Does anyone know why the 'easy' button would be a trademark or copy right issues even if the company name is taken off of it? Weird why some objects are considered a logo or TM even if you take off the TM or company name and yet on my Nissan Car all I have to do is remove the Nissan logo yet even Thu everyone knows it is a Nissan.


Thanks.

The easy button, it's shape and look, may have been trade marked by Staples as seen here:
 http://www.staples.com/Staples-Easy-Button/product_606396

Many companies register the shape of their intellectual property.

Car shapes and logos are almost always copyright or trademark protected.  It is up to the individual stock company to decide if they want to take the risk of including a specific car name, logo, or shape. 

This list http://www.pacaoffice.org/resources/specialReleases.html is a helpful guide of what to stay very far away from.  Some sites have extended lists of copyright rules that you can search through. 

In the very litigious United States, most companies just won't risk it.  In some cases, cease and desist letters force a company to make sure those images containing a shape, logo, or even public art or item, like the The Flat Iron building in NYC or British Pound Note, are not sold for profit. 

Hope this helps.

Cora
Creative Director at www.Cutcaster.com
Join us!

Good information. Now I must ask- if a photo is accepted by one of the MS companies and it violates the TM or Logo- who gets slapped by the company attorneys - the photographer or the MS company?

Thanks.

It depends entirely on the company.  You, the stock company, and the user of the image could all be liable.  Lately, some companies have issued guarantees on their images to assure buyers that the use is legal, and will put up money for legal fees.  Disney, McDonalds, and the Bank of England for instance, have plenty of money to spread the law suits around.  That said, most companies will simply issue a very scary cease and desist letter before actively perusing you.

I always suggest steering away from iconic images or re-branding to a more generic title:  Post It Notes (tm) become sticky notes, Legos (tm) become building blocks, etc.

US copyright law is extremely complex.  Shoot (or make) what you love.  Avoid saturated themes like street signs, for instance.  Be fresh with your approach, not derivative and you will benefit from your labors.

With copyright, when in doubt, check the "Legal" link at a company's web site.

Cora
Creative Director at www.cutcaster.com
Join us!

The easy button, it's shape and look, may have been trade marked by Staples as seen here:
 http://www.staples.com/Staples-Easy-Button/product_606396

Many companies register the shape of their intellectual property.

Car shapes and logos are almost always copyright or trademark protected.  It is up to the individual stock company to decide if they want to take the risk of including a specific car name, logo, or shape. 

This list http://www.pacaoffice.org/resources/specialReleases.html is a helpful guide of what to stay very far away from.  Some sites have extended lists of copyright rules that you can search through. 

In the very litigious United States, most companies just won't risk it.  In some cases, cease and desist letters force a company to make sure those images containing a shape, logo, or even public art or item, like the The Flat Iron building in NYC or British Pound Note, are not sold for profit.

Hope this helps.

Cora
Creative Director at www.Cutcaster.com
Join us!

Comment on this Please? I bowed out of the debate with "the bill has � printed on it."

You'll find hundreds of images using UK money on macro agencies both RF and RM, all quite legal.

Very abbreviated version of this, but what it says is you can use the blocks or things that look like a Lego but just as you wrote, you can't use the name Lego in the description.


Lego Group has attempted to trademark the "Lego Indicia", the studded appearance of the Lego brick... The supreme court said: (2005) "Trademark law should not be used to perpetuate monopoly rights enjoyed under now-expired patents." and held that Mega Bloks can continue to manufacture their bricks. Since the expiration of the last standing Lego patent in 1988, a number of companies have produced interlocking bricks that are similar to Lego bricks.

Now that doesn't mean an agency must take these photos, but legally the pictures of interlocking bricks are not infringing on a patent or trademark.

... every stock site reserves the right to accept or reject anything they wish.

the industry standard isn't really an industry standard.

I hope you don't mind me cutting everything except the important parts?

I personally try to view things from the legal point of view, not the industry standards, which you have effectively pointed out, aren't standard and are up to the individual agencies.

I have seen clearly illegal RF images on some sites, it's not my business. I also have had images refused, "needs a release" but they are perfectly legal, PD and need no release. Comes with the territory, but the agency opinion and policy, trumps all legal arguments.

Nice that you come visit here.