Question about rights of using photos

[marie1128]

I know it is illegal to use a google picture on (for example) your blog, if you were not the photographer who took that picture. What if I took a picture of let's say, a well known magazine (like Cosmo), and put MY picture of it on my blog? Is that illegal since I don't own that company?

I'd rather ask before I get sued for thousands of dollars (the above scenario is just an example; I'm not going to take a random picture of a Cosmo magazine).

 

[Gavjenks]

Depends. What is your blog about? If you're just editorializing on Cosmo ("Cosmo is ruining our nation's children blah blah here's an image from their most recent cover I'll use as an example to show why" etc.), that should be fine, even if you make ad revenue on your blog.

Whereas if your blog somehow implies that Cosmo endorses something via your image, or if you try to sell coffee mugs with Cosmo's cover via your camera on them, or if you just scan the whole issue and offer it free of charge to read in its entirety without even bothering to comment, or so on, then you might easily get in a lot of trouble.

Certain uses are okay, others aren't.



And as always, even if a guy on the internet says it's okay, that's not going to hold up in court if you do get sued. If you're seriously concerned about losing a lot of money or facing criminal charges for something, seek an actual lawyer's advice. There are free sites for breif comments from lawyers for free to judge whether you might need a deeper consultation. For example avvo.com

 

[marie1128]

Thanks Gavjenks. I wasn't sure if it was going to be black and white. Good to know. Thanks a lot!

 

[JoeW]

I know it is illegal to use a google picture on (for example) your blog, if you were not the photographer who took that picture. What if I took a picture of let's say, a well known magazine (like Cosmo), and put MY picture of it on my blog? Is that illegal since I don't own that company?

I'd rather ask before I get sued for thousands of dollars (the above scenario is just an example; I'm not going to take a random picture of a Cosmo magazine).

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. That acknowledged...

You're confusing two issues here. One involves the rights to use a photo (which a model release typically deals with). The other is patent and trademark protection.

You the photographer always own the photo (unless you sell the rights to someone as part of a contract or unless it's prohibited by law...say...a secure facility or document or child porn). What you don't own automatically is the right to publicize, market, sell, and display that photo. There are typical exceptions in most states for things like...public figures or newsworthy events. But that's why model releases are typically required if you're going to take pictures of someone and then sell or publicize that picture.

You could take a selfie of yourself standing next to a poster of a Cosmo cover and you'd own that photo. You'd even have the rights (in at least most states) to publicize that photo (like put it on your blog).

However....Cosmo (or a Las Vegas hotel with trademarked furniture or wallpaper that you do a shoot in) could insist that you are infringing on their trademark or defaming their name/brand. For instance, most national news outlets (like CBS or NBC) have refused to allow political campaigns to use clips of one of their new reports in a political ad (even though it was in the public domain and involves news). And that's the point that Gavjenks is getting at--that a company can argue that you're damaging their brand.

Last of all, some companies are just control freaks. They will want anyone who wants to use a picture of their logo to submit this to legal so legal can 3 months reviewing the request, asking if you've got insurance, demanding documentation of your intention and tax records, and then denying the request. Not b/c they have any real legal authority to deny this but b/c they're control freaks with big law firms and will willingly go to court over stuff like this.

So the point is not that you can't do this. It's that there are a couple of different issues that come up around this.

 

[KmH]

The Law of Using Images from the Web on Your Blog | Gray Reed & McGraw, P.C. - JDSupra

Intellectual Property

 

[Light Guru]

Depends. What is your blog about? If you're just editorializing on Cosmo ("Cosmo is ruining our nation's children blah blah here's an image from their most recent cover I'll use as an example to show why" etc.), that should be fine, even if you make ad revenue on your blog.

Whereas if your blog somehow implies that Cosmo endorses something via your image, or if you try to sell coffee mugs with Cosmo's cover via your camera on them, or if you just scan the whole issue and offer it free of charge to read in its entirety without even bothering to comment, or so on, then you might easily get in a lot of trouble.

Certain uses are okay, others aren't.

It has NOTHING to do with what your blog is about. It has EVERYTHING to with what your contract with the client says.

I know it is illegal to use a google picture on (for example) your blog, if you were not the photographer who took that picture. What if I took a picture of let's say, a well known magazine (like Cosmo), and put MY picture of it on my blog? Is that illegal since I don't own that company?

I'd rather ask before I get sued for thousands of dollars (the above scenario is just an example; I'm not going to take a random picture of a Cosmo magazine).

What does your contract with the magazine say?

 

[Gavjenks]

It has NOTHING to do with what your blog is about. It has EVERYTHING to with what your contract with the client says.

Who said anything about a contract? I'm confused.
I think it's fairly obvious that what he meant was just buying a copy off the news stand, photographing it on your bed at home, and putting it on a personal blog to illustrate some point or whatever you use images for on your blog. Not a contract.

And yes, it very much matters what your blog is about and how you are referring to and using that image. There is fair use and not fair use. Editorializing about Cosmo and using a front cover that is already displayed for free to everybody on the sidewalk is a pretty darn safe fair use example (i.e. no contract or contact of or permission from Cosmo at all). Doing a parody is also a very often-defended fair use (you think Family Guy gets contractual agreement from every random movie or personality they lampoon? >.>)

Other ways of talking about it (depending on the blog's theme) become very much less safe.

 

[weepete]

Fair Use :: Copyright Overview by Rich Stim :: Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center

I think your slightly wrong Gav, the work pretty much needs to be transformitive to be considered fair use.

 

[pixmedic]

Fair Use :: Copyright Overview by Rich Stim :: Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center

I think your slightly wrong Gav, the work pretty much needs to be transformitive to be considered fair use.

'shop in a mustache on whatever supermodel is on the cover and boom....problem solved!

 

[Gavjenks]

Erm, weepete, did you read your link? It explicitly uses the exact same example I did...
Parodies, as an example of a transformative usage. And editorializing clearly fits their definition as a straightforward example of adding meaning via review, commentary, etc.

 

[weepete]

Ah, yes I read most of it mate. I misread your post, I thought you were saying it would be ok to use a photo of the cover as it's on display, I missed the editorializing bit....Sorry buddy, my bad.

That links a good read though, I like the examples at the back

 

[Light Guru]

It has NOTHING to do with what your blog is about. It has EVERYTHING to with what your contract with the client says.

Who said anything about a contract? I'm confused.
I think it's fairly obvious that what he meant was just buying a copy off the news stand, photographing it on your bed at home, and putting it on a personal blog to illustrate some point or whatever you use images for on your blog. Not a contract./QUOTE]

As I understood the OP he took a photo that was used in the magazine and also want to use it on his blog. If I misread then fine. If he just want to take a photo of the magazine then he owns the copyright so there would be no issue.

 

[vintagesnaps]

What about linking to the magazine or article since it's already published? I don't know if you can photograph the cover of a magazine and use that on your blog or not.

I don't think you could sell a photo of a magazine cover. Your blog might be considered editorial use, it doesn't seem like you're using your blog to make money. If you were selling something or running a business thru your blog then that might make a difference.