Author Topic: Stuffed toy copyright, etc. (Read 10897 times)

pet_chia · « **on:** January 31, 2011, 16:13 »

I have some pictures which have stuffed toy animals used as props. Not the main subject, without text, labels, or trademarks - but shown clearly in the photo.

The toys are from a large, well known retailer and for all I know probably had "copyright" written on their tags (before they were cut off). But these are bland, boring, generic and cheap looking toys.

Looking through stock photo sites I see a lot of photos where the toy is not fully shown, not a main subject of the photo, and sometimes the toy looks homemade. Those are obviously OK. But there are many pictures which are a clear photo of a stuffed toy as the main subject, which is obviously commercially made. Maybe the contributor altered some of the details but how would the inspector know?

Is there any clear rule or guideline at any of the big stock sites on this subject? Or is it yet another ambiguous area like so called "classic" cars - where some photos are rejected, yet some photos are for sale with easily-recognizable classic models as the main subject, sometimes even with the brand name mentioned in the picture title and description. (just g00gle "chevrolet" at your favorite RF stock site if you don't believe me)

I wouldn't have taken the pictures for stock out of concern for rejection, but they were done as a favor for someone and they look so cute I would like to see if they fly. If I decide to submit them, I will alter some of the details but leave them alone otherwise.

CD123 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 31, 2011, 18:27 »

This copyright dilemma is sometimes so stupid. Identifying for example a car: If I am selling a car in a car magazine, do I need Ford's or Mazda's permission to mention their name in the ad, or are one only supposed to say I have a car for sale, but due to copyright I may not tell you what make it is?
Two cars are standing next to each other in a Picture, so one has to say there is a red and an blue car, you can not say it is a bloody Porsche and the other a Mercedes Benz (although that is how they are named and identified).
Why will Ford sue you if you have a nice picture of one of their cars and you say it is a Ford Model T (or are they ashamed of their product).
I am not American and have heard people getting sued for crazy things, but have anyone ever heard of a case of a stock photographer being sued for using a cars name?

VB inc · « **Reply #2 on:** January 31, 2011, 18:38 »

^^

. Im surprised you feel this way. Wouldnt you be pissed if some image thiefs stole your images and profitted off your images? You shouldnt profit from a product that not yours without specific permission from the copyright holder and if its cars were talking about, theres millions of dollars invested in that product.

klsbear · « **Reply #3 on:** January 31, 2011, 19:22 »

The other side of it is Brand Protection. If it's something clearly identifable the manufacturer wants to control how it's used. Think of it this way - Nike wants to protect how their brand is used in any type of promotion, and probably won't want it used in something that represents, for instance, a questionable fad diet or exercise equipment. It implys an endorsement that isn't there.

If it's a style that is easily recognized, ie: Vermont Teddy Bear, Boyd's, Beanie Babies, then it could be rejected but they are fairly generic, and in the background, it may be OK. As a bear on a shelf or on a bed in a child's room I think it could pass.

pet_chia · « **Reply #4 on:** January 31, 2011, 22:43 »

Quote from: klsbear on January 31, 2011, 19:22

If it's a style that is easily recognized, ie: Vermont Teddy Bear, Boyd's, Beanie Babies, then it could be rejected but they are fairly generic, and in the background, it may be OK. As a bear on a shelf or on a bed in a child's room I think it could pass.

Not a famous brand at all, generic looking, but not in the background either.

Thanks for the tips. I will try uploading a few and see how it goes. If it's like the last time when I uploaded a series of practically identical classic car pictures (taken from different angles), some will be accepted, some will be rejected for trademark/branding, and some will be rejected for "lighting" ... and that was from just one site, LOL

pancaketom · « **Reply #5 on:** January 31, 2011, 23:07 »

It is a little odd, and basically it boils down to how afraid the sites are that the company that made the product will sue them. In the case of Apple or big car companies, that is a very real fear. Pretty much any manufactured item had someone design it, but luckily they don't (yet) require property releases for every item of clothing, or other object in every pic. what a mess that would be.

louoates · « **Reply #6 on:** January 31, 2011, 23:33 »

Quote from: pet_chia on January 31, 2011, 22:43

Quote from: klsbear on January 31, 2011, 19:22
If it's a style that is easily recognized, ie: Vermont Teddy Bear, Boyd's, Beanie Babies, then it could be rejected but they are fairly generic, and in the background, it may be OK. As a bear on a shelf or on a bed in a child's room I think it could pass.

