Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Legalities of using images of old cameras

  1. #11
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,092

    Re: Legalities of using images of old cameras

    Even the cutoff for copyright is more complicated than that. Last I checked, works copyrighted by an individual were protected for 75 years beyond the death of the author, without requirement of renewal, and there was an option for the estate to renew beyond that (though I don't recall details).

    However, for images of a product like a camera, copyright isn't the primary concern; trademark is, and the rules for use are very different. That's why nothing learned in this discussion is worth anything, really, in this context -- most of us have a clue (if no more than that) about copyright, because it's strongly related to any attempt to make a profit from our photography, but trademarks are a whole different animal. My last employer tried to trademark his own brand of (imported, custom packaged) product, and was denied the trademark because his name was "simply descriptive".

    The appearance of a product isn't subject to copyright, generally, unless the product is one that's published, like a magazine or book (and even then, the overall "look and feel" is a trademark matter, not one of copyright; each individual cover needs to be separately copyrighted as part of the issue on which it appears, for instance, even if the logo remains the same from issue to issue; the logo itself must be trademarked to prevent others from using it on their own publication). With tangible goods like cameras, trademark is the only issue of merit -- but trademark is also more stringent, in that the holder can *lose* trademark protection, permanently, by failing to defend. So, if you make images of a Leica camera and sell them on merchandised goods, Leitz (or whoever owns them now) is *forced* to pursue you, or give up their ability to defend the Leica name (or so I, a legal layman, understand to be the way American trademarks work).

    The way around this, as I said originally, is to have permission. From a company like Leitz, that's likely to require paying a license fee, which may be wildly unrelated to the value of the goods you expect to sell. If you're very lucky, you might be able to negotiate to a relatively small up-front payment and a royalty (percentage of gross on the sales); more likely, with a company that makes most of its money on the name rather than on the merits of the product (sorry, Leitz, but that's the way I see it), you'll be given a take-or-leave offer for a license at a price no small business could begin to afford, potentially followed by Leitz licensing your idea to another vendor who can afford to pay their fee (non-disclosure might not even help, since they can claim they were approached by another vendor who was able to meet their licensing requirements).

    Recommendation: make your images of cameras produced by companies that no longer exist or, via multiple mergers and acquisitions, haven't sold under the pictured name in many years. Forget Leica, Rollei, Nikon, and concentrate on Wirgin, Univex, Balda, and the like.
    If a contact print at arm's length is too small to see, you need a bigger camera. :D

  2. #12
    Moderator Ralph Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Posts
    5,034

    Re: Legalities of using images of old cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
    . . . concentrate on Wirgin, Univex, Balda, and the like.
    Hmmmm. Think of the pun potential.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    811

    Re: Legalities of using images of old cameras

    I say scan an illustration from a circa 1925 or earlier sears catalog - of a no-name brand - or one no longer in existence. That should make things a bit easier. But then again - there's also something called 'fair use' - but I don't think that would be applicable in the case of a t-shirt.

  4. #14
    grumpy & miserable Joseph O'Neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    830

    Re: Legalities of using images of old cameras

    I've actually run into this sort of thing before, and while I cannto quote any laws, I know from personel experience, this is roughly how it works:

    1) If a company is still in business, never use any product, even a discontinued one, for *any* commerical purpose if all by it's lonesome. See the exception to this below. for example, while Kodak may not still make glass plates for cameras, their company name and logo are still active. Another really ghood example is Indian Motorcycle. They problaly haven't built a motorcycle in over 50 years, but the company name and logo are worth a fortune and use on sweats shirts, etc.

    2) The 1st exception is *in context*. If you have a picture of yourself with your Leica or Nikon or whatever, and you use that image altogether, then it's usually okay. In this case, You are advertising your services, and you are using the equipment to backup the fact you use quality equipment. Kind alike the car dealership that says "we use only quality Ford parts". If you advertised yourself withteh camer and said in a logo "I only shoot Leice" - or something liek that, you can get away with it.

    3) The 2nd exception is if you actually sell for Leica, Nikon, etc. Then the situation is actualy reversed. (I sell telescopes, and have a couple different dealerships for telescopes). In this case, the company actually *strongly suggests* you use the official images they supply for your web site, paper advertising, etc. You'll gt an e-mail something to the effect "dear dealer, we have new images on our web site at: Please feel free to use them."

    4) You can usually get by using pictures/images of almost anything for non-commercial use, even if the company is still active. So, if you establish "Dan & Fred's Camera review site" on the web, you can usually use images as long as credit who they are from. Again, I find it depends on context too. If you are running a commercial web site, but it reviews old and historic cameras (or any old product), odds are, most companies not only will not bother you, some might actually help you, or buy advertising from you.

    5) Where did the picture come from? If you use an image of a Leica straight off their web site, yes, they may not like that, but if you take the picture yourself, not a likely to bother you. But again - it boils down to context. If you actually are a professional photographer and you use nothing but Nikons, Nikon likely will not have a problem if you state something to that effect in your advertising. Or for example, say you have an image of an old Kodak view camera, or even a commercial Kodak Ektar lens, but then in your advertising or web site you say "we using only fine Kodak papers for all our images" - or something like that - then you should be just fine.

    I hope that helps

    joe
    eta gosha maaba, aaniish gaa zhiwebiziyin ?

Similar Threads

  1. Gandolfi documentary film
    By C.A in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 7-Mar-2006, 03:37
  2. Another victim - AGFA in Chapter 11
    By Juergen Sattler in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29-May-2005, 03:11
  3. Large Format Developing - Architectural Photograph
    By Isabella in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 14-Mar-2005, 13:27
  4. Use Of Mirror Device w/Large Format As Evans&Levitt
    By robert lyons in forum On Photography
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 14-Feb-2002, 12:29

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •