Taking Photo's of brands/Copyright etc

[Scottish Business Owner]

I just wanted to clarify a few things to save myself getting into trouble. Say for example I wanted to do some posts about the Lloyds/HBOS merger. It would be really cool to have a photo that had a split of their respective logos.

I can find this easily online but I know fine well these will be copyrighted and I will get myself into trouble doing that. So my question is...

Could I go out and take pictures of both logo's (say at a branch) and then make something up myself or are their additional issues here given I am taking a photo of their logo etc? Am I overthinking this?

 

[Brian McIntosh]

I wouldn't think you would have anything to worry about . The logo's are being used extensively in all kinds of media right now I wouldn't think anyone will come battering down your door.

 

[Former Member 1]

I just wanted to clarify a few things to save myself getting into trouble. Say for example I wanted to do some posts about the Lloyds/HBOS merger. It would be really cool to have a photo that had a split of their respective logos.

I can find this easily online but I know fine well these will be copyrighted and I will get myself into trouble doing that. So my question is...

Could I go out and take pictures of both logo's (say at a branch) and then make something up myself or are their additional issues here given I am taking a photo of their logo etc? Am I overthinking this?

Strictly speaking there IS a potential problem and no; you're not overthinking this at all, frankly you demonstrate admirable professionalism which many could learn from. You see trademarks and logos abused all over the place.

IF your writings are for the purpose of criticism or review and the photos support that then you possibly have the defence/justification of fair comment/permited use. As Brian says, everyone and his dog are using the logos just now. Professional photojournalists WILL be operating under these provisions and it's (highly) unlikely the power that be will come battering down your door, that doesn't mean they can't though!

Personally; I wouldn't have/ can't see a problem with it. But as always the only sound legal advice HAS to come from a lawyer.

 

[Scottish Business Owner]

Thanks for your feedback guys One thing I did notice whilst researching this was the number of webistes etc all using the same image which amazed. I would have thought whoever designed it would have issues with that.

Not wanting to take this off in a tangent but I use a site called dreamstime for sourcing most of my other images that I pay for. Is there anything I ahould be watching out for in terms of getting caught out with using the images.

 

[Former Member 1]

Thanks for your feedback guys One thing I did notice whilst researching this was the number of webistes etc all using the same image which amazed. I would have thought whoever designed it would have issues with that.

Not wanting to take this off in a tangent but I use a site called dreamstime for sourcing most of my other images that I pay for. Is there anything I ahould be watching out for in terms of getting caught out with using the images.

The image may well be editorial stock; so a fee will (theoretically) be paid for each use.


I've never heard of that particular site before so don't know if there are specific issues with it. However there ARE cases where people have downloaded supposedly 'free' material then found out later to their cost that in fact the free licence provider didn't have the rights to the material in the first place.

As with all media assets in any context it's ESSENTIAL to have a proper audit trail which includes specific receipting of each element together with copies of all agreements, licenses etc.

The safest way is to commission or create ALL content yourself or buy it from a respected, credible source.

 

[promostamper]

read somewhere a few months ago, could be on zdnet cant remember though, about an image company who are using software and tracking down illegal use of images - several companies have been sued.

here is a link though to some info on using other photography taken from the web:

Are You Using Stock Photography in Your Business Illegally?

Copyright Office: News

 

[Former Member 1]

read somewhere a few months ago, could be on zdnet cant remember though, about an image company who are using software and tracking down illegal use of images - several companies have been sued.

here is a link though to some info on using other photography taken from the web:

Are You Using Stock Photography in Your Business Illegally?

Copyright Office: News

Getty Images and Corbis have been using Picscout to find copyright infringers. When they do they bill them. £2000+ a pop! There are other forums where certain barrack room lawyers hold court trying to convince people that all is well and it's nothing to worry about. And/or that Getty Corbis are evil monsters tormenting innocent business people. But this is sheer stupidity. They're chasing people who have either been ignorant or dishonest enough to break the law and steal someone else's property!

