Legalities of photographing vehicles and cityscapes?

[Tailgunner]

Hi,

I have just recently submitted a sample selection of photos to a stock image site in which half was rejected. The reasons was as follows; "Image potentially infringes on intellectual property rights." The photos in question contain images of cars taken at a local car club where area photographer clubs was invited. The remaining photos are cityscape scenes taken of downtown Dallas TX. Only one photo had the potential to single out a specific building(s). The building in question is iconic but I'm not aware of it being copyrighted/trademarked (if that is possible in the US) and is often photographed.

My questions are regarding the legality of such photos and not so much C&C. I'm aware that I'm seeking legal advice from the internet but I'm looking for general information from those in the business in hopes of clearing this up some. So I'll post a couple of the photos and would like to hear from the pros if these photos infringe on intellectual rights. I'm not trying to argue either for or against, just looking for a better understanding for future photo shoots as to avoid possible legal issues.

Thanks,

Ray

 

[bribrius]

you too? I read that and couldn't seem to figure out what they wanted. Do they want me to go person to person and ask for them to sign off allowing it? seems kind of ridiculous imo.

 

[Nevermore1]

If these were submitted to stock photo sites I suspect that the brand symbol/logo on the car and the company signs on the buildings are the issues (that looks like a Sheraton Hotel in the cityscape photo but I'm not positive, I need new glasses). Maybe try photoshopping those symbols/signs out and resubmit to see what they come back with. I know that a lot of TV shows/movies make up their own "brands" for props (soda cans, cereal boxes etc) because if they use a name brand they have to pay the company for the rights to show it on the screen. I believe it is the same for pictures on stock sites, you are making money off their brand.

 

[Tailgunner]

If these were submitted to stock photo sites I suspect that the brand symbol/logo on the car and the company signs on the buildings are the issues (that looks like a Sheraton Hotel in the cityscape photo but I'm not positive, I need new glasses). Maybe try photoshopping those symbols/signs out and resubmit to see what they come back with. I know that a lot of TV shows/movies make up their own "brands" for props (soda cans, cereal boxes etc) because if they use a name brand they have to pay the company for the rights to show it on the screen. I believe it is the same for pictures on stock sites, you are making money off their brand.

Thanks, that is probably it.

I have been photoshoping some of the logo/signs out just because of being eye sores...that chase logo is absolutely horrid for example. I'm going to work on this and try it again.

Thanks

 

[Steve5D]

I remember hearing something a few years back about Ford Motor Co. filing a lawsuit against a Mustang club which produced a calendar for sale. If I recall, Ford's position was that no part of a Ford Mustang could be shown, because every part of the car could be easily identified as a Ford Mustang.

Ford won the lawsuit and sales of the calendar were halted...

 

[Tailgunner]

I remember hearing something a few years back about Ford Motor Co. filing a lawsuit against a Mustang club which produced a calendar for sale. If I recall, Ford's position was that no part of a Ford Mustang could be shown, because every part of the car could be easily identified as a Ford Mustang.

Ford won the lawsuit and sales of the calendar were halted...

Ya, I remember that case. Ford finally realized their case was doing more harm to their brand than good and released the images.

 

[Steve5D]

I remember hearing something a few years back about Ford Motor Co. filing a lawsuit against a Mustang club which produced a calendar for sale. If I recall, Ford's position was that no part of a Ford Mustang could be shown, because every part of the car could be easily identified as a Ford Mustang.

Ford won the lawsuit and sales of the calendar were halted...

Ya, I remember that case. Ford finally realized their case was doing more harm to their brand than good and released the images.

Hadn't heard that...

 

[sk66]

The issue is trademarks...
In the first image it would be very hard to use the photo commercially without a strong "Ferrari" association...the image is "only" about the Ferrari. In the second image, it is clearly a cityscape and the association to any one building/sign is trivial.
For the first image I see their point; on the second I disagree.

Including a trademark is not enough to cause trademark infringement... but they just don't want any potential of hassle for themselves or their clients.

 

[KmH]

If you would like a better understanding of the issues related to modal/property releases, trademarks, and licensing - A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things

See pages 231 - 239 of the above book for more about buildings, including private homes.

 

[Tailgunner]

I remember hearing something a few years back about Ford Motor Co. filing a lawsuit against a Mustang club which produced a calendar for sale. If I recall, Ford's position was that no part of a Ford Mustang could be shown, because every part of the car could be easily identified as a Ford Mustang.

Ford won the lawsuit and sales of the calendar were halted...

Ya, I remember that case. Ford finally realized their case was doing more harm to their brand than good and released the images.

Hadn't heard that...

I'm a car guy and have owned several Fords, currently driving a Raptor. This case went viral through out the automotive world in just hours after the initial posting.

Ford responded saying they don't mind if Fans took high res images of their cars in order to make calendars for club sites etc etc as long as they don't use their logos to promote sales. Several sites has since made calendars using images of their Ford vehicles (SVTPerformace.com for example). Ford technically never sent a Cease and Desist letter to Black Mustang Club, it was their host or parent company that ordered them to stop production of the calendar in fear or Ford reprisals. (SVTPerformance never payed it any attention and continued). I've slept since then (this took place back in 2008) but I really want to recall Ford didn't have a legal foot and why they didn't fully pursue the case(s). Now this is not to say Ford want, they sent out several Cease and Desist letters during this time to sites using one of their copyrighted names (Ford has copyrighted everything, even the word "Pony"). One was a Mustang or Pony parts site who was a Ford OEM parts dealer. Its been a while but I believe they changed their name to something like Performance parts or muscle cars even though they specialized in Mustangs only.

