What legal restrictions are there on the use of logos in photos?

Question

This question is similar to my other question however this has to do with Logos.

If I am in public (on public property) and take a photo that has a recognizable company logo in it what rights do I have to reuse the photo with the logo in it? (Commercially via the web.) I know this answer could depend on the way the logo is used. If the logo is used in a positive light how does that change if used in a negative light?

One example would be this:

I have a photo of two trucks both with logos of ice cream companies. In front of the trucks is an ambulance (with its lights on). The placement of the trucks with the ambulance is amusing as it indicates eating ice cream can get you a visit from an ambulance. I would use the photo in a amusing way though I know if looked at wrong it can be taken in a negative way.

Notes: I am based in Colorado, USA but will accept answers that can apply worldwide. Also I know a lawyer could provide a definitive answer, however, I am looking for a general idea.

Asked by Lynda

Answer

Trademarks can be used to describe the thing they name by people other than the trademark owner. That is, you don't have to say "that annual 26.2 mile race in the capital of Massachusetts" even though the Boston Athletic Association controls the "Boston Marathon" trademark. Photographs of things with logos on them can be analogous — you may take a photo of a Starbucks sign. You can't, however, try to mislead coffee customers with your photo.

Remember, trademark laws are consumer protection laws. They're there to prevent fraud. They are not intended as a way for people to monetize phrases or to take control of a portion of the public sphere.

Limiting photographs just because they happen to have logos would have a chilling effect on free speech and be directly contradictory to the First Amendment.

In your particular case, your photograph is a commentary on the product — as you describe it, the juxtaposition of the ambulance and the ice cream store reflects on the health of the ice cream sold — this is clearly a speech issue, and while I am not a lawyer it is my opinion as a citizen that you have a very strong free speech argument. There are McDonald's trademarks all over the film Super Size Me, and the company can't be very happy about it, but that's okay.

Stock photos are a special case, because a) the photos are likely to be use commercially, b) customers want generic so other logos don't confuse the message, and c) they're probably over-paranoid and not interested in getting in a lawsuit over your free speech rights.

Answered by mattdm

Check more discussion of this question.

Use of Logos in Photo

Question

This question is similar to my other question however this has to do with Logos.

If I am in public (on public property) and take a photo that has a recognizable company logo in it what rights do I have to reuse the photo with the logo in it? (Commercially via the web.) I know this answer could depend on the way the logo is used. If the logo is used in a positive light how does that change if used in a negative light?

One example would be this:

I have a photo of two trucks both with logos of ice cream companies. In front of the trucks is an ambulance (with its lights on). The placement of the trucks with the ambulance is amusing as it indicates eating ice cream can get you a visit from an ambulance. I would use the photo in a amusing way though I know if looked at wrong it can be taken in a negative way.

Notes: I am based in Colorado, USA but will accept answers that can apply worldwide. Also I know a lawyer could provide a definitive answer, however, I am looking for a general idea.

Asked by Lynda

Answer

Trademarks can be used to describe the thing they name by people other than the trademark owner. That is, you don't have to say "that annual 26.2 mile race in the capital of Massachusetts" even though the Boston Athletic Association controls the "Boston Marathon" trademark. Photographs of things with logos on them can be analogous — you may take a photo of a Starbucks sign. You can't, however, try to mislead coffee customers with your photo.

Remember, trademark laws are consumer protection laws. They're there to prevent fraud. They are not intended as a way for people to monitize phrases or to take control of a portion of the public sphere.

Limiting photographs just because they happen to have logos would have a chilling effect on free speech and be directly contradictory to the First Amendment.

Stock photos are a special case, because a) the photos are likely to be use commercially, b) customers want generic so other logos don't confuse the message, and c) they're probably over-paranoid and not interested in getting in a lawsuit over your free speech rights.

Answered by mattdm

Check more discussion of this question.

Personality Rights

Question

I have read many question here on SE looking for this answer and if I missed a question please point me in the right direction. Now for the question:

If I am in a public venue (be it street or public building) and take a photo that has a person who is identifiable in the photo what rights do I have as a photographer to use that photo commercially.

Notes: The photo is not used for print but used online (commercially). I am based in Colorado, USA but will accept answers that can apply worldwide. Also I know a lawyer could provide a definitive answer, however, I am looking for a general idea.

With that said I know the best solution would be to always get permission if possible. What is the best way to obtain those rights from a person? (I don't believe you would carry with you a model release with you when you go shooting in public.)

Asked by Lynda

Answer

If you are a commercial photographer, then yes you would carry model releases with you, or use an app to record the information. Otherwise you would get the person's name and contact details and obtain permission later.

You have the right to take photos on public property, in public places where people don't have the expectation of privacy.

That doesn't give you the right to take those images and use them for commercial/advertising purposes without consent. By commercial I mean putting them on a billboard or website selling a product. You might be able to sell your prints as artwork, or enter them in competitions, if the rules of the competition didn't require waivers, which most seem to do these days.

There is a country-specific table of rights, including commercial here

A good reference on the subject here, which includes

Typically, before you can use a picture of someone in an advertising campaign or for other commercial purposes, you need to have the right to copy the photograph (a copyright license from the photographer) and the right to use the individual’s image (typically achieved with a “Model Release” from the individual).

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it legal to stop me from taking photos in temples in India?

Question

I live in India, in the state of Tamil Nadu.

Here, some temples do not allow visitors to take pictures or videos. Is that legal, to stop me from taking photos? So many adventures and lovable statues in there!

Temples are public and are managed by the government. Few temples are privately owned. And I am not a photo seller — it's my hobby.

Can I take photos of people in these public places? Is there any law either for or against my rights as a photographer? When I take a picture of people in public, what should I know?

Answer

Yes. See this site:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Check more discussion of this question.