Much is made of the fact they haven't taken anyone to court yet in the UK. But that's simply because they don't have to! No lawyer will advise you to go to court if you have no legal defence; all that will achieve is increased court costs.

The only REAL solution is to be VERY aware of IP rights management procedures even for the most trivial of projects. And this is a key reason why you should NEVER employ amateur or semi pro creatives who haven't been properly trained in IPR management.

 

[davidk1]

originally posted by Matt Quinn

"Getty Images and Corbis...................when they do bill them. £2000+ a pop!"

For your information Getty have never ever sent out billings for images. They send a notification of how much they want in return for using the image. Some people have had letters and threats of court action from Getty's legal people, but they cannot take action on an unpaid debt if there was no debt or evidence of debt in the first place.

Whilst no-one wishes to abuse the IP laws what Getty and Corbis are doing borders on extortion.

A thread was started last year on the FSB Small Business Forum ,you may care to read that before jumping the gun.

 

[Former Member 1]

originally posted by Matt Quinn

"Getty Images and Corbis...................when they do bill them. £2000+ a pop!"

For your information Getty have never ever sent out billings for images. They send a notification of how much they want in return for using the image. Some people have had letters and threats of court action from Getty's legal people, but they cannot take action on an unpaid debt if there was no debt or evidence of debt in the first place.

Whilst no-one wishes to abuse the IP laws what Getty and Corbis are doing borders on extortion.

A thread was started last year on the FSB Small Business Forum ,you may care to read that before jumping the gun.

Actually; YOU may care to read it properly.... Go back through it a bit... I'm only too well aware of the thread... And if you understood the law on copyright you'd realise why what you've just written is nonsense. Any court action WON'T be for the debt; it will be for copyright infringement.

The issue of a demand/invoice is a secondary issue to that. They only go through that process to entrench their case. And the reason any threatened infringement action hasn't come to court is that no lawyer CAN advise a client to try and defend the indefensible... Thus these things are settled out of court with, generally, an NDA gagging both parties. After all; would YOU hire a designer disreputable and incompetent enough to have been 'done' for copyright infringement?

As someone who is trained and practised in IP rights management (over almost three decades!) and actually TEACHES matters of IP law at a legitimate academic institution I can tell you one or two things about that thread. Firstly, it's dominated by one character who, in my professional opinion, is not trained or competent to comment on what he chooses to pontificate on and seems hell bent of pursing a personal agenda which is (again; in my professional opinion) dangerous to all who align themselves with it.

Secondly, all attempts that I have seen by people who might have some legitimate knowledge of the topic are bawled down; even edited by the moderators to the point where their essence is lost. The only comment from the legally qualified that's allowed to stand goes along the lines of "call me; and I'll sort it out"..... It's akin to a gaggle of turkeys trying to convince themselves that people won't eat them at Christmas!

That thread is one of the main reasons why I'm NOT an FSB member. As far as I'm concerns it draws the entire FSB into disrepute. Quite apart from the nonsense that's allowed to stand in their name the FSB lawyers should have really shut this issue down two years ago. The law IS very clear! We now refer students to that thread for self study as an example of how 'barrack room law' can drive clients down some very dark and dismal holes.

I don't agree by any means with what Getty and Corbis are doing. And for that reason withdrew my own images from their catalogue about 18 months ago; and wouldn't supply them again. But I almost wish someone WOULD be stupid enough to let themselves be taken to court on this..... It would be the modern day equivalent of a severed head on a stick; but if that's what it takes....:crying:

 

[davidk1]

Matt

If you wish to start correcting issues then start with yourself.

The thread is on the FSB forum in the small business matters, not in the FSB members section. The Forum for small business issues is there for ALL small businesses to raise issues in the same way this forum is a Scottish Business Forum. If a thread in here is perhaps not factually correct does that mean all Scottish Businesses are to blame?

I acknowledge your obvious knowledge in this particular subject, but the fact remains many businesses have not succumbed to Getty and Corbis's threats and have not paid their demands. None that I have seen on that thread have had any action taken against them.

