Copyright Issues

Rules and laws and what you can get sued for are 3 different things. Selling for commercial stock brings in the issue of endorsement so of course it is not allowed there. There is no law against it but there are privacy laws and defamation laws. You can pretty much sell whatever you want as art if you are complying with the law but anyone can still sue you. Put it on an product like a phone case and you are back in the commercial situation. They will tell you to seek legal advice. Not a bad idea. I use boat names but i draw the line on registration numbers.

They will tell you to seek legal advice

Yes, we will :). Always best as anything said in a forum is not, and should not, be taken as legal advice. If in doubt, contact the registered boat owner would be my call but at least ask a copyright lawyer for true advice.

My advice: Donīt become successfull! The less success you have, the less is the probability that somebody sues you!

As Bradford said on stock sites unless you get a release from the owner you have to get rid of the names and numbers.
There is nothing to stop you getting a release to sell on here of course but it should not be needed.(I'm not a lawyer ).You will find some owners are more than happy for you to use the image of the boat but still get a release if you can.Tell them that you will send them a copy of the image for free
I would do what Bradford says and remove the registration numbers.If your still worried and it's easy to do remove the name as well

The question isn't really a copyright question. Rather it relates to whether you can sell or publish any photos with recognizable people or property in them.

Here's the best article I've read on the subject, posted by someone in another thread. It's long, but well written, and will clarify much of this for you. http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html

Basically, the rules are if you can see it from public property, you can photograph it, whether it is privately owned or not. As for publication, as I understand the law (and I'm NOT a lawyer, but I have read a lot on this subject) you need to understand the difference between editorial use and commercial use.

Basically, editorial use is for illustrative purposes, such as in a newspaper, magazine, history book, or other documentary use. Photography sold as art is considered editorial use. Generally speaking, model and property releases are not needed for editorial use (because of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and all that First Amendment jazz). However, some editorial publishers like to get releases anyway just to cover their backsides from frivolous lawsuits.

Commercial use is for advertising, mass produced merchandise (like jigsaw puzzles, product packaging) and that sort of thing. A model or property release is usually required for images of people or private property used for commercial purposes because of the implications that the person or property owner is endorsing a product or service.

when at all possible, leave trademark logos off, so they don't haunt you later. art isn't that tight, but i wouldn't go out of my way to say this is COKE or anything. if its in the background it should be ok. i always remove boat numbers, sometimes house numbers, license plates. anything that could identify where you were.

---Mike Savad

@ F Innes.

Hi,

I'm trying to get a handle on copyright/trademark/logo issues for photography. Do the same rules apply for fine art as stock photography? At the moment, I'm wondering about names on boats and/or registration numbers. Do I need to remove these before selling a photo where this is visible?

Thanks,
F.I.


Your questions are good. The answers are not always simple. I've accumulated nearly 30 years in the business of photography..commercial..stock..fine art..etc.. I've studied the laws that involve all phases of photography from the angle of photographers rights, to the angles protecting models and copyright infringement. As Abbie said ^ above, the common sense rule is you never really know who is advising you on an internet forum..The most dangerous scenario is an inexperienced camera owner advising another. Typically you'll read "well my opinion is" or "I think what it should be". You need facts :)) Opinions are, well...worthless

Whenever I see these post, if I happen to be perusing the board here I always refer to a handy book written by two attorneys specific to your questions. It's worth your investment to purchase from Amazon or a local bookstore to you.

Title: "Photographers Survival Manual" - A legal Guide for artist in the Digital age. Authors: Edward C. Greenberg and Jack Reznicki.

This is an indispensable guide.

So many answers for you to go through.
The simple answer is better safe than sorry.
As Mike S says if you can remove them do so,if you can get a property/model release do so.
Getting legal advice can be expensive so if your not sure maybe just not offer the image for sale

So many answers for you to go through.
The simple answer is better safe than sorry.
As Mike S says if you can remove them do so,if you can get a property/model release do so.
Getting legal advice can be expensive so if your not sure maybe just not offer the image for sale

Maybe this helps a little: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqDCIqOCDdM&list=UUHIRBiAd-PtmNxAcLnGfwog

"Do the same rules apply for fine art as stock photography?"

