Unexpected copyright issue

[Dave Pitman]

If an actor copyrights the use of their likeness (very common). Why can paparazzi sell images of them taken without their consent?

It will be interesting to see what counsel advises you, @Meta4

 

[dorian]

I agree with the comment: "I wonder if it is some form of scam to get You to lower your price for the images they want? They tell you they are copyright, but they will buy them from you to ‘take them off your hands’."

Those involved in contacting you were simply manipulating you into a lowball price. However, this is always the case when lawyers and legal issues are in play. You CANNOT afford to fight a legal battle so I think it's a case of "...counting your blessings." Any artist/photographer/videographer in a similar situation should recognize when they are in a bargaining position, but NEVER think that — as the creator — that they have the upper hand. People with power like to HAVE that power, and to wield it. Know this, and realize this is a human condition. Know when to be like a reed and when to "bend in the wind."

Let "the MAN" have his power (or think he does), and know when to back off while protecting yourself. This is why a smart negotiation is all about. As the Clint Eastwood character said: "A man's got to know his limitations." : )

Think of it this way. We shot a nice portfolio piece, it was sold, all is legal and above board. It's a WIN/WIN!

Congrats! Or, as Forest Gump said: "...smart is, as smart does."

 

[Electronick]

No Dorian, the one you describe is an I LOOSE/THEY WIN scenario, and after a bit you realise you've been stitched up and resent what happened.

The OP has the strongest hand. He is the photographer and owns the copyright on the photos. He has done nothing wrong and has the right to dispose of the images how he sees fit. That includes the option to not give in to them, to not sell anything to them, and to tell them to go and examine places where sun doesn't shine.

I've been a professional photographer for years and, from past experience in younger and more naive days of selling stuff & being used/stuffed by others.... I know which option is the one I'd be choosing

 

[Colorado 4K Productions]

I'd be careful, do a lot of research and possibly get a lawyer. When I sell stock images to stock image distributors, if there's a logo of any type, it could be a Ford logo on a car on a busy highway, it doesn't matter, then that image needs a release. Otherwise the image is usable as an "editorial" or news image and can be used in certain circumstances. It's complicated territory and I'd be sure about your course of action before pursuing it.

 

[aerojo]

I would never ask my auto mechanic about my health issues, nor would I ask drone pilots about legal issues. If you want to be sure, contact a good intellectual rights attorney, then you know your rights and then some.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

I've been approached by legal and PR reps of a cruise line about photos I've taken of some of their ships.
One is advising me that the logos on their ships and the ship's names are copyright and they are concerned that putting the photos on my website is somehow violating their copyright.
The other is telling me that they like my photography and perhaps the solution to the problem might be to buy my offending photos.

This is not an issue I anticipated ... I really can't see what the issue is.
I know they like my photos because last month they paid me very well for sole rights to one of my images to use in advertising.

I'm waiting to see what kind of offer they make.
Any thoughts or ideas?

Do you have a war chest to engage in a protracted legal fight? Wouldn't it be easier to remove the photos?

 

[Armando Martinez]

I think they're trying to scare you to giving them a great deal on the images. I would blur the logo on the video and replace it on your website.
Then I would "license" the image in perpetuity for a lot of money.

 

[Help From Above]

I've registered 23 Trademarks, and been to US District Court defending infringement of our Marks.
I assume it's YOUR photo, to which you OWN the Copyright.
OPINION(similar to what I think any Judge or Attorney would decide): You're not being enriched by exclusively using their trademarks or copyrights. Further, they could never prove 'damages' or 'unjust enrichment'. They have no legal ground, whatsoever. This would never go past a 'bluffing' cease-and-desist letter.
ADVICE: Be polite, inform them, and triple your price every time they threaten you. The $$$ are the only thing that matters. They use big words to try intimidation. Hit them back by demanding more $$$!! That's the only thing they're reading, anyways.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Here's an example of the kind of image involved.

Others have suggested blurring the logo. I would just remove the logos and use the photographs any way you wish. It is not the subject of the photograph and the photographs are just as interesting without them. They know you have the originals with the logo intact if they want to purchase them at market value, not at fire-sale. Problem solved.

 

[Bob]

Where can i go to take pictures of thier ships i will certainly sell them back to them....lol..I do think you are in the right and they are bullying you.

 

[Bob]

How is this different than a news helicopter filming a bad crash of a trucking company (the co name clearly appears in footage) and it making 5 oclock news? Does the news agency have to pay trucking co?

 

[John Locke]

I would simply leave it off the website for a while and let them know it's removed and sorry to offend. Then 3 months later mirror the photo and take off their logo and repost it. They likely won't recognize it, especially if it had another logo they don't recognize, like MetaCruiselines.

Trust me, you don't want to get a summons. It's not worth it to defend yourself. Hopefully they don't have your address to deliver the summons.

 

[tracer]

What it boils down to is a "Property Release" because you are using the photo on your web site as advertising, and potentially making money from their property. It makes perfect sense that if you were *selling* the photo, then you would need a property release. But you're simply using it on your web site, as a photo you took, in a public place. Depending on the mood of the judge ... it could go either way as advertising, and hence the confusion from their legal / PR folks. It's not editorial use, since you aren't the press.
.
.
.