I also stated, and it is quite clear on the thread on the FSB Forum, that IP used illegally is a crime, no question of that, and most posters on that Forum have removed the offending images. The matter I referred to was the question of the way in which Getty have tried to extort unreasonable costs whilst supposedly claiming their clients hold IP rights on the images used. No proof has ever been produced to substantiate that claim.
In any event if someone uses an image, in the belief, its in the public domain and free from copyright then demanding outrages "fees" for the use of, is "public piracy" at its best.

I also said that no billing for the images has ever been done. All you receive is a letter demanding an amount for the use of an image; no bill, nothing.

I do agree with you if images are used in the knowledge you have "stolen" them then you should pay.

Maybe you should post your posting in reply to mine on the FSB small business matters forum. I would watch with interest. It is after all a discussion forum and any sound and sensible contribution would I'm sure be well received.

 

[Former Member 1]

any sound and sensible contribution would I'm sure be well received.

My experience of that forum indicates otherwise.

Yes; the FSB are to blame for the continuance of this. They claim to be a professional organisation yet allow this to go on in their name without censure. And yet censorship of posts IS carried out. As I suggested; in my opinion, were the FSB an organisation of any real worth, they would have had commissioned legal advice which would have quickly shut down much of the babble and disinformation that is doing the rounds on their own forum.

I went to that forum at a point where I was considering FSB membership. I assumed that FSB membership was some assurance of professionalism and integrity; and wanted to gauge the mettle of those who would be around me..... I was left with a VERY unfavourable impression.

As for the issue itself.....

I'm in the difficult position that if, hypothetically, I were to suggest that I have certain knowledge of instances where Getty/Corbis HAVE succeeded in obtaining recompense by threatening an IPR Breech action. I might not only break client confidentiality; which would be wholly unprofessional. But I might THEN expose my (hypothetical) client to further action in terms of their NDA, as well as (potentially) call them into disrepute.

Many others may well be in a similar position. And more than that I won't say.

And the fact remains.....

As with all media assets in any context it's ESSENTIAL to have a proper audit trail which includes specific receipting of each element together with copies of all agreements, licenses etc.

The safest way is to commission or create ALL content yourself or buy it from a respected, credible source.

 

[davidk1]

I have now, as you suggested, gone through the thread.

What exactly are you suggesting the Legal people should advise? Are you suggesting every business that receives a "billing" for thousands of dollars should just pay up? Many posts indicate the poster bought the offending images from respected sources and have the necessary "audit trail", with copyright permission to utilise the images. Many businesses have also asked for proof that G & C represent the owner of the copyright............................................... no such proof as been produced. It is acknowledged, and I again repeat myself, copyright infringement is illegal. Not one person on the other thread has disagreed with that, the whole sum and substance of the debate is whether or not the billing amount for use of the image/images is extortionate. Some businesses have paid G & C's fees but clearly now seem to regret that action. I'm not an IP lawyer or an expert in this particular field, but I don't think it is yet against the law to question whether or not a "billing" amount is reasonable or unreasonable.

 

[Former Member 1]

but I don't think it is yet against the law to question whether or not a "billing" amount is reasonable or unreasonable.

Steal one of my images and I'll bill you for £30,000. (yes; REALLY!) That's the basic price if you want to use one. You don't like that price? We might negotiate a much more favourable rate if you approach me first. But, for one of my pictures that's the 'rack rate'. It's there in the terms and conditions of my site. If you don't like it well..... No skin off my nose....

If you STEAL what's mine I'll give you the opportunity to buy it at full price. Which is FAR more reasonable a position than most shops would take if you steal from them. Otherwise we forget about the bill and I go after you for the theft; NOT the bill, FOR THE THEFT... And THAT'S going to cost you more than the £30,000 ....

Now, if you want to discuss all the idiotic babble and nonsense that's going on over in the FSB thread take it over there; I, for one, am not interested. Personally, my view is that what's up there is an absolute crock of S**t! I KNOW what's going on with G&C! And so does every other legitimate creative in the country!

