Ken wrote:
> 
> Dan Connelly wrote:
> >
> > Clearly Bill is wrong.  But the question is highly nontrivial.
> > Consider a photograph -- must I seek permission of all those
> > who have proprietary material captured in the image?  Is
> > a raytracing different than a photograph?
> >
> > It isn't at all obvious to me there is a problem with using
> > commercial logos in tracings.  I would say if a photograph
> > of the same scene is okay, the tracing should be okay.  Would a photograph
> > of a coke can be permissible?

A photo e.g. of a city street where some stores have ads in the window is
generally ok.  "Incidental uses" like that are normally not considered
infringing.  A photo of just a Coke can, unless, perhaps you are Andy Warhol and
can make a first amendment case as artistic expression, may be potential
trouble.  Remember, don't confuse copyright law and trademark law.  The rules
are quite different.  Incidentally, there have been trademark cases in which
someone was enjoined from using *his own name* because it could damage the value
of a trademarked name or falsely imply endorsement by the trademark holder.  I
seem to remember such a case involving an establishment called "Frank Sinatra's
Restaurant", although that was the actual given name of the proprietor.
 
> I think the laws of protection are for cicumstances where
> profitability are concerned. In the case of the i.r.t.c
> where the entrant has the oppertunity to win a prize
> with real world value by using trademarked material is
> in fact in violation of the intent of the law. To use such
> material for ones own use is probably permissable.

Sorry.  Myth number one.  Profitablity or profitable intent are irrelevant to
whether infringement occurs.  Consider the recent case of the man named "Koch"
who got tired of having it pronounced "kahtch" rather than "koke".  He tried to
change it to "Coke-is-it" so people would pronounce it correctly, and a certain
cola company intervened.  Although he had no financial intent whatsoever in the
change, they felt (and the law was on their side) that he could thereby damage
their trademark.  (Actual or intended) profit could matter in determining the
amount of actual damages in a civil suit.  But damages can occur regardless. 
And there are still statutory damages if a copyright is registered (which can be
done after the fact).
 
> I mentioned the case of Disney and the day care center but
> there is another even more valid example of using such materials
> without permission. That would be the movie industry. In every
> scene of a movie where tradmarked goods are shown on screen
> there is an extremely large staff of people envolved with
> making sure permission is granted by the owner of the materials
> in question.

Although in the movie case, they spend even more time negotiating "product
placement" fees *from* the trademark holders!

My bottom line suggestion is: avoid "fan art" - no Enterprises, Batmen, Tie
fighters, Mickey Mice etc.  Don't make a specific trademark or trademarked
character the focus of your image.  And if you do have a trademarked item in the
image, for safety's sake don't do anything that could be interpreted as
disparaging it.  But if you do, say, a restaurant table with a Coke bottle among
the bowls and dishes or even a Garfield calendar on a background wall, don't
sweat it.  Many, many past IRTC images, including some excellent ones have
technically infringed trademarks and/or copyrights.  So far, I know of no
trouble resulting.  But I would hate to see some humorless corporate dweeb get
the IRTC blown out of the water.  So please don't push it, people.

Jerry Anning
cle### [at] dholcom

***DISCLAIMER***
Although I have had to spend a fair amount of time researching these matters on
behalf of various people, I am *not* a lawyer.  So please don't shun me!

Post a reply to this message