MicrostockGroup

I understand that any agency/business has their right to decide what appears on their site and what not.

However, Zazzle informed me that the copyright holder contacted them and therefore they were forced to remove the content. I really don't want to open a can of worms and poke Zazzle why this was possible while iStock has no problem using those terms in a design.

@click click

I just checked for you, FIFA (Switzerland) registered a class 25 trademark for "World Cup" on 12th March 1999 which expires on 19th January 2020. The important bit it's a class 25 registration which applies to using the term "World Cup" on the following goods or services: Football boots, football shirts, football shorts, football socks & football clothing.

They also have worldwide multiple class registrations on "FIFA World Cup" and "2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa" and "South Africa 2010" on certain classes.

The term "World Cup" alone is not able to be registered as an all class trademark.

There are literally hundreds and hundreds of registered trademarks that feature "world cup" as part of the trademark.

In summary what this means is that:

- nobody can trademark just the term "World Cup" so that nobody else can use it.

- having just looked at Zazzle (sorry I thought they were a stock site) they print clothing and herein lies your problem, if your design also features a football related theme it could be viewed as being 'football clothing' as listed under the class 25 registration if printed on some of Zazzle's clothing and I'd imagine that's why they removed it. Although they are still wrong to tell you "world cup" can't be used in a design.

- You can however still do your design and use "world cup" and a football theme and you can sell it on a stock site, the problem would arise if somebody then used it on one off the items as listed in the class 25 registration, selling it as RF might be a problem because a buyer doesn't get any specific usage restrictions with the license when they purchase it, but then again strictly speaking that's their problem not yours, most stock sites however tend to lean towards caution.

Sorry I was editing my reply above when you typed your last post (my wife shouted dinner was ready  )

For all the hassle involved maybe move onto another design

The problem is that many companies are intentionally mis-using copyright and trademark law to benefit themselves.  They know they can't enforce some restrictions but they also know that no one wants to fight a costly legal battle with them.  So when they see a usage they don't like, even a legitimate one, they speak the magic word "lawsuit" and everyone knuckles under.

The same goes for companies and organizations that improperly prohibit the taking of photographs in public places.  They can't do that (at least in the US--the Supreme Court has upheld these rights repeatedly) but they intimidate people with unenforceable legal threats that they know no one wants to fight because of the costs involved.

It's a shame.

The more I talk about this, the more I feel like I'm doing something wrong.

I know that I'm not trying to make my designs look like rip-offs of the official FIFA merchandise line but in the end it comes down to that FIFA is holding this event and created this event and we are trying to monetize it by selling stuff that relates to the event.

Is it just my conscience talking or is it really wrong?

OK that makes me feel better. On to some new designs.

Hmmm!

In the UK we have Premier League football, and all photographers have to sign a licensing agreement agreeing to what it can be used for - basically editorial material. Anything else, posters, football cards, t-shirts etc, and you loose young license and feel the wrath of their hitmen. The license cost's a photographer / agency money, you need public libaility insurance, and have to be established before they'll give you one. In effect it's now a closed shop for any freelancer starting out.

I can keyworkd Premier League 09/10 season as much as I want, but woe betide I try and give the impression any image I create was taken at a premier league ground or invloves their logo if I sell for otherwise than editorial.

Simple was around this was to take pics of UK teams oversea's in European competition or friendly matches. Unless you signed anything before the game you were OK, and could do as you wanted with this pics.

I used to apply for World Cup passes for a large sports agency, again the problem is the restriction on how they could be sold. No problem with editorial use, but marketing merchanside etc is a hangable offence unless you are their "official" photographers.

With the amount of money in football, their rights are protected very well, hence the details posted earler that FIFA had filed back in 1999.

If you want to take a pic of a football on a South African flag, then I would caption away as "world cup 2010 soccer football". Stick the same image with the trophy on it, and it could be a problem.

Istock are correct and "world cup" is not copyrighted per se, but any photographs claiming to represent it or taken in the stadia are governed by licensing restiction.

Saying all this, every match I have ever attended (100's) has had unlicensed merchandise for sale outside the ground, all that's got to come from somewhere. Unless you need to stay on the right side of governing bodies so they will continue to grant photographer's passes, then I would not worry too much.

On a final note, I always thought football / soccer was the people's game! Fat chance when it becomes a money spinning business opportunity. Half of the World CUp Final match's ticket's go to sponsor and FIFA hangers on. The real fan get ripped off for their meagre allocation of seats. In England the former are all know as the "prawn sandwich brigade", i.e they don't attend matches for fun, just to fill their corpulent bodies with fine food and drink trendy wine.

Rant over for the Easter weekend

Oldhand

Yes, agreed .

The thing is that even if you're permitted to submit editorials, with an event like World Cup where they have their own syndication, no newspaper will pay for your work anyway when they can get it from the syndycates.
Same thing with rock concerts, etc..  Every top draw has their own distributor, and you're really wasting your time trying to sell editorials of something taken behind the crowd,etc. when their own officials are on stage, etc..
The press knows that, and will not waste their time looking through stock editorials, they go straight to the syndicates to get a copy of what they want.
My point isn't whether one is allowed to shoot or not, but more whether it's worth the trouble.

"South Africa 2010" is a trademark?  Ridiculous.

Maybe they like us but without penetration...

Honestly, I'd recommend to contact FIFA directly to ask about that or talk to a lawyer.

I'm absolutely unable to give you any recommendation if you can use the term or not.

I just wanted to let everyone here know what happened to me and not what they can do.