 

[Tailgunner]

The issue is trademarks...
In the first image it would be very hard to use the photo commercially without a strong "Ferrari" association...the image is "only" about the Ferrari. In the second image, it is clearly a cityscape and the association to any one building/sign is trivial.
For the first image I see their point; on the second I disagree.

Including a trademark is not enough to cause trademark infringement... but they just don't want any potential of hassle for themselves or their clients.

So would it help in the future to include something in the frame with a vehicle? House, building, bridge etc?

Thanks.

I have since removed all the logos from the cityscape...it's amazing how many logo/signs you can find when you start zooming in on an image lol

 

[vintagesnaps]

Steve's probably right that if the car is recognizable even without the logo it might not be sellable as a stock photo; a website selling stock photos could potentially sell a photo many times to a variety of buyers for various unspecified uses. They probably can't sell photos with logos and trademarks or that have subjects that are otherwise recognizable because there would be too many restrictions for it to be useable as a stock photo.

You could look on ASMP's site for some info. about property releases. Business Resources | American Society of Media Photographers

 

[bratkinson]

Unfortunately, the US law seems to have leaned towards "actively protect it or you lose it" mentality for corporate anything...from logos to products to buildings. (I'm not a lawyer, never was, never will, never portrayed one on film or TV).

What this has done is to make reproduction in any form of large company logos near impossible to 'get away with' if there is any profit involved. The calendar pictures for a car club is a perfect example. I recently took some what-I-thought-was-outstanding night pictures of our my employers' intermodal train being loaded for the company calendar (employee submissions) and it was shot down by the legal department as the shippers' corporate logo was clearly identifiable on one of the trailers. I'm also aware that the legal departments of several railroads have forced model railroad equipment manufacturers to pay some kind of royalty fee for use of the railroad logo on a model boxcar, for example.

20 years ago, a client I was working at would not allow the corporate logo to be printed by computer as it could not be 100% accurately reproduced by an impact printer at that point in time. It's a matter of 'faithful reproduction' of the logo as well as an outside organization/company making a profit from use of 'their' logo.

In short, the thought of providing 'free advertising for xxx company' is history. XXX company either wants some royalties or all use of the logo by other than xxx to be stopped.

 

[Tailgunner]

Unfortunately, the US law seems to have leaned towards "actively protect it or you lose it" mentality for corporate anything...from logos to products to buildings. (I'm not a lawyer, never was, never will, never portrayed one on film or TV).

What this has done is to make reproduction in any form of large company logos near impossible to 'get away with' if there is any profit involved. The calendar pictures for a car club is a perfect example. I recently took some what-I-thought-was-outstanding night pictures of our my employers' intermodal train being loaded for the company calendar (employee submissions) and it was shot down by the legal department as the shippers' corporate logo was clearly identifiable on one of the trailers. I'm also aware that the legal departments of several railroads have forced model railroad equipment manufacturers to pay some kind of royalty fee for use of the railroad logo on a model boxcar, for example.

20 years ago, a client I was working at would not allow the corporate logo to be printed by computer as it could not be 100% accurately reproduced by an impact printer at that point in time. It's a matter of 'faithful reproduction' of the logo as well as an outside organization/company making a profit from use of 'their' logo.

In short, the thought of providing 'free advertising for xxx company' is history. XXX company either wants some royalties or all use of the logo by other than xxx to be stopped.

So do car magazines pay a royalty? I've seen brands blurred out when used for TV or Movies unless paid to be used, we put our son in acting lessons and his clothes had to be brand free. But car magazines don't seem to shy away from brands or using detailed photos of vehicles.

 

[sk66]

The issue is trademarks...
In the first image it would be very hard to use the photo commercially without a strong "Ferrari" association...the image is "only" about the Ferrari. In the second image, it is clearly a cityscape and the association to any one building/sign is trivial.
For the first image I see their point; on the second I disagree.

Including a trademark is not enough to cause trademark infringement... but they just don't want any potential of hassle for themselves or their clients.

So would it help in the future to include something in the frame with a vehicle? House, building, bridge etc?

Thanks.

I have since removed all the logos from the cityscape...it's amazing how many logo/signs you can find when you start zooming in on an image lol

Trademarks/trademark infringement is a much misunderstood/convoluted area.
Trademarks are different from copyright in that they MUST be filed for/registered/awarded or they do not exist. A trademark can be awarded for anything uniquely distinctive. It is most often a logo or a name, but it can also be something as simple as color (the last is rare/odd, but I know of one case). A trademark can be filed for/granted at any time as long as it hasn't already been awarded to someone else.

The inclusion of a trademark in itself does not qualify as trademark infringement. There has to be "an association" that would imply the trademark owner is advocating/associated with the use (commercial use).

But being "right" doesn't always mean much. You could remove the logos and Ferrari could still sue you and "win." They could sue you saying the look of the vehicle is distinctive and therefore "a trademark." They wouldn't "win in court" if no trademark actually existed, but they would "win" simply because their wallet is bigger than yours. Most "clients" will avoid even the possibility of such hassles because they simply aren't worth the headaches.

I suppose there is the potential for them to sue due to the use of "their likeness" on a "privacy rights" basis much as an individual could for commercial use.... IMO that's a stretch, but the courts have ruled that a company has at least some of the rights of "an individual" (i.e. political donations). Again, it doesn't really matter a lot of the time....big wallet wins...