pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Confused noob please advise - trademarks and licensing RF RM  (Read 5439 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 12, 2010, 20:45 »
0
I'm new to photography never mind this crazy stock world but I am having fun.

My question concerns trademarks and licensing. I have noticed on Alamy there are a lot of images as RM where trademarked items are the main focus, on other sites (RF) this would be a complete no-no (as i understand it).

I was wondering in what circ's it is OK to upload and sell such trade marked photographs. E.g. I have bought a selection of a particular brewers bottled beers. I can see photographs of them being used in a pub/restaurant ad, in a newspaper article surrounding the share price of the company etc. etc. In other words there may be a small market for these pics.

But.... by uploading them am I exposing myself to a risk if the pictures are used in a way teh brewery doesn't like?


« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2010, 20:46 »
0
Swift answers appreciated as I may drink them before I have done the pictures at this rate  ;)

« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2010, 23:11 »
0
I am thinking it is always the end user bears the responsibility of usage of an images, like if there is a trademark, even the end user bought it from some agencies that claim is 'RF' means ok for commercial usage, it is still the end user to consider what kind of usage is appropriate.

« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2010, 23:19 »
0

« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2010, 23:42 »
0
http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html#3.2


Sean has GOT to have the most information-per-typed-character of any forum I've ever seen... :)

« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2010, 01:08 »
0
http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html#3.2


Sean has GOT to have the most information-per-typed-character of any forum I've ever seen... :)


Seriously.

« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2010, 03:56 »
0
Answer Yes to "does it need a release" and No to "do you have a release?". This will set the image as "L", which is RM and you will be covered. You will find many images improperly set at Alamy though.

« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2010, 06:07 »
0
Thanks for the info folks.

Unfortunately I no longer have a full set to photograph but my try it again on another occassion :)

rubyroo

« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2010, 06:51 »
0
Answer Yes to "does it need a release" and No to "do you have a release?". This will set the image as "L", which is RM and you will be covered. You will find many images improperly set at Alamy though.

I wish all the agencies did something like that within their own licencing structure!  It seems to me that keeps the onus where it's supposed to be, rather than unfairly putting all the pressure on the photographer.  Much simpler, and seems more in tune with the proper legal requirements.  I haven't felt able to shoot anything that might be risky on property release grounds, but with that option available at Alamy, I may shoot some for them.  As long as I can be honest and have no fear of recriminations, I'm happy to spread my wings a lot further.

« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2010, 06:59 »
0
While the responsibility is on the end user, there is a difference (as I remember from somewhere), between uploading an editorial type shot with a coke bottle visible on the side of the road or something, and a bunch of shots of a coke bottle isolated on white as the main subject, and that the latter can get you into trouble with the company.

rubyroo

« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2010, 07:35 »
0
While the responsibility is on the end user, there is a difference (as I remember from somewhere), between uploading an editorial type shot with a coke bottle visible on the side of the road or something, and a bunch of shots of a coke bottle isolated on white as the main subject, and that the latter can get you into trouble with the company.

That makes sense - clearly differentiating between an incidental item and the lone star of the shot.  Thank you Sean.

« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2010, 08:03 »
0
I understand that I think.

What about using the isolated coke bottel while writing a factual article in a newspaper about coca cola. Would that be ok in the same way that editorial photo's of people are ok without releases?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2010, 10:41 »
0
I understand that I think.

What about using the isolated coke bottel while writing a factual article in a newspaper about coca cola. Would that be ok in the same way that editorial photo's of people are ok without releases?
Maybe, and it'll be different in different countries, but you'd have to ask why someone would pay for such a photo when they could probably get them for free from the product's HQ (though maybe not if it was to illustrate a bad true story about the product).
Same goes, unfortunately for many 'travel hotspots'. So much so that when my friend was planning a trip to New Zealand, she saw the same three pics in eight different brochures - all from the NZ tourist board or equivalent.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2010, 12:55 »
0
I understand that I think.

What about using the isolated coke bottel while writing a factual article in a newspaper about coca cola. Would that be ok in the same way that editorial photo's of people are ok without releases?
Maybe, and it'll be different in different countries, but you'd have to ask why someone would pay for such a photo when they could probably get them for free from the product's HQ (though maybe not if it was to illustrate a bad true story about the product).
Same goes, unfortunately for many 'travel hotspots'. So much so that when my friend was planning a trip to New Zealand, she saw the same three pics in eight different brochures - all from the NZ tourist board or equivalent.
Added: the new announcement from iStock seems to trump Sean's post, as far as iStock is concerned:
" Products
It's true: that isolated on white picture of your Fender Telecaster is now acceptable on iStock. We will be accepting all kinds of product shots."

rubyroo

« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2010, 12:59 »
0

Added: the new announcement from iStock seems to trump Sean's post, as far as iStock is concerned:
" Products
It's true: that isolated on white picture of your Fender Telecaster is now acceptable on iStock. We will be accepting all kinds of product shots."


I saw that too.  Consider me confused again.

« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2010, 12:59 »
0
Yeah, I wouldn't have guessed that.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2010, 14:20 »
0
Yeah, I wouldn't have guessed that.
To be honest, I didn't know what you posted about isolated product shots, because I see them in (UK) mewspapers and mags. Though I've tended to assume they came from the company's publicity dept.


« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2010, 16:03 »
0
Now I am confused.  I understand that any photo of Coca Cola - isolated or not, the bottle, the logo, a billboard - can be used in editorial content. Or no?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2422 Views
Last post August 30, 2007, 12:47
by Peter
8 Replies
4522 Views
Last post December 19, 2008, 14:42
by hali
3 Replies
1670 Views
Last post January 14, 2013, 16:06
by Mrblues101
3 Replies
2257 Views
Last post August 11, 2013, 12:55
by DallasP
3 Replies
2791 Views
Last post February 07, 2018, 19:22
by Rob Caven

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle