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 Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 11 Mar 2017 (Saturday) 14:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

TV producer wants to use my photo, but who owns the rights?

 
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,708 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 387
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
Post edited over 1 year ago by RDKirk. (3 edits in all)
     
Mar 15, 2017 11:07 |  #16

Alveric wrote in post #18299034 (external link)
Smart choice. What also PO'es me about these fellows is that they protect themselves like heck (nothing wrong with that), whilst leaving the onus entirely on the photographer (everything wrong with this!). If DC finds the use objectionable and sues, the telly fellows will simply point to the 'shooter' who will most likely not have an army of attorneys to counter DC's legal minions–in a nutshell: the photographer is raptus regaliter, whilst the TV people just do like Pilate.

No. The copyright infraction is always to the user, not the photographer. The responsibility is always on the user.

For instance, let's say an advertiser has a video clip from an amateur stage production that he wants to use. He may need several licenses--perhaps stage designer, costume designer, writer, and music composer as well as the videographer--if each of these persons retained his own copyright. None of those copyright holders is responsible for a failure of the user to have gathered all the licenses he needs.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,235 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 379
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
     
Mar 15, 2017 11:36 as a reply to  @ RDKirk's post |  #17

You can copyright a car?

Are you sure it's not a trademark?


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
16,547 posts
Gallery: 68 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3558
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Mar 15, 2017 11:58 |  #18

joedlh wrote in post #18301669 (external link)
You can copyright a car?

Are you sure it's not a trademark?

I wondered, too. The page that the OP linked to explains that the design of the car is copyrighted.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,235 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 379
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
     
Mar 15, 2017 12:00 |  #19

OhLook wrote in post #18301683 (external link)
I wondered, too. The page that the OP linked to explains that the design of the car is copyrighted.

You can't copyright a model either. But you can't use a model's photo commercially without a model release, or in this case a property release.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
4,899 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1209
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Mar 18, 2017 22:24 |  #20

joedlh wrote in post #18301687 (external link)
You can't copyright a model either. But you can't use a model's photo commercially without a model release, or in this case a property release.

You can't use a model's image for commercial use (without permission) because various US states have right to privacy/publicity laws that require you get their permission (usually but not always in the form of a signed release).
There are no such laws for physical objects and as such no legal requirement for a property release for physical property. This includes commercial use. HSBC used a photo of a house in an advert for their insurance without the owners permission. The owner sued and lost. Also the TV companies use would be considered commentary/criticism not commercial use, so no release would be needed (if they existed).

You do need a property release for intellectual property (which is what they are actually for) such as Trademarks. The Batman bat logo would be an excellent example of that. However you can use IP in a non-commercial work provided that, for example, the use is incidental. Photographing a car that happened to have a logo on the front grill would be a good example of incidental use. Zooming in on the grill to fill the frame with the logo would not.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,708 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 387
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 19, 2017 00:25 |  #21

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18304709 (external link)
You do need a property release for intellectual property (which is what they are actually for) such as Trademarks. The Batman bat logo would be an excellent example of that. However you can use IP in a non-commercial work provided that, for example, the use is incidental. Photographing a car that happened to have a logo on the front grill would be a good example of incidental use. Zooming in on the grill to fill the frame with the logo would not.

I think it's useful to think of it like this: "You can't trade on someone else's mark."

So if I'm creating an ad for a bottled water around the concept of "luxury" and used a Mercedes automobile as a prop to convey the idea of "luxury" in my photograph, I'm "trading on their mark."




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

4,074 views & 10 likes for this thread
TV producer wants to use my photo, but who owns the rights?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is DouglasAZ
669 guests, 333 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.