copyrighting infringement

[BlackFire19]

I know as a beginner the last thing on my mind should be my own photography company. But I wanna know ahead could you get sued for if your photography name had a movie title in it (ex. movie title photography)? And since on the subject could you get sued for doing the same photo as another photographer but in your own style?

 

[TBAM]

Generally speaking:

You won't get sued over your company name at all unless the use of your company name has caused the owner of the trademark to lose money or assets.

They usually "politely" ask you to change your company's name, if there is a problem.

Alternatively, change the spelling or the phrasing and run with it. Most movie titles are plays on words, or allusions to other titles that we have for most things e.g. Nightwatch.

The only person that will really care is you. Photography companies or photographers rest more on the success of their work than a catchy company name.

If you're going to take a photo that someone else has taken, that's fine. You're experimenting and utilising your own style. Now, if your photo happened to look exactly like the original photo and you attempted to sell it. Then you might be skirting in on copyright infringement, or plagiarism.

Is there are particular reason why you are worried about this to this extent?

 

[epp_b]

Well, you can get sued for anything these days, whether or not they can win is another thing.

But I wanna know ahead could you get sued for if your photography name had a movie title in it (ex. movie title photography)?

Eh, yes and no. Can you be more specific?

And since on the subject could you get sued for doing the same photo as another photographer but in your own style?

No. The copyright is on the exact photo itself, not on the concept of it.

 

[tirediron]

That would depend on the movie title you used. [Using extreme examples to illustrate a point] "Titanic Photography" would be fine, as would "Pearl Harbour Photogrpahy", but "Die Hard Photography" or "Texas Chainsaw Massacre Photography" would probably earn you a lawsuit.

With respect to the issue of similar photographs (since it's very unlikely you could ever duplicate one exactly), then no, unless you tried to portray yours as a work by that photographer, or photographed something which you didn't have the authority to (For instance a band performing where photography wasn't allowed). For things like two views of Old Faithful or the CN Tower, you're safe.

 

[BlackFire19]

The reason I brought it up is cause I was curious and didn't wanna make a mistake while doing my photography.

And I don't get why Die Hard Photography or Texas Chainsaw Massacre Photography wouldn't make good name for a photography name but the others would be ok?

And as long as it also doesn't alreafy exist it will be ok to use?

 

[tirediron]

The reason I brought it up is cause I was curious and didn't wanna make a mistake while doing my photography.

And I don't get why Die Hard Photography or Texas Chainsaw Massacre Photography wouldn't make good name for a photography name but the others would be ok?

And as long as it also doesn't alreafy exist it will be ok to use?

Because "Pearl Harbour" "Titanic" and other words are public domain; they're common words which also happen to be the titles of movies. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is the title of a movie and that's it. The company which owns the rights to the movie could allege that you are trying to profit by using the publicity generated by the name.

If something doesn't already exist, then yes, you're pretty much good to go.

 

[beaminge36]

I think the way copy right works is based on the industry or field you register in. I think you can have the same name as long as they aren't associated with each other. Like Ritz camera or Ritz crackers. One is a camera shop, the other is a snack.
I believe almost all movie titles are not unique in the sense that alot relate to events and other things or as mentioned before, plays on words. Texas chainsaw massacre was an actual event somewhere, maybe not how it was depicted in the movie, but I believe it happened none the less so I think you would be fine using that title. Run Lola Run Photography on the other hand I think is unique to that movie and using it might cause some issues. This is all hypothesising, i'm not a lawyer so I can't give a definate answer.

Nick

 

[BlackFire19]

But what if you choose a name of a movie but you're not choosing it to make profit from the popularity of the movie you're choosing it cause to you it would be a good name for your photography name and the type of photography you wanna do?

 

[TBAM]

What about 'Run Leica Run!' hehehe

 

[TBAM]

Additionally, no offence BlackFire19. However if you are resorting to using a movie name to use as your moniker, your potential clients may think that you're not creative enough to use your services.

Using a phrase from a movie however in a witty way, or altering a movie title to be more about what you're doing could be a combination of what you are wanting, without resorting to blatantly using a movie name and adding "photography" on the end.

Like, what about 'Some like it Shot, photography'?

'Last Aperture hero'

hehehe

 

[BlackFire19]

Or If I can use a movie title name but just on the logo of it all I change the way it looks to my style or something I don't know exactly but I do get what you're getting at.