Would I need to license this?
 

If I take pictures of items that I own used in making tour design content for sale to other webmasters would I even need to license something like this for resale?

Quite possibly. Many companies have a copyright, trademark, or even a patent on the distinct image of their products. At the very least, showing logos might be trouble. If the site was reviewing the products, it would be one thing, but purely for marketing purposes? Probably trouble.

huh?


are you talking about content that is licensed to you, you use it in a site design, now you want to re-sell the design. Um.....that isnt cool with content providers. Designers can make deals with content providers to pay something extra so they can use their content in design work for other people. Your design clients should be providing you with content they've licensed.

I think he means, like, taking a picture of his TV, video camera, dildo, etc.

i don't get it...

Gothweb thought what i first though his question was about then i changed my mind.

so you're asking if you need to include a photo of a TV set or computer in a design if you take a photo of your Sony TV or Apple ocmputer are you ok legally to sell the design?

Probably not, like Gothboy said, might be a good idea to blur out logos like Apple and Sony. But it's a real longshot anybody would ever finger you for that.

I see teenie photoshoots with stuffed animals like Winnie the Pooh - if a photographer was following the letter of the law would he have to have permission from Walt Disney for the usage of the Pooh doll?

Think so actually, if you notice sometimes when pro athletes do commercials they are not wearng the uniforms of the teams they play for - so you'd see Michael Jordan in a red and black basketball uniform but no Chicago Bulls logo - cuz whoever hired
MJ didn't want to also pay the NBA another fee to have Jordan wearing the real Bulls uniform.

gothweb, you are correct. I want take pictures of things that would be appropriate for a adult website tour.

I need some more input on this topic...

Thank you.

If the item appears in a natural setting and could normally be seen in the setting, you don't need any permission if you own the item.

If the emphisis is on the trademarked item and it is not just in the background you do need to license it's use.

Examples you don't need a license for.

A Picture of people watching a TV. You don't need to license the pic of the TV.

A picture taken in a bar of people having sex and beer signs are in the background. You don't need a lic for the beer signs.

A girl palying with herself in a kitchen and a pepsi can is on the table. You don't need a lic for the pepsi can.

Now if a trademark holder feels you are degrading and damaging the trademark you can still be sued.

Disclaimer. I'm not a lawyer but I pay many of them big fees every month.

Hugs,
Danielle

Let's just say the item will be singled out and set in front of a white or black background so it could very well be used in building a website tour...

If the item is singled out, it would not be considered in a natural setting and if it was trademarked you would need a license from the tradmark holder.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer even though I do play one on my amateur site at times.

Hugs,
Danielle

I'm not quite sure if I know what you mean, but here is a stab at an answer.

If you put something like a Coca Cola bottle on a table in the background no problem. Single it out as you suggest or put it into the models hands and wait for their lawyers to contact you. Put it into a models pussy and don't even bother to wait. They will sue.

Don't bother is the general rule. The kind of companies with brand names have lawyers who are just looking for an excuse to bill them.

In my opinion, when you buy something, you can make photos of it and use them, however you want. You paid for that thing, when you bought it.

Some of you are way off base on this! It really doesn't matter if the object is the center of scene or off to the side- if it's a recognizable logo, trademark, lyric or whatever, you can be held liable for it's usage.

If you don't think so, just check out the set of guidelines that MTV uses in it's site submission MPEG feature- http://www.mtv.com/onair/mpeg_us/rules.jhtml

Now, do you think they'd turn down a super-tremendous, out-of-sight, sure-fire winner because of a coke can label in the background unless there wasn't a good reason?

depends on what the pictures are licensed for.
go and try to sell design without pics if you don't have a license for resell:Graucho

Here is one I know first hand. ;)

If you take a picture of a woman with coca-cola bottle in her vagina, coca-cola will contact you and tell you to remove the picture from your website immediately (with a long legal explanation which basicly says they don't want their trademark used this way).

Of course, all you REALLY have to do is remove the label from the bottle. ;)

(Yes, I know they have a patten on the design of the bottle, but they didn't seem to mind once the label was removed from the picture.)


PS- This didn't happen to me, but to a guy I know. I don't take nude photos. :D

hmmmm that gives me an idea

Here's a story I can share (without naming names):

A Mardi Gras video production company hooked up with a major streaming video plugin provider a few years ago. There wasn't any problem with a lack of model's releases or proof of age but, get this, they had to redo the entire soundtrack because of the background music from the clubs on Bourbon Street. Their laywer, one of the best in this business, realized that even snippets of songs from live bands, juke boxes or kaoroke clubs would get them in far worse trouble than anything else...

Ok, what if the brand names don't show and you can't recognize where they came from? Plus for tour designs the pictures are even smaller. I'm just taking the pictures myself of things I own that's why I can't see the harm in doing this.

There's around 200,000 websites that use THIS picture:
http://www.canon.fi/img/xl1s.jpg
Not a self-made picture of that. But a simple cut and past job on designs. Is that a copyright violation then? If it's not, where has it been licenced from? Where CAN one licence such pics?

no doubt.

I really doubt a huge company with lots of other worries on their hands would even give two shits about the pictures. I know that 200,000 don't have a license to use that Canon camcorder picture :)

Better yet, and more importantly to the companies at hand, is the fact that if what you are doing does NOT make the company look bad (like coke felt a bottle in a pussy did) then I would think they may view it as free advertising.


Do you think than any car maker complains when a movie shows their cars being used in it? Hell no, they even pay to have their cars show-cased, etc.

But if the premise of the movie was about a car that kept dying on them everytime they needed it and how it got them into a lot of trouble, etc I doubt any car maker would be happy to have their car showcased in that roll.

Digital media has sure muddied things up hasn't it. ;)

I mean, if I buy a movie on DVD, I own the DVD itself and can sell it on Ebay when I am sick of it. But if I buy something digital from the net (which they want to sell movies this way), I only own a license to use it for myself and can't sell it. Nice way to strip ownership from the people.

As long as the objects in question are not the focus of the picture and their trademarks are not overtly obvious there shouldn't be a problem.

For example, if you photograph a girl with a dildo you don't need permission from the dildo maker. However if you take closeup pics of just the dildo then you probably should get permission.

Right, they would be close ups of just the item itself with white and black backgrounds.

I was thinking the same thing.

And what about the Windows Media Player interface? I see that everywhere.

This is a very good point! If you take a picture of a model and a can of Coke is in the background, I doubt you would have a problem because Coke is a very recognizable brand. If, on the other hand, the can of coke was very prominate in the picture you might get into some trouble.

This is all very vague. You cannot get around that. It is always importnat to consider the COSTS of proving you point. Even if that can of Coke was just in the back ground, if they come after you, can you afford the defense? Is the publicity worth the costs?

My rule of thumb is as long as you do not prominently display brand names/images you will be okay, but you never know. We have gotten these types of letters, and decide to pull/modify the image(s). The fight was not worth it . . .

Basically, the only way to see what will happen is to just go ahead and proceed. Otherwise you wonder what could have happened and you never go anywhere.