Trade Marks

It appears that auto manufacturers, event promoters and agents are becoming more protective of their property. Coca-Cola, Harley Davidson and Fender Guitars, among many others, have been this way for a long time. As for auto racing, you might want to think of photography in the same way as taking pictures at a concert. In those cases, the promoter or venue owner reserves the right to have 'official' photos taken, or to permit only certain photographers to work there. Professional sports have prohibited using the "pictures, descriptions, and accounts" of games since at least when I was a small child. Some railroads have now banned the use of their logos from model trains. To answer your question, auto art may not be dead yet, but it may be on life support.

you would need permission. many places don't want their logos to be used in any way, because they have to defend them in court to keep them (which is how trademarks work). places like zazzle would remove it right away - but not all cars or logos. bmw, ferrari,and a handful of others you can't use. were as ford and dodge seem fine with it (though i wouldn't try it commercially). the only way to know your safe is to email them, and keep all talk.

when i shoot a car or a bike - whenever possible i try not to include a logo. though i do have some and if they told me to take it down i would have to (i don't want to go court over it). and as long as you don't use their name in your title, description or tags it should also be fine. if you do, they will find you.


---Mike Savad

Certain cars with distinct shapes (VW Beatle, Porsche) can't be RF licensed in the world of stock (even with logos removed). Someone's classic car would need a property release. But as fine art it would be fine IMO.

Trademarks are not protected for art in most instances. You are using your freedom of speech when you make art. You are not selling cars so you are not using the trademark to brand your art. Distributing a video account is a whole other issue. Using art to sell a product is another issue. Art is not a commercial product even if it is sold as posters or prints. Some sites that offer a variety of products as well as prints may ask you to remove some art with trademarks. That is up to the site and should not be construed to mean that art with trademarks cannot be legally sold. This is not to be confused with copyright. Trademarks protect the use in trade and are not the same as copyrights. In some cases companies go to court to stop people from selling art with trademarks. They rarely win even on appeal. As long as you have established your intent as selling art and you are not mass producing you are fine. This is my opinion and not legal advice .

I think its fine for you also, and concur with Bradford.

Been looking into it myself recently, and basically, you as an artist or photographer can do anything with it as long as its non-commercial.

Non-commercial includes art work on canvas, prints, and even selling the digital copy.

But, you cant put it onto an 'item', such as a cup or a mug (probably why Zazzle etc dont allow it), if you dont have the correct 'release' forms. Because that is then using it to sell an item, and that is 'commercial'.

If your selling the digital image, then its up to the person using the image to decide if its legal to use it in the way they are going to, not the photographers.

Some stock sites and such require you to always have a release form for buildings,cars,people etc, but that is so that they can pass on the form to the buyer, so they know 100% they can use it however they want (ie commercially), and therefor sell it at a higher price to them.

However, for non-commercial use I think its fine.

This is also my 'opinion' and not legal advice...

Rob.

Here's a list I frequent often to see what is protected or not as far as photography goes. I cannot speak to other mediums.

http://www.shutterstock.com/contributor-resources/legal/stock-photo-restrictions

Actually was surprised by some of them