Legalities of using images of old cameras

[Frank Petronio]

What are the ramifications of using an image (one I've made) of an old camera for a commercial use? I'd imagine using a hundred year old Korona would be no problem, since the company no longer exists. But what about using a photo or illustration of a 50-year old Linhof, Rollei, or Leica, where the parent company is still making similar versions of the same camera design?

I'm thinking of posters, t-shirts, that sort of thing...

I know brand name cameras show up in ads and movies as props all the time. But if the commercial image was mainly about the camera itself, would the situation change?

[Donald Qualls]

You should really ask a copyright/trademark lawyer on this one -- given the international nature of the camera business and the complexity of modern copyright and trademark law (even when nothing international is involved), you won't get anything from this forum that's any better than flipping a coin and saying "Heads, it's okay, tails, it's not."

And yes, it will surely cost you to get a lawyer involved, even (or maybe especially) just to answer questions, and what you get will still be only opinion unless the issue goes to court for a final decision -- but at least you have someone from whom you might be able to recover part of your losses if the answer is wrong...

My own take on it is that if you're making money from the images, it's safest to have permission -- but I could be overly paranoid; trademarks haven't changed as much or as fast as copyrights and may in fact be looser now than they used to be.

[JW Dewdney]

Well, there's a cutoff point IIRC - isn't it 50-75 years or something? But if you made the image - it should be your intellectual property and you're free to do with it as you wish. If it's a scan of a manufacturer's advert - then you'd have to wait the 50 years or so...

[Michael Graves]

I tried to find the article I read in one of my old Guitar Player magazines, but came up short. But basically the point came down to this. A T-Shirt manufacturer came out with a design that showed a guitar on the back of the shirt and the words Heavy Metal on the front. The guitar had all trademark information airbrushed out; but it was still clearly recognizable as a Gibson SG. Gibson sued the T-shirt company for used a trademarked design and won. The interesting thing about that lawsuit was that Gibson did not ask for, nor did they recieve damages. They simply wanted the shirt removed from the market because they thought it reflected negatively on their image.

[JW Dewdney]

hmmmm...

what if it was a picture of an sg copy...?

[jim kitchen]

Dear Group,

This web page might be of interest to a few of the Canadian photographers within this large format group, and other associated print makers...

It outlines a few points, regarding copyrights, and the rights an author of might have going forward. I believe, but I am not totally sure, American Copyright laws are, and could be State specific, and each State generally falls within American Federal guidelines.

The Canadian Copyright brief is here:

http://www.trytel.com/%7epbkerr/copyright.html

This is not an absolute precis of the Canadian Copyright Law, but a very good general outline, if you are interested...

It does discuss the issue as to when an image is up for grabs in Canada.

jim k

[Ash]

So if I take a photo of someone in designer clothing and sell it to someone to be framed, Levi's is gonna come knocking on my door???

It doesn't make much sense.

As long as the item is being advertised properly, and it is clear what it is, and not named as something else (like the Gibson) I think most companies see it as free publicity. That is, as long as you own the photo you're printing.

[Ralph Barker]

So if I take a photo of someone in designer clothing and sell it to someone to be framed, Levi's is gonna come knocking on my door??? . . .

Not likely. Typical private use of the image is not the problem. It's the potential for adverse publicity or association from commercial and/or wide-spread publication that I think most trademark holders are concerned about. A photo of the Gibson being played at a music-hall concert, for example, might not raise an objection, whereas a photo of the Gibson at a biker sex orgy probably would. Obtaining advance approval of the intended use solves the problem.

[Ole Tjugen]

Well, there's a cutoff point IIRC - isn't it 50-75 years or something? But if you made the image - it should be your intellectual property and you're free to do with it as you wish. If it's a scan of a manufacturer's advert - then you'd have to wait the 50 years or so...

But what if the manufacturer is Gandolfi? They've been making the same model for more than a century, and are still making it.

I know that my Gandolfi traditional is 50 years old, but only because Gandolfi told me. It could be anything from 100 to 2 years old, and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[Ed Richards]

> Well, there's a cutoff point IIRC - isn't it 50-75 years or something?

That is for copyright. Trademarks, if in continued use and not in the public domain, are imortal. Coke (the soft drink) is more than 100 years old, for example.

[Donald Qualls]

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.

[Ralph Barker]

. . . concentrate on Wirgin, Univex, Balda, and the like.

Hmmmm. Think of the pun potential. ;)

[JW Dewdney]

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.

[Joseph O'Neil]

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