Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Transportation Talk 
Thread started 22 Nov 2012 (Thursday) 11:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Intellectual Rights

 
veritasimagerynw
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
132 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Allyn, WA
     
Dec 29, 2012 10:04 as a reply to  @ post 15418654 |  #16

The issue then is this: since a photograph almost always contains products that were created by someone else (i.e. cars, buildings, businesses, clothes, jewelry, musical instruments, and such), is it fair to say that in order to sell any picture, the photographer must track down all of those individual "manufacturers" to get permission? Say you take a picture of a teen for their senior picture, you've done the shoot downtown and in one shot there is a Coca Cola sign. Do you then need to get permission from Coca Cola to sell that image to the client? Do you need to get permission from the clothing manufacturer? What if it's a street shot and there just happens to be a VW Jetta in the backgrouond, do you need to try to get permission from VW to sell the image to the client.

Personally, this needs to be taken as an "intent of the law" rather than the "letter of the law". Obviously the portrait photographer is "making money" off the clothes the teen wears, but than isn't their intent. And I highly doubt many clothes manufacturer's would sue the portrait photographer. The same goes for the motorsports photographer. Sure, I am making some money off the fact that a particular rider/driver is in a particular manufacturer's vehicle. But the intent is not to use that manufacturer's reputation to make money. I don't care if the guy is driving a VW or a Toyota.


Kevin
Canon AE-1 Program, Canon A-1, Canon T3i (gripped), Canon 60D (gripped), Various lenses
http://veritasimageryn​w.smugmug.com/external link
http://www.facebook.co​m/VeritasImageryNW?ref​=hlexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CraigPatterson
Senior Member
287 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Colorado
     
Dec 29, 2012 18:17 |  #17

veritasimagerynw wrote in post #15419876 (external link)
is it fair to say that in order to sell any picture, the photographer must track down all of those individual "manufacturers" to get permission?

No, it's not fair to say that. There's much more nuance in this thread than that. Additionally, we've been talking about identifiable trademarks, not just the existence of any product. You might want to go back and read the thread again, because even though the law is open to a fair amount of interpretation, there's a lot more info than what you seem to have gleaned.

veritasimagerynw wrote in post #15419876 (external link)
But the intent is not to use that manufacturer's reputation to make money. I don't care if the guy is driving a VW or a Toyota.

It's up to the individual to make choices in what they're willing to risk, or in their interpretation of the law, but the fact that you didn't "intend" to make money off of their Intellectual Property will have nothing to do with any legal battle you may find yourself within.


I have a ton of gear, but my gear is just a hammer.
www.craigpatterson.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
veritasimagerynw
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
132 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Allyn, WA
     
Dec 30, 2012 10:45 |  #18

StevePhoto wrote in post #15418654 (external link)
What happens then if another person comes along and creates a photograph of the first photographer's photograph of that object? For all practical purposes the photo of the photo could be very close to an exact duplicate of the first photo. Does the second photographer have unlimited rights to sell the photo? After all, he created it. You can find legal precedent on both sides of this question but a legal discussion is not my goal here. I just want to point out to photographers and other creatives that if they would object to anyone "appropriating" their work then they should, in my opinion, try to show the same level of respect for the work of others that they would like others to show them.

The difference here is that you are dealing with two photographs. They are the same medium. That is similar to copying an artists CD and then claiming the rights with your copy, or selling your copy. They are the same medium. Whereas, in this scenario, we are talking about a photograph of a car. Two different mediums. The only way it would be similar to the scenario you are talking about would be if I hand built a VW Rabbit from scratch and then tried to sell it as a real VW Rabbit, or claimed that I owned the rights to that design. By taking a photograph of a car, on track or wherever, I am not making any claims on the design of the car, simply the rights to the photograph I created. How different is that from taking a photograph of the Space Needle here in Seattle? It's a very unique design. One created by an artist decades ago. Am I claiming rights to it's design if I sell a poster of the Seattle skyline with the Space Needle in it? Or, since it is in a public space, does it's image become public property?


Kevin
Canon AE-1 Program, Canon A-1, Canon T3i (gripped), Canon 60D (gripped), Various lenses
http://veritasimageryn​w.smugmug.com/external link
http://www.facebook.co​m/VeritasImageryNW?ref​=hlexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
veritasimagerynw
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
132 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Allyn, WA
     
Dec 30, 2012 11:53 |  #19

CraigPatterson wrote in post #15421458 (external link)
No, it's not fair to say that. There's much more nuance in this thread than that. Additionally, we've been talking about identifiable trademarks, not just the existence of any product. You might want to go back and read the thread again, because even though the law is open to a fair amount of interpretation, there's a lot more info than what you seem to have gleaned.

I get what you are saying, but since, at least with VW, they also consider shapes and such into their idea of infringement, then simply having a VW Beetle in the background places it into the realm of Intellectual Rights infringement. That is why I said that, then, the same could very well be applied to any design. It's not too hard to see it extrapolated to the extent that it can be applied to clothing, jewelry, buildings, etc. The "Letter of the Law" could very well be applied to all those things. But, if we look at the "Intent of the Law", protecting the value of the product or manufacturer, then a photograph or poster of a VW on the track does nothing to hurt or diminish the value of VW as a whole and may actually help.


Kevin
Canon AE-1 Program, Canon A-1, Canon T3i (gripped), Canon 60D (gripped), Various lenses
http://veritasimageryn​w.smugmug.com/external link
http://www.facebook.co​m/VeritasImageryNW?ref​=hlexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,094 views & 0 likes for this thread
Intellectual Rights
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Transportation Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mason.snipes
691 guests, 425 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.