Copyright Question

I do mainly automotive photography and I have always wondered this question and recently it came up on another board and I didn't get a real answer or at least one that made sense. Is selling pictures of, lets say, a Ferrari illegal, with or without the logo visible? I was told it was simply because the car was copyrighted but how do countless movies, TV shows, magazines, etc. get away with it?

Thanks for any help.

No its not illegal. But if you were going to sell it for a commercial advertisement you may need to remove the trademarked aspects of the car. If you were just selling prints of the car you are fine. At least as I understand it.

As I understand it, the issue here is endorsement or suggested endorsement. If you sell a picutre of a Ferrari in field as a poster, I don't know if you'd hit a problem. Take the same picture and throw in a Viagra logo and you're in trouble since you've now suggested that Ferrari endorses Viagra.
By that rationale though, you could be in trouble for listing it on your business portfolio as that could be read as an endorsement of your company.

First of all I am NOT a lawyer. That said don't confuse copyrights with trademarks or for that mater servicemarks. If I create an original artwork the copyright is mine. Even if it includes other copyrighted, trademarked or servicemarks. Unless signed away the copyright is with the artist that created the artwork. Now the trademark owner may object to the use, but there is little he can do to stop it in a true artwork setting. Just look at Andy Worhal's Coke(tm) and Campbell(tm) soup paintings. Now if you are selling or promoting Viagra that is not single artwork, it most likely an ad. Different rules apply. If I photograph a Ferrari at a rally the copyright is mine. IMHO you are safe.

Thank everyone for the replies. I understand the commercial advertisement aspect of it, that does make sense. I never thought about Andy Warhol's work its a really good point. Thanks again.

I think you would be fine unless you were to use that image in a money making advert for which ferrari would be annoyed that you had to use their car to make you money

The reason companies trademark their logo, model names and such is to be in a position to prevent them being used in a derogatory manner, or in a commercial way without their approval.

However, the same companies also place their logos prominently in many places precisely in hopes of them getting photographed and helping build name recognition. Think of the last time you saw a pro golfer in a tournament without a logo on their hat. Or a NASCAR driver without dozens of logos on their fire suit, helmet and car.

You could definitely use the image as fine art and sell limited edition prints. You could also use it editorially, in a publication or on the internet.

You start getting into a gray area if you make posters and mass market those, or try to license the image to someone who is making T-shirts or greeting cards, for example.

So, you might be able to get written permission to use the image for advertising or other commercial purposes, so long as it's not being used in any negative way (say, by Lamborghini or Mercedes), not tied in with products or implying endorsements that Ferrari would prefer to avoid (the Viagra example is a good one).

I agree with has been said, that you're OK. You aren't the first to have asked the question:

Selling picture issue

amfoto1 wrote in post #6675981
However, the same companies also place their logos prominently in many places precisely in hopes of them getting photographed and helping build name recognition. Think of the last time you saw a pro golfer in a tournament without a logo on their hat. Or a NASCAR driver without dozens of logos on their fire suit, helmet and car.

Difference is, the team who own that car, or the golfer who wears that hat, is paid BY those companys to advertise for them. But for a small person to use a large corporation as a "leg up" in the market, the big company is not going to be happy it has not been paid