubt you'll be hauled off and beheaded. :)

[ibdb]

so the only way i could really get in trouble is if they ask me to take it down, and i don't?
None of us here are qualified to say for sure.

How much is it worth to you to take the chance?

[amccomis]

Well, as a golfer, and as a professional artist, I can tell you two things for absolute certain:

1) Titleist has a corporate brand, complete with style guide on how their logo, logotype, tag line, etc. are to be used. They invest more money than we can imagine on their brand identity, and they do not take improper use lightly. These style guides tend to be insanely specific. Including specification of font family, relative point size, character spacing, color, and how much space separates that from other logo and non-logo elements, etc. I did a quick check on their website and could not locate their media kit, (which usually contains the style guide) but I did find a page that needed to scroll listing their patents.

2) In consideration of #1, having something that is non-conforming will stick out like a sore thumb to the powers that be, and they will probably send you a little love letter on very expensive letterhead.

If you want to get "close" to being able to use what you have, and perhaps call it a mock-up advertisement, use their real logo, not some lookalike font.

Try this link: http://www.logotypes.ru/default_e.asp to get most any corporate logo.

You may also include verbiage that the piece is for demonstration / promotional use only and not intended for sale. Might keep the lawyers at bay.