Copyright question

[stevoarnold]

Hi there, I'm not sure if this is the right section as its not directly related to making money, but here goes

If in theory i take a photograph of a car and use it as a basis of a desktop wallpaper for sharing online somewhere, can I put a copyright on it?

Im conflicted on this because on one hand the photography and post processing was my work, but on the other hand i dont own the copyright to the design of the car itself. I know that in terms of stock submissions you cant submit things that have logos or are otherwise identifiable and copyrighted, such as a car.

anyways, just thought id put this out there and see what the community thinks.

thanks in advance.

[andyw]

Originally Posted by stevoarnold

Hi there, I'm not sure if this is the right section as its not directly related to making money, but here goes

If in theory i take a photograph of a car and use it as a basis of a desktop wallpaper for sharing online somewhere, can I put a copyright on it?

Im conflicted on this because on one hand the photography and post processing was my work, but on the other hand i dont own the copyright to the design of the car itself. I know that in terms of stock submissions you cant submit things that have logos or are otherwise identifiable and copyrighted, such as a car.

anyways, just thought id put this out there and see what the community thinks.

thanks in advance.

The copyright YOU put on it is copyright of the image NOT of the subject of the image.

As to whether or not you can have images of copyright/trademarked subjects then that comes down to context as much as anything else.
Buildings have copyright attached to them but there are no issues there, and street scenes will have many copyright and trademarked items contained within them.
There is no issue photographing and using them commercially as the items are incidental to the image itself.

An image of a car used as a wallpaper or as "art" will not (normally) cause a problem with the manufacturers.
If however the use of that car suggests an association with something then it could, note could, cause a problem.

Stock sites have gotten silly with some of their rules on logos and copyrights. If you took some of their rules to the utmost degree then you would not be able to submit ANY images which contained any man made items at all as virtually everything from your socks to your house has either copyright or trademark or patents associated with them.
Although in their defence, they do not know what the end use of these items will actually be in a lot of cases so make stricter criteria than is really necessary.

The other thing to be aware of is "property releases". In effect the same as model releases.
Some countries require them, some don't.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by stevoarnold

If in theory i take a photograph of a car and use it as a basis of a desktop wallpaper for sharing online somewhere, can I put a copyright on it?

Yes. It's your photo.

Originally Posted by stevoarnold

Im conflicted on this because on one hand the photography and post processing was my work, but on the other hand i dont own the copyright to the design of the car itself. I know that in terms of stock submissions you cant submit things that have logos or are otherwise identifiable and copyrighted, such as a car.

The reason you cant put anything with logos on stock websites is that they A) wont sell and B) get you and the stock site into a legal gray area.

Funny enough, you can sell prints of the photo privately without any issue as well. Because you're selling the photo.

[Jim Bryant]

Just putting your copyright on it just doesn't work that way. I know you are the copy right holder once you click the shutter, but it also needs to be registered with the Copyright Office.
You can find information on the subject of
preregistration at U.S. Copyright Office - Preregister Your Work and at
U.S. Copyright Office - Frequently Asked Questions

[andyw]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Just putting your copyright on it just doesn't work that way. I know you are the copy right holder once you click the shutter, but it also needs to be registered with the Copyright Office.
You can find information on the subject of
preregistration at U.S. Copyright Office - Preregister Your Work and at
U.S. Copyright Office - Frequently Asked Questions

Jim,
I am UK based but as far as I am aware there is no REQUIREMENT to register images or other copyright works in the US and certainly not in the UK.

My understanding is, in the US if you are a pro. it is best to register purely because of the amount of settlement you (might) get in the case of an infringement.
I understand that if there is an infringement and the work is not registered then potentially you would not get "damages" although you would still get a settlement for the infringement itself. But it is still perfectly possible to sue for an infringement even if the work is not "officially" registered.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by andyw

Jim,
I am UK based but as far as I am aware there is no REQUIREMENT to register images or other copyright works in the US and certainly not in the UK.

My understanding is, in the US if you are a pro. it is best to register purely because of the amount of settlement you (might) get in the case of an infringement.
I understand that if there is an infringement and the work is not registered then potentially you would not get "damages" although you would still get a settlement for the infringement itself. But it is still perfectly possible to sue for an infringement even if the work is not "officially" registered.

True............the office tries to protect us from all those crooks here in the US. But, you have to take the steps to properly copyright and protect your images, so that if they are used without your permission, you can take them to court and get a settlement. Why is it not the same in the UK or other countries? How do you protect your images there I wonder? Certainly's there's no requirement here to copyright the images, but most serious photographers and pros do file the necessary paperwork in order to register them. Just curious about how you go about protecting your images. This is not the first time that statement has been brought up about photographers from the UK and elsewhere not having to through all the steps we (American) photographers have too. I know, I could Google for the answer, but give it to me in a nutshell.

