Do you need permission to use logos from Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc in your stock?

I have some ideas illustrating social and media networking and I want to include the logos that everyone is familiar with.

I know it sounds like a stupid question but I was sure it was not legal until I searched it on shutterstock.

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=facebook&x=0&y=0&search_group=&lang=en&search_source=search_form

Short and sweet. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Nope , no one is allowed to do so !! 

Quote from: Pheby on July 18, 2011, 08:10

Well the images where the facebook-website is visible are marked "editorial use only", and in the others (like the woman in front of the laptop) the keyword "facebook" simply shouldn't have been included.

I really struggle to understand how stock libraries are allowed to sell images of trademarked logos.
I can understand that it is legal to use the images for editorial use, but the actual stock library isn't using it as editorial, it is making money through the sale of trademarked content to a third party who will use it for editorial use.
So although if everything goes to plan the use by the final customer will be editorial, the agency as the middle man has just sold a product based on the trademarked logo and profited from it in a non-editorial capacity. Can anyone actually point to legal guidance on this, I'd love to be able to get a more concrete grasp on the issues involved.

That's a good point. Technically it should not be permitted for a third party (stock agency) to sell, even for editorial use, trademarked material without paying a fee to the trademark owner. If anyone from the legal department of Facebook peruses this forum you may have given them an idea.

I think you are carrying this back too far. Otherwise no one would be able to sell anything, because it has logos or trademarks on it. The action of selling something for use is not the same and using the item for commercial purposes.

Also the point some people are trying to get at, is using the logo as a subject or major part of something, is different than incidental appearance of something in a photo. ALthough that can be a sticky debating point.

Example, no models could wear any clothes, shoes, carry a purse, pen, computer, or any props, except hand made items, because everything is made by and sold by some company?  You can't take a picture of anything, because everything is made by someone, except trees and flowers. And the dumbfarts at the National Trust seem to think they can restrict photography of an entire mountain in Australia, and they didn't make it!

No we can't make prominent use of logos, trademarks, and sometimes trademarked colors on specific items. Buildings, it depends, where you are standing and when it was designed and built. Can't use people without a model release, but some dogs and animals are protected also. So you can shoot your pet dog or cute house cat, but if you shoot Rin Tin Tin or a pedigreed horse (or cat), the famous identity is protected. Private zoo animals are protected and identifiable., public zoo animals shouldn't be. Depends on who's financing the zoo.

What I'm getting at, is one easy answer doesn't cover everything and to over simplify, when ever case has conditions and situations, doesn't work.

The agency selling an Editorial shot needs to have the right to market them, or we'd have no supply chain for anything. That's different than using the item in the publications or other public display.

Quote from: Pheby on July 18, 2011, 08:10

Well the images where the facebook-website is visible are marked "editorial use only", and in the others (like the woman in front of the laptop) the keyword "facebook" simply shouldn't have been included.

I really struggle to understand how stock libraries are allowed to sell images of trademarked logos.
I can understand that it is legal to use the images for editorial use, but the actual stock library isn't using it as editorial, it is making money through the sale of trademarked content to a third party who will use it for editorial use.
So although if everything goes to plan the use by the final customer will be editorial, the agency as the middle man has just sold a product based on the trademarked logo and profited from it in a non-editorial capacity. Can anyone actually point to legal guidance on this, I'd love to be able to get a more concrete grasp on the issues involved.

Saying you can't take photos of people in clothing because someone else made the clothing is definitely taking it too far. I see the point being made: if the purpose of not allowing trademarks in commercial RF is to prevent third parties from profiting off someone else's copyright protected (intellectual) property then the agency itself should first have to license the content of the photo from the trademark owner because, wait for it now, the agency is in fact profiting by selling it in the first place even if the usage is editorial in nature. In other words they are violating their own policy by selling someone else's property and keeping the money. You would think they would have to pass on a portion of the sale proceeds to the trademark owner in that case.

It's the reason I shy away from editorial.