It all goes back to intent (what he says ^^^^) If you are a photographer in the COMMERCIAL sense, and someone thinks you are making $ off an image of their property, the rules change. I think that even using the image on a website that promotes your COMMERCIAL business will get you in trouble. I'm very careful about what images go on my commercial website, LinkedIn and commercial facebook pages versus what goes on my personal facebook page. Two totally different intents. That picture on your personal (not commercial!) facebook page wouldn't lift an eyebrow unless you actively use your personal facebook page to promote your business.

The images and videos I sell to clients are not on any of my pages, personal or commercial, without the client's consent.

 

[Alaska]

I, too, am not an attorney but I can relay a couple of experiences that I have had regarding tradenames/servicenames, etc. Recently, I was asked to get a release for a a aerial photo of a fishing vessel because the name of the vessel was clearly visible in the photo. I also have been informed that I need property releases for images of native totems and other recognizable native tribal village/corporation assets, e.g., a long house and historic buildings.

My wife, an amateur photographer, also has experience with this issue when submitting photographic images to Shutterstock - which are for sale on their website. She has been asked to get releases not only from persons in the photographs but also buildings that have a distinct architecture. Shutterstock's policy is as follows: "If submitted content contains copyrighted material and/or trademarks, you must submit releases from the copyright and/or trademark owners. Alternatively, where such content meets our editorial standards, you may submit the content for Editorial Use Only."

I agree that trademarks and copyrights are a grey area. Regarding the native corporations and tribes, I appreciate their sensitivity and always ask first. I suspect that Shutterstock's policy may be erring on the side of caution.

I am not certain that this input helps or adds to the confusion.

 

[Terry Ketron CFI-I]

There is a difference between a copyright and a Trademark. They are saying that by displaying their Trademark on your website for "commercial purposes" you are violating their rights. (I am assuming your website is for "commercial purposes" since you are on the "commercial drone pilots' " forum.) If you were an amateur photographer and had a web site that would likely not have been an issue. Simply ask their permission to leave the photo on your website (in writing and request a response in kind) and if they grant that fine. If they deny you permission remove the photo from your web site. If you take a photo of a skyline you don't have to have permission... if you photograph models in front of an individual building that is set apart and identifiable you DO have to have their permission. If you photograph one ship... permission required... If you photograph a harbor full of ships... NO permission required.
Always remember a polite agreeable attitude when negotiating will always gain you better results than any hint of belligerence will. Make a new friend and you make a new customer. Your enemies "will not do business with you".

 

[Dave Pitman]

Always remember a polite agreeable attitude when negotiating will always gain you better results than any hint of belligerence will.

He already has done business with them and now they are wanting the rest of his photos on the cheap. I think the shipping co. may need to take your advise more than the op!

 

[mdurbanek]

I've been approached by legal and PR reps of a cruise line about photos I've taken of some of their ships.
One is advising me that the logos on their ships and the ship's names are copyright and they are concerned that putting the photos on my website is somehow violating their copyright.
The other is telling me that they like my photography and perhaps the solution to the problem might be to buy my offending photos.

This is not an issue I anticipated ... I really can't see what the issue is.
I know they like my photos because last month they paid me very well for sole rights to one of my images to use in advertising.

I'm waiting to see what kind of offer they make.
Any thoughts or ideas?

With the caveat that anyone can sue at any time - unless you are representing the ship and it's owner in a slanderous way, they can't touch you. You can use it as a portfolio piece, you can sell it for editorial us to a client, say the city or port location, or a publication to the travel industry.

Their logo is a marketing piece. It's purpose is to be seen. This is similar to a person photographed in a public place. They have no reasonable expectation of privacy. You just cannot imply their endorsement.

And to clear up one other misconception: you should ALWAYS reserve your right to copyright for your own commercial use, and only license for a specified use and length of time. If they want exclusive rights, they must pay through the nose.

 

[CashCache]

I had a similar incident to this a few months back. In producing a few real estate videos in a popular tourist town, I decided to also include a "life style" video of the town itself. It included stuff like popular hiking trails, mountains, restaurants and shops. I was contacted by a popular Jeep Touring company that spotted one of their jeeps in my video. They (their attorney) asked me to either remove the clip, or give them full (free) rights to my work.

Long story short - Had this been just a video I did for fun and had no monetary ambitions, there is really nothing they could do to compel me to remove the content. However, since I was promoting the town and the real estate from my clients, I was potentially earning money from their logos.

 

[Meta4]

I responded with an explanation referring to the relevant sections of the legislation showing how my photos did not infringe the company's copyright rights.
They've come back with no comment on the legal mumbo-jumbo but they have tripled their offer for a number of my photos.
They obviously want my images quite a lot.
Perhaps the legal threat was just a bargaining tactic?
I want to keep a friendly relationship and be able to sell them more in future but they haven't done much to keep things friendly.
Future sales might have an annoyance fee built-in.

 

[Redrat100]

Meta4 - Intellectual property is a big deal. Enterprises like cruise lines are not out to scam the little guy. I’ve been stung by the copyright thing before in a previous business. My suggestion is to consult with an intellectual property attorney. I did and he saved my bacon. The cruise line may have a case but a little homework will help. Visit Trademarks and search what class the cruise line name and logo is in. No doubt it will be in class 41, ‘Education, Amusement, Entertainment, Reproduction’. The class is quite broad and may overlap sUAS video production. If you want to fight it and your war chest is big enough to go up against a multi-million-dollar enterprise, you might argue that yours is an original compilation which may be a work created by selecting and arranging previously existing material in such a way that the combined whole constitutes a new work of authorship. But I doubt it. Take option #2 the licensing deal. Good luck!