The Copyright Office makes it so easy that you can put images on a DVD or register on their web site. I don't understand why folks don't do it. It's not that expensive anymore. Used to be $35.00 a image or so, but now you can group register the images.

[andyw]

Jim,

There are places in the UK who offer a "registration" but they are basically money making ventures and not "official" in anyway.
Copyright is a given as it is in the US.
Should there be a violation then we sue as you guys do but......I believe that we in the UK are just not into the multi million pound/dollar settlements that you guys like so much.

If a violation goes to court here then I would have to prove the image was mine. (I have done so in the past).
There are various ways to do that (original files, similar shots taken at the same time etc).
If the violator had made money from the image then I could claim that profit from them and as a pro who regulary sells work then I would be able to potentially claim a loss of earnings most especially if I was to normally sell work on an exclusive basis.
That is it basically. We have the same protection in law as you guys just we don't have the same sort of silly settlements (thank goodness I say, but that is a different argument) nor the "requirement" to register prior to going to court over it.

As to the US system, I had a discussion with someone about this once in NY and the guy (a photographer) reckoned that your system is not quite as great as some make it out to be.

His reasons were.
You could take an image which could then be stolen prior to your registering it yourself.
The thief could register the image as his/her own.
Apparently registration is taken as the "Prima Facie" evidence of copyright so in this case would not the thief be taken as being the copyright holder and you would then have to offer up other proof that the image was in fact yours, which could in some instances potentially be difficult.

I don't know if this has ever happened or is likely but I really don't see how/why your law states that registration is NOT a condition of copyright BUT to be able to use that law you have to register an image and if you don't you have no recourse??
Note I am only quoting from one of the links you have posted previously which states
"Before an infringement suit can be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin".

It seems a little strange to me - but then I am British, lots of what you guys do seems strange to me

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by andyw

Jim,

There are places in the UK who offer a "registration" but they are basically money making ventures and not "official" in anyway.
Copyright is a given as it is in the US.
Should there be a violation then we sue as you guys do but......I believe that we in the UK are just not into the multi million pound/dollar settlements that you guys like so much.

If a violation goes to court here then I would have to prove the image was mine. (I have done so in the past).
There are various ways to do that (original files, similar shots taken at the same time etc).
If the violator had made money from the image then I could claim that profit from them and as a pro who regulary sells work then I would be able to potentially claim a loss of earnings most especially if I was to normally sell work on an exclusive basis.
That is it basically. We have the same protection in law as you guys just we don't have the same sort of silly settlements (thank goodness I say, but that is a different argument) nor the "requirement" to register prior to going to court over it.

As to the US system, I had a discussion with someone about this once in NY and the guy (a photographer) reckoned that your system is not quite as great as some make it out to be.

His reasons were.
You could take an image which could then be stolen prior to your registering it yourself.
The thief could register the image as his/her own.
Apparently registration is taken as the "Prima Facie" evidence of copyright so in this case would not the thief be taken as being the copyright holder and you would then have to offer up other proof that the image was in fact yours, which could in some instances potentially be difficult.

I don't know if this has ever happened or is likely but I really don't see how/why your law states that registration is NOT a condition of copyright BUT to be able to use that law you have to register an image and if you don't you have no recourse??
Note I am only quoting from one of the links you have posted previously which states
"Before an infringement suit can be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin".

It seems a little strange to me - but then I am British, lots of what you guys do seems strange to me

Andy....belief me......this is so true! Everyone wants their piece of the pie. Thanks for explaining. Yours' seems to be the best system.

[andyw]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Yours' seems to be the best system.

Not in a lot of things though.
I guess there is good and bad in both of them.

[Eastree]

Originally Posted by andyw

An image of a car used as a wallpaper or as "art" will not (normally) cause a problem with the manufacturers.
If however the use of that car suggests an association with something then it could, note could, cause a problem.

Very true. Just be careful. Ford came to mind, as there are two examples where people perhaps overstepped a line, but that might be what tempts stock photo sites etc. to be careful about trademarked symbols and designs:

Ford: Car owners are pirates if they distribute pictures of their own cars - Boing Boing
In this case, it's a bit more strange because Ford sued over selling photographs and calendars of the owners' vehicles. Ford claimed that the merchandise was making money from Ford's trademarks. Basically, the registration which keeps Dodge (just for example) from making a muscle car identical to a Mustang (and why Jeep sued GM over the seven grill slots in an early Hummer model) was used to prevent a Mustang driving/fan club from using photographs of their cars to promote itself.

In this case, Ford claims that The Ranger Station had been selling counterfeit Ford-brand merchandise on its site, which inspired the legal action against them:
Ford Sues Fanboy Site For Copyright Infringement

tl;dr: Back to the beginning and be careful.