Question: logos in stock photography

Hi,

I know in general you typically can not have logos in stock photography, but to what degree is this an issue? Is merely removing a logo from a product acceptable?

Specifically I was planning on submitting, for stock, some images I took of high end cars on a race track like the following

i_am_cdn wrote in post #9907046
Hi,

I know in general you typically can not have logos in stock photography, but to what degree is this an issue? Is merely removing a logo from a product acceptable?

Specifically I was planning on submitting, for stock, some images I took of high end cars on a race track like the following

Would something like this even be accepted as stock as it is obviously an Audi car? could I remove the Audi logo from the hood, would that matter?

EDIT: I also heard that even if you remove a logo there are certain cars like Porsche and Ferrari that can't be sold as stock, is this true?


Any help for those of you who do stock would be greatly appreciated.

thanks in-advanced for your help
Doug

Would work for editorial; probably not for advertorial. Even if you take the logo off you're unlikely to find an agency that will take the image for an advertorial collection; pretty sure auto design falls under trade dress.

If it's still extremely recognizable as a certain car, removing the logo doesn't change it enough that it makes it unrecognizable as a specific car.

You're confusing what stock is - you can sell editorially of anything pretty much unless you obtained the images illegally (spy cam, trespassing, etc). I do well with stock, and not micro-stock!! The micro-stock companies will want everything rights free, you'll need property and model releases, no logos, etc. Just don't get the selling an image 100x for $10 when you can sell an image once for $100 - makes no sense.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #9913227
Just don't get the selling an image 100x for $10 when you can sell an image once for $100 - makes no sense.

I'd take $1000 over $100 even if it did require more sales.

Ok, seriously, what I perceive to be your math typo aside... if you could look into the future and *know* that you'd get the same amount of money either way (in approximately the same time frame)... why would it matter?

I'm playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here.

Yes remove the Audi logo and give it a try. It may get declined for poor lighting though. It loses detail in the dark side and lower front. Also this is not editorial because it's just an Audi on the road/track, it doesn't show anything about the event it was at.

Also to not be an editorial you would need model releases, at least for the passenger.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #9918036
I'd take $1000 over $100 even if it did require more sales.

Ok, seriously, what I perceive to be your math typo aside... if you could look into the future and *know* that you'd get the same amount of money either way (in approximately the same time frame)... why would it matter?

I'm playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here.

You miss his point by a bit there...

He meant selling a photo for .10$ 100X to get up to 10$ vs the latter...

mikeassk wrote in post #9927217
You miss his point by a bit there...

He meant selling a photo for .10$ 100X to get up to 10$ vs the latter...

Yeah, I did. I read it as $10 each. Oh well.

I can see it being read both ways, sorry about that.

Why it matters is simple, you have a 100 companies using the work - with microstock you're making FAR less than what you would regular stock with just one company using the work.