Forum Moderators: not2easy
Lets say I make a pic of some cell phone or laptop computer myself from different angles and publish these pictures on my review website.
Would that be illegal, would that require the permission from the cell phone or laptop computer manufacturer?
Thanks.
I can't see any reason why you'd need the permission of the manufacturer to display a picture you took of what you've bought.
Eliz.
Same thing if you take a photo of a sculpture I've created.
I'm not entirely sure that a digital camera or cell phone etc counts as "art" like a sculpture would, but on the other hand, it sort of makes sense that if you can't publish photos of my sculpture, you can't publish one of my design for a cell phone.
There's also "fair use" which is where you can make limited copies for educational use and/or reviews, but it doesn't hurt to make sure.
And yes, I'm paranoid about copyright stuff, so take what I say with that in mind. :-) You'd probably be fine, but some companies are crazy.
JK
Also you see a host of gadget blogs using product photos taken from the manufacturers site seemingly without permission.
For example you find this written on Apple's web site:
".....You must obtain express written permission from Apple before using any photograph owned or licensed by Apple...."
Yet how many site showing pics of ipods and mac minis have asked for prior permission?
I'm not entirely sure that a digital camera or cell phone etc counts as "art" like a sculpture would, but on the other hand, it sort of makes sense that if you can't publish photos of my sculpture, you can't publish one of my design for a cell phone.
Jolly, you'd be unlikely to produce a million identical sculptures, more likely each one would be unique, hence the copyright issue!
Were one to publish the actual design for a product, this would probably be a breach of copyright, as it is the design itself which is subject to copyright. The resulting brand-name products are mass produced, therefore AFAIK, there's no problem photographing the product. There wouldn't be an individual copyright attached to every single one of a million or more XYZ phones, just to the original design. Still, as you say, some companies can be paranoid ;)
My twopenn'orth to the OP is: if in doubt, contact the PR dept of the company whose product you are reviewing. If they're sending product for you to review anyway, most will fall over themselves to also supply professional quality images for editorial review and publicity purposes.
Jolly, you'd be unlikely to produce a million identical sculptures, more likely each one would be unique, hence the copyright issue!
Good point. However, I would have the sole right to produce those million copies (little plastic dashboard versions, say) and to allow or disallow anyone else from producing those copies until my copyright runs out.
I know that copyright does apply to paintings: I'm not 100% sure about sculptures, though.
Foxtunes also asked a good question:
Yet how many site showing pics of ipods and mac minis have asked for prior permission?
Probably not a lot of them, but that doesn't mean that Apple might not decide to crack down on them at some point. All it takes is a DMCA complaint to shut down someone's website, as many ISP's will just shut the site down without allowing for a counter-notification.
It's kind of like, if I post an MP3 of an obscure Beatles tune on my personal site that nobody but my friends really knows about, probably no one would ever find out and get me for it, but I'd still be violating copyright, and would be in danger of a cease and desist if not a fine.
I agree that contacting the PR folks for whatever company is safest.
With that said, you can always just take whatever pictures you want and post them in the hopes that no one will come after you, because very likely, they won't. I mean, look at all the home-grown photos of whatever on eBay. Those are people showing pictures of iPods or digital cameras and for profit!
Like I said: I'm paranoid when it comes to copyright issues, so that's why I say check with a lawyer or try to get permission first. :-)
JK
However, about the ipod pictures that people post on their websites i guess you talk about these pictures that are taken from the apple's website. In this case everything is clear: all the content from apple's website is copyrighted and the perimission is a must!
Now what about the case when I make a picture of an ipod myself? Will there be a difference between making a photo of ipod and a photo of sculputure or painting which are publicaly available and can be seen by everyone (lets say some sculputure which is standing somewhere in the city, not in the museum etc.)?
Wasn't Stapel right when said that by making a photo of what is publicaly available we create a copyright? And then if Apple wants to publish my artistic picture of an ipod on their website they have to get my permission, even though its their product:)
Thanks for discussion.
Al.
Taking your own pictures of existing products is of course legal and the product vendor has no say in that. Imagine if all the yatch makers in the world went after all those old couples taking pictures of themselves in their Hawaiian trunks in front of their yatch?
What can be constested in some countries is taking pictures of people and using them without permission. This would apply to close-ups of private citizens or images inside their home. There, your copyrights would battle it out with people's privacy.
Will there be a difference between making a photo of ipod and a photo of sculputure or painting which are publicaly available and can be seen by everyone (lets say some sculputure which is standing somewhere in the city, not in the museum etc.)?
Where it gets tricky is in the concept of "derivative works." The copyright holder has sole rights to make derivative works of their work. So, a photo of a painting is a derivative work of the painting.
However, certain works of art are "in the public domain," meaning they are not subject to copyright at all. (A lot of government/publically funded statues fall under this.) You can take a photo of them, and you own the copyright to your photo, but someone else can take their own photo of the work in question, and they own the copyright to their photo.
Anyway, what it comes down to, I guess, is that thousands of people take pictures of their iPod or whatever and post them online and have no problems with that. The question is just, technically, is that copyright violation? And even if it is, if everyone does it, would it be pretty much safe to do it?
I would be really interested to hear what a real IP lawyer has to say about this, 'cause I'm not at all sure that an iPod is considered "art" in the same way as a sculpture. In a way it seems like common sense that it would be, though, because it's a unique design in a fixed form.
I think I'll just put "go to law school" on my to-do list. :-)
JK
Syzygy
That is why you see a lot of pix w/the TM photo shopped out. There was, and fortunately defeated, a new US law that would have allowed a TM owner sue if the TM was used in a way that denigrated the Trade Marked product.
If a homeless person was photographed sleeping on a Cadillac, GM might sue for defamation of trade mark. But, some sanity prevailed! The law didn't pass.
Willjan
Certainly the underlying technology can be patented; the logo can be trademarked; the software running on the chip can be copyrighted. But can the iPod itself be copyrighted, so that your picture of you using it might be regarded as being a "derivative work"?
I'm not saying that it can't be copyrighted; I'm saying that I don't know. Thoughts?
Eliz.
Matt
What you're proposing isn't even remotely illegal ... nor unethical ... nor anything other than good, sound journalistic practice! And no, you need no permission of any type from the manufacturer of the product in question.
On the other hand, you may be doing more work than necessary. In many cases, manufacturers are glad to supply reviewers with bountiful photos of their products. All you need to do is hook up with their marketing department or public relations folks and ask.
