Photo copyright & Ebay

[Draycott]

But the point is the logos are just part of the whole object, and I photographed the whole object, and the copyright of that photograph belongs to me.
That is the answer I got from a lawyer.
My question was has anybody managed to overcome VeRO when it is plainly wrong

[Draycott]

You might want to ask a copyright solicitor instead of some blokes at a show. Stating unofficial merchandise is a load of bull. If you reproduce the Honda logo it's trademark infringement.

Who complained then?

But the using the word "Featuring" in the name of a product is not the same as using the word "Unofficial".
It says this is a picture of something. Could be anything but it does not infer any rights to the object, it is the same as saying this is a picture of a mountain.
Once it is a photograph it is "a work of art " and covered by that part of copyright law, provided you took the photograph in the correct circumstances, i.e. not somewhere where taking photographs is prohibited
I did speak to a lawyer about this and have asked the question again of a different lawyer.

[Dave271069]

so, are you saying if i took a decent picture of 1 direction and with a bit of croping on photoshop i put the image on t-shirts and sold them as unofficial 1D t-shirts that would just be fine,,,,? at a guess im thinking not!

[Draycott]

so, are you saying if i took a decent picture of 1 direction and with a bit of croping on photoshop i put the image on t-shirts and sold them as unofficial 1D t-shirts that would just be fine,,,,? at a guess im thinking not!

That is exactly what i am not saying
If you take the picture in a public place, in Oxford St for instance and sell it as a T shirt with a picture of 1D on i.e. "featuring" then you come under the same part of copyright law as a newspaper
printing the same picture.
"Trouble is no 1 has enough money to fight the big money companies that stop your right to do this."
My lawyers words

[GoonerGary]

The original photo you posted is not something which would normally attract a VeRO report. I've spoken to Ford about this and they are only concerned about people reproducing the Ford logo as the main part of the product.

A photograph taken during a race of a Ford rally car with their badge on the car's front grill should be fine.

But, when you put Ford (or Honda) into the product title infers an association with that company and that is when you can run into trouble.

Your other product which I linked to of the Honda logo on a mug is illegal merchandise. You should remove that asap otherwise you will trigger another VeRO report or a legal bill which could potentially ruin you...just some friendly advice.

[pisquee]

Surprised you're getting away with this one too...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Childrens-Mon ... 19e56d8808

[arthur.daley]

Surprised you're getting away with this one too...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Childrens-Mon ... 19e56d8808

The Rupert money box looks like its a piece of printed paper pulled around the Disney money box, as does the Brum picture.

Looking at other items on ebay, they also seem to be pieces of paper pulled around mugs - nice!

I'd be interested to hear how you managed to get permission to reproduce all of those air to air photos - I suppose they could be all ones that you took but i rather doubt it, same with all of the motor racing images.

Care to comment?

If YOU take a photo of 1D in Oxford Street ie of them in a public place, as far as I can see YOU can do pretty much as you like with it.

[pisquee]

lol, hadn't noticed it was paper prints!

[GoonerGary]

Yeah paper prints, I was looking for a solution to market my mugs without having to print them all.

Although a lot of these pop stars have image rights, but it's ebay, you are allowed to sell illegal stuff on there...sure who's gonna see it?

[ASLCreative]

With regard to famous people being photographed there was a court case between Rhianna and Top Shop heard in the high court:

In a two-minute judgement, Mr Justice Birss said there was "no such thing as a general right by a famous person to control the reproduction of their image"."The taking of the photograph is not suggested to have breached Rihanna's privacy," he continued.
"The mere sale by a trader of a T-shirt bearing an image of a famous person is not an act of passing off.

The law is quite easy to understand:

Trademark image or word - cannot be reproduced in relevant class without trademark owners permission.

Something created by another person - e.g. design, photograph artwork etc is subject to copyright law.

If you take a photograph of a person, event or building which is on land which has public access then nobody can stop you or ask for a fee - you own the copyright.


The best way is to create your own designs - that way you know you are not breaking any laws.