Tentative enquiry about copyright

[pauland]

I develop software and have had a project in mind for some time that would require images of fairly ordinary objects used in a computer program.

I'd imagine taking the pictures myself, so no stock images. I'm curious about where I'd sit with copyright issues for the design of the items themselves.

I realise I'd be in big trouble if I was using images of Cocoa Cola bottles, and most likely Lego, but should be reasonably OK with "generic" items such as a spoon, wrench or tumbler.

Between a Coco-Cola glass and a generic tumbler, is a sea of grey. I could imagine using objects that mostly wouldn't be obviously attributable to a particular manufacturer, but for some things they would be identifiable by some people and most probably the manufacturer.

Any pointers to general rules on this stuff?

I would imagine it's the same problem that an artist might have in composing an image made from everyday kitchen objects and then perhaps selling the prints. Some of those items will be recognisable as coming from a manufacturer, even if the logo isn't shown.

I might never use this information, but I'd like to know where this kind on image usage sits. My project might never happen, but then again I might make billions! LOL.

[The usage of an object might be such that it appears prominently, but not with the intention of that object implying an endorsment of the project - simply as a utility - I could mask any logos, or marks I guess ].

[handrawn]

always a can of worms this

my rule of thumb would be - is the item in the photo recognisable as a specific [intellectual property protected] item

if so is your usage likely to infringe on their legitimate expectation to make money from it marketing wise etc - in the case of coke like you say thats a given

but it is a rule of thumb - for the chapter and verse you need a legal guy

[James Allen]

[The usage of an object might be such that it appears prominently, but not with the intention of that object implying an endorsment of the project - simply as a utility - I could mask any logos, or marks I guess ].

It’s probably much less dangerous than you think. I think if you avoid obvious logos, trademarks, brand names, phone numbers, addresses, faces and slogans, you should be fine. How would we ever be able to watch news live, if it were against the law to film life as it happens, thousands of products parading past in the background, including cars, trucks, planes, boats, dresses, shoes, hats, umbrellas and iPods?

In Mythbusters (and to a degree, Top Gear), they work in warehouses full of tools and equipment and are constantly using trucks, cars, planes, boats, engines and devices to smash, tear, blow up, burn and pulverize other objects, items, tools, machinery, products, etc. I cannot see them contacting every company represented by all those items, to ask permission. It would be far too impractical. Certain things are smudged out of their productions, like company names, phone numbers, advertisements, faces of passers-by, T-shirt slogans and some signs in the background. I can’t imagine a Chinese manufacturer trying to sue you for showing his stapler in a photo of an office setting, especially when his brand name was not visible, and especially if you were not trying to sell anything like staplers.

[xtom]

If you're not doing any intentional harm to the trademark holder the worst they'll probably do (if anything) is request you to remove the offending items. Whether that's likely or not depends on what you're doing and how obvious the trademarked items are. You should try to avoid using trademarked names/logos/marks if you can. If you do use something trademarked you should definately include a trademark disclaimer so it's clear to everyone that your software is not endorsed/connected etc. to them.

[googlebay]

Australian Copyright Amendment Act 2006 in force since 05/05/2007 included Schedule 6 “special case” exception: fair dealing, parody and satire, libraries.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...6213/sch6.html

[bigfurryfriends]

Hi there - this is what I can tell you, based on experience. A long time ago, I built a site for a family member who has a wedding business - I had seen this cutesy little wedding related photo or image online and placed it on their site to highlight some related text. About nine months later, they received a legal notice from Getty images and a bill for thousands of dollars for what they claimed was a fair amount for the use of the image over the time it had been used. I removed the image, they didn't pay it and I think eventually they went away. Nonetheless, it caused me to research this topic.

What I did find out, and unless rules have changed...... most images on .gov (government websites) can be used, carefully, though as they are in essence, owned by the taxpayers.

Another thing you can do is go to flikr.com - this is a huge resource of personally uploaded images. If you find an image you like, look down under "license information" on the right side of the page, about midway down. This will tell you how/if you can use this image. Many many are free to use, but may have restrictions, such as crediting the uploader, etc...

Exercise caution, though. Many non-free photos now have a code embedded in them, wherein they can be picked up by the owners' 'spiders' online.

No matter what, you can always just ask. If you are able to use someone's photo and provide them with a credit mention which links to them/their site, it might be beneficial to you both.

Hope that helps!
Sandy
www.bigfurryfriends.com
www.animalprops.com

[jon404]

Funny, I just started a thread in Xara-Users lounge area about ethics & copyrights. Your situation, though, might be easy to solve. I know you said you took your own photos, but could you composite-in some stock art for any image that might be on the edge?