No, they are very different. Fine Art rules are simple (pretty much anything goes) whereas stock can be extremely laden with rules and releases depending on use.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Dan: "Fine Art rules are simple (pretty much anything goes) whereas stock can be extremely laden with rules and releases depending on use. "

Which is why I mentioned above that it's important to understand the difference between editorial use and commercial use. Knowing that simple distinction can make the difference between reasonable confidence and paranoid confusion.

I understand much of the "err on the side of caution" advice here is based on the "better safe than sorry" principle. However, too much caution may cause photographers to give up their own First Amendment rights due to fear that they might get sued if they so much as blink wrong.

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful responses. I've been slowly getting into stock photography, but I am just now stepping into the world of fine art. Seems there is a lot of legalese I need to be considering. I will check out the links you all have posted. It does sound like it's better safe than sorry though.

Oh, and I appreciate the advice Colin Utz! :-)


Thomas Schoeller, Does the book "Photographers Survival Manual - A legal Guide for artist in the Digital age" also cover photographer's rights to their own work when selling (like the different types of licenses)?

Thanks again,
F.I.

I want to warm up the topic a bit.
I had a lot of ideas with copyright protected images, but not for photography.
What about drawing and painting? Anyone knows something about it?

everything you make destined to be art is copyrighted.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

This is not legal advice and I don't do stock sites. But I do not remove names off the few boats I shoot and certainly not logos and company names off the trains I shoot.

EDIT -- I also do not put these images on the licensing side of Pixels.

This is not legal advice but here is a layman's stab at explaining the difference:

Andy Warhol paints a Campbell Soup Can as art to be hung on the wall. No problem.

Stock photographer shoots Campbell Soup Can and tries to sell it commercially as RF. Problem is because the stock buyer might unwittingly used it in a way that violates trademark. In an extreme case perhaps the buyer is a soup company looking for a design for their soup line and they license the image and put it on their cans.

Or maybe they want to put the image on a product - t-shirt, puzzle, etc. Well just because someone took a picture of a trademarked logo doesn't mean they can print it on products and bypass licensing the logo from the company (or even the company having a say in where their logo ends up).

Here is a more mild scenario. Stock licensee downloads a shot of an old broken down car and runs an ad saying how bad this car is. Photographer/Agency leaves the tire manufacturer identification numbers on the tires. Tire manufacturer sues because the ad implies that their product is bad.

For art you don't have to remove house numbers, registration numbers etc but its not a bad idea.

i try to always clone a number out. mostly it reduces a chance of an owner of said items to cash in some how. porches can look a like, boats look a like. only the name on the side or number really ID's something.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Again all the worry and fuss about this but yet famous people, bands, sports teams all do well selling here as art with no worries about release forms and even have their own catorgory on FAA, but heaven forbid you use a boat or house in public view, I don't understand the double standard.

No double standard. One person has said they clone out boat names and house numbers. That's what he does for his images. I myself have also said that I do not do this. Folks do sell team logos and other stuff that I do not believe for one second they have a right to sell. That's not my fight. Sure it rankles my feathers. But what can we as mere photogs and artists do about it?

Edward said: Andy Warhol paints a Campbell Soup Can as art to be hung on the wall. No problem.

Actually it was a problem. Campbells did file a lawsuit when Warhol used their registered trademark. They were smart though and recognized that the result would have only meant negative publicity for them so they dropped the suit.

"Warhol's famous Campbell's Soup Cans are generally held to be non-infringing, despite being clearly appropriated, because "the public was unlikely to see the painting as sponsored by the soup company or representing a competing product. Paintings and soup cans are not in themselves competing products", according to expert trademark lawyer Jerome Gilson"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29

there was a person on vacation to italy, who took a picture of a lake that had a boat on it. and then the guy was sued by the boats owner because he recognized the coloring of the boat being his, and he sued him - and the boat owner won. i'm still not sure on what grounds, i assume it's an italian law.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Thanks for the link, James!