Not a famous brand at all, generic looking, but not in the background either.

Thanks for the tips. I will try uploading a few and see how it goes. If it's like the last time when I uploaded a series of practically identical classic car pictures (taken from different angles), some will be accepted, some will be rejected for trademark/branding, and some will be rejected for "lighting" ... and that was from just one site, LOL

Lotsa luck with classic cars. IS and SS told me with rejections that they no longer accept any car images, period, no matter if all logos, etc., are removed. Although many are still on their sites.

CD123 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 31, 2011, 23:45 »

Quote from: VB inc on January 31, 2011, 18:38

^^ . Im surprised you feel this way. Wouldn't you be pissed if some image thiefs stole your images and profitted off your images? You shouldnt profit from a product that not yours without specific permission from the copyright holder and if its cars were talking about, theres millions of dollars invested in that product.

Steeling my photograph is steeling the product of my work. By taking a picture of a car I am not steeling the car (I can not quite drive a away with the picture, can I?). I am actually promoting the product on their behalf. Can not compare it that way buddy.
I can accept a complaint if they feel you are miss representing their work/item by altering anything to it, but if that is the way it came from the factory, can not see way one can not take a picture of the item as I am not "steeling", "altering" or "misrepresenting" it in any manner - so if they spent millions on it, they should be proud to see million pictures of they product floating arround (its called good marketing).

thomasw · « **Reply #8 on:** February 01, 2011, 01:12 »

Quote from: CD123 on January 31, 2011, 23:45

Quote from: VB inc on January 31, 2011, 18:38
^^ . Im surprised you feel this way. Wouldn't you be pissed if some image thiefs stole your images and profitted off your images? You shouldnt profit from a product that not yours without specific permission from the copyright holder and if its cars were talking about, theres millions of dollars invested in that product.

Steeling my photograph is steeling the product of my work. By taking a picture of a car I am not steeling the car (I can not quite drive a away with the picture, can I?). I am actually promoting the product on their behalf. Can not compare it that way buddy.
I can accept a complaint if they feel you are miss representing their work/item by altering anything to it, but if that is the way it came from the factory, can not see way one can not take a picture of the item as I am not "steeling", "altering" or "misrepresenting" it in any manner - so if they spent millions on it, they should be proud to see million pictures of they product floating arround (its called good marketing).

So if I am understanding you correctly then you would be fine with that car manufacturer taking the image that you created of their car and using it for a national ad campaign without getting a release or providing compensation?

CD123 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 01, 2011, 01:28 »

So if I am understanding you correctly then you would be fine with that car manufacturer taking the image that you created of their car and using it for a national ad campaign without getting a release or providing compensation?
[/quote]

No, you still do not understand the principle. The car manufacturer is the "owner" of the car, I am the owner of the picture. I did not "take" his car; but now you say then he may take my property, my picture?
My picture is not a copy of his car either (I did not manufacture another car that look just like his), I therefore did not "steel" anything from him. I only visually capture what he has put on display for the world to see, buy and use publicly.
This argument can go on for a million years, as this is a legal debate which has been going on from the day cameras got invented. I just do not agree with the current interpretation of the legal position (have 2 legal degrees myself, so I sort of like pondering these type of questions).

thomasw · « **Reply #10 on:** February 01, 2011, 01:39 »

Quote from: CD123 on February 01, 2011, 01:28

So if I am understanding you correctly then you would be fine with that car manufacturer taking the image that you created of their car and using it for a national ad campaign without getting a release or providing compensation?

No, you still do not understand the principle. The car manufacturer is the "owner" of the car, I am the owner of the picture. I did not "take" his car; but now you say then he may take my property, my picture?
[/quote]

Not quite, what I'm saying is that if it is alright for you to use their car in your image then by your logic it must be alright for the manufacturer to use your image in their advertising.

CD123 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 01, 2011, 01:45 »

Not quite, what I'm saying is that if it is alright for you to use their car in your image then by your logic it must be alright for the manufacturer to use your image in their advertising.
[/quote]

Oh, boy. No, you have to define "use". I did not lay a hand on his property, the picture (the image) in itself is my property. If he uses that he is, in legal terms, physically "taking" my property. Its technical, but so are most legal stuff and that is why there are so much arguments about it.......