IF people had the correct permissions and PROPER audit trails then G&C wouldn't have a case. End of, simple as that.

Now; quite frankly, MOST of the so-called 'victims' are in that position because they appointed web designers who damn well didn't know or didn't do their job! Half-assed 'code monkeys' who actually AREN'T PROPERLY QUALIFIED AND DON'T KNOW WHAT THE **** THEY'RE DOING!!!!

and guess what?

THAT'S what happens when you get fakes, frauds, flim flam artists and half-assed bloody amateurs in to do a job that really NEEDS to be done by people who are PROPERLY trained, LEGITIMATELY qualified and actually KNOW what they're talking about!

And so, for the third time, I repeat...

As with all media assets in any context it's ESSENTIAL to have a proper audit trail which includes specific receipting of each element together with copies of all agreements, licenses etc.

The safest way is to commission or create ALL content yourself or buy it from a respected, credible source.

And, if you're having a website designed, graphics drawn up, a video made, podcast... Whatever. the way to ensure that is to hire ONLY legitimate, properly qualified professionals....

NOT some ass who's perspective on the term 'professional' is that it merely means someone who gets paid for doing something!

 

[beedee]

As someone who is trained and practised in IP rights management (over almost three decades!) and actually TEACHES matters of IP law at a legitimate academic institution I can tell you one or two things about that thread. Firstly, it's dominated by one character who, in my professional opinion, is not trained or competent to comment on what he chooses to pontificate on and seems hell bent of pursing a personal agenda which is (again; in my professional opinion) dangerous to all who align themselves with it.

CLEARLY YOU ARE REFERRING TO ME. The FSB forum thread which you suggest is "dominated" by me was started by me so I make no apologies for my involvement. It has now been viewed more than 400,000 times by people from all over the world. Perhaps you think that your self-appointed expert status in this forum gives you a licence to say whatever you like about people without any repercussion? Well I do not profess to be a legal expert but I think that you may find that you are wrong in this.

I am a very busy person and would not normally rise to inflammatory comments like this but this is not just inflammatory, I consider it to be defamatory so I feel that on this occasion I need to respond.

First of all I am very surprised that someone who freely tells everyone about your experience and qualifications feels compelled to use language like this ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now, if you want to discuss all the idiotic babble and nonsense that's going on over in the FSB thread take it over there; I, for one, am not interested. Personally, my view is that what's up there is an absolute crock of S**t!"

"MOST of the so-called 'victims' are in that position because they appointed web designers who damn well didn't know or didn't do their job! Half-assed 'code monkeys' who actually AREN'T PROPERLY QUALIFIED AND DON'T KNOW WHAT THE **** THEY'RE DOING!!!! "

"THAT'S what happens when you get fakes, frauds, flim flam artists and half-assed bloody amateurs in to do a job that really NEEDS to be done by people who are PROPERLY trained, LEGITIMATELY qualified and actually KNOW what they're talking about!"

"NOT some ass who's perspective on the term 'professional' is that it merely means someone who gets paid for doing something!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Can I just ask you to confirm that you are publicly calling me a "code monkey", "fake", "fraud", "flim flam artist" and "half-assed bloody amateur"? After you do so we'll see what's what.

Regarding the FSB, you freely condemn the whole organisation because it seems you did not get it all your own way in their forum. You are of course free to hold whatever opinion you like but, talking about getting your own way, I must say that I am very surprised that the moderators in this forum allow you to use such inflammatory, uncalled for language.

* Can you tell me what "legitimate academic institution" endorses language like this from one of their lecturers because I would like to discuss this with them?
* Can I also ask you to confirm what legitimate legal qualifications you have that allow you to teach IP law?

---------------------------------

For the benefit of anyone being harassed by the imaging companies the thread in the FSB forum offers valuable information and advice. People affected by this are sharing their first hand experiences there. Since the thread began in February 2007 many people have been saved thousands of pounds after having taken the advice offered there