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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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."

I saw that too.  Consider me confused again.

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.