CD123 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 01, 2011, 01:47 »

Sorry - pressed quote in stead of modify

RacePhoto · « **Reply #13 on:** February 01, 2011, 02:01 »

Excuse me for not quoting from this tangled mess, because it's just a big knot.

You can use a picture of the car you own to sell it. No usage problems. It's your car.

You can't use a picture of a car to sell something else and can't use a picture of a car to market something else, and the designs, logos and many various parts of the car are not only copyrighted but Trademarks.

It's tough to answer a question when someone uses a totally different use a the premise of their argument for a different situation.

Now about the stuffed animals which are the start of the question, but things seemed to have diverged.

No you can't use them as the main subject. Yes you can use them as a background item. It's the same as cars and everything else in the world. If the main subject of the photo is the trademarked or copyrighted portion, you shouldn't do it. You can't use ANYTHING trademarked or protected or copyrighted as the main subject of any photo, anywhere... except as editorial or similar free use allowances.

And then some people argue, the agency rejects things that they shouldn't or accepts things that they shouldn't. Yes, that's true, but in either case that isn't the law or a court decision. The agencies can do whatever they want and cover their butts in any way they want. They can be foolish and sell things that aren't allowed (and trust me they do) or they might reject things that are perfectly legal to sell. And they do that too!

Can I put it another way? Policy isn't necessarily Law. Don't confuse the two as being the same.

qwerty · « **Reply #14 on:** February 01, 2011, 06:21 »

you can use photos of copywrited stuff, you just risk that the owner may challenge the use. Whether they win or not is another question. But there is no doubt that some companies are challenging some uses and other companies are challenging every use they can find.

Agencies are refusing these images not only because they might be used in ways that would infinge on copywrite and trademarks etc but because they don't want to defend any legal cases even if they would win.

Why would the agency take the risk of a law suit over the sale $20 beanie baby photo. Photo Agencies don't make money sending lawyers to courts.

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #15 on:** February 01, 2011, 06:59 »

I have plenty of images in this subject - stuffed animals and toys. I do have the property release from the manufacturer what I always attach when a toy is visible on the photo. Even though IS is having a tendency to reject these images because inspectors were trained on that way and many times they do not expect and realize a property release is attached. I told this to warn you, there is no chance on IS to get your images accepted without a proper property release. If other sites accept them they (and you) take a risk.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** February 01, 2011, 07:08 »

Quote from: CD123 on January 31, 2011, 23:45

I am actually promoting the product on their behalf. Can not compare it that way buddy.
I can accept a complaint if they feel you are miss representing their work/item by altering anything to it, but if that is the way it came from the factory, can not see way one can not take a picture of the item as I am not "steeling", "altering" or "misrepresenting" it in any manner - so if they spent millions on it, they should be proud to see million pictures of they product floating arround (its called good marketing).

Oh heck, this is the worst part of your argument. Who asked you to do this "pro bono promotion"? Saying you're "advertising the product on their behalf" does not make it right.

CD123 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 01, 2011, 07:21 »

Oh heck, this is the worst part of your argument. Who asked you to do this "pro bono promotion"? Saying you're "advertising the product on their behalf" does not make it right.
[/quote]

Please read again what I said - Never said you are doing it on their behalf - it is a matter of argument / perspective on the trademark holder's rights, how they will prove damages when it is actually to their advantage.

If you really want to take it that far, the fact that you bought a car do not give you any right to use the trademark, so you should not be able to mention the make of the car if you sell it. Same with trademarked clothes which your models you photograph are wearing, where are the property releases for those? From now on then only nudes may be photographed without a property release!

See where this can end if you do not define the borders? That is way, if you mention for example Microsoft in an article, you put a (T) behind it, to indicate that the name is trademarked, it does not prevent you from using the name Microsoft.

As said, this arguments can go on for ever, so I am stepping out of this one; better thing to do like to sell "legal" stock images

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #18 on:** February 01, 2011, 07:38 »

Quote from: CD123 on February 01, 2011, 07:21

Never said you are doing it on their behalf - it is a matter of argument / perspective on the trademark holder's rights, how they will prove damages when it is actually to their advantage.

You said it is beneficial for them. Like the idiot at "bad stock images" who says it's ok to use lifted watermarked images because he is actually providing free advertising for the contributor. Guess what - that's not how it works. It's not up to you to justify your poor legal choices by saying it benefits others.

CD123 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 01, 2011, 07:47 »

You said it is beneficial for them. Like the idiot at "bad stock images" who says it's ok to use lifted watermarked images because he is actually providing free advertising for the contributor. Guess what - that's not how it works. It's not up to you to justify your poor legal choices by saying it benefits others.
[/quote]

And it seems like it is only morons that changes an academic discussion into a personal attack and name calling - rather stick to your camera, as you seem to have difficulty in expressing yourself in acceptable proper manner in any other way.

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #20 on:** February 01, 2011, 07:56 »

I see the point in that I am promoting their product statement... in theory it works but legaly it's not working. Because it must be their decision to allow that kind of advertising not your... the prop release is a good way to make it legal

Anyway, I am sure you guys already realized that most of the stock photos and movies are promoting Apple products. Even if the logos are cloned off we all now it is Apple and I do not hear it very often that Apple would have sued anyone for this. For me it means it is ok for them. And it is easy to understand why. Someone told me once that if a historian from the future would like to describe our century by using stockphotos as his source would say that everyone in this century were very happy and everyone used apple computers. It's a funny observation.

RT · « **Reply #21 on:** February 01, 2011, 08:17 »

There's lots of misinformation here:

Fact - You can use a trademarked product for commercial usage, it's how it is used that is the issue.

Fact - You do not commit any offence if you take a photograph of a trademarked product, or by uploading that image to a stock agency (depending on how you license the image).

Fact - Stock agencies do not control or monitor how an image sold under their RF license is used (not withstanding their individual license agreements), and that is why the majority of them do not take images with trademarked products in them.

Fact - Microstock reviewers are not trained in IP law by the agencies and base their decisions on general guidelines supplied by the site.

Fact - Information regarding copyright and trademarks that you see on stock agencies should be read as their own interpretation of IP law, some may be true some may not.

Fact - A lot of contributors do not understand IP law (copyright,trademarks,patents etc) and read things they see on agencies and forums as law.

Fact - Arguing "Yes but" or "What if" is a futile waste of time.

Understandably microstock agencies have adopted the policy that it's easier not to accept these type of images, and the majority of us who have been doing this for a while have adopted the policy that time is better spent just getting on and shooting stuff that we know we can upload.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #22 on:** February 01, 2011, 08:59 »

Quote from: CD123 on February 01, 2011, 07:47

You said it is beneficial for them. Like the idiot at "bad stock images" who says it's ok to use lifted watermarked images because he is actually providing free advertising for the contributor. Guess what - that's not how it works. It's not up to you to justify your poor legal choices by saying it benefits others.

And it seems like it is only morons that changes an academic discussion into a personal attack and name calling - rather stick to your camera, as you seem to have difficulty in expressing yourself in acceptable proper manner in any other way.
[/quote]

Looks like you are interpreting a disagreement with your opinion as "personal attack and name calling". I neither attacked you nor called you a name. Sorry. You're the one changing the subject.

Maui · « **Reply #23 on:** February 01, 2011, 09:04 »

For copyright of 'useful articles' like cars or other industrial products see this Wikimedia article:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Derivative_works#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F

VB inc · « **Reply #24 on:** February 01, 2011, 19:53 »

I will just make my point to see if people get it or not

A car company invests millions of dollars on their product and when they advertise their product, they hire the most qualified photographers to take pictures of their product. Why would they let anyone with a camera who thinks he/she can make a couple of bucks selling their image on microstock sites with RF licenses.
Lets say the car makers let their product be on micros. Do you really think your picture will come out better than the ones you see on tv or magazines? Maybe, but how many other crappy ones are gonna be out there making your product look cheap.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Stuffed toy copyright, etc. (Read 10897 times)

pet_chia

CD123

VB inc

klsbear

pet_chia

pancaketom

louoates

CD123

thomasw

CD123

thomasw

CD123

CD123

RacePhoto

qwerty

NitorPhoto

Sean Locke Photography

CD123

Sean Locke Photography

CD123

NitorPhoto

RT

Sean Locke Photography

Maui

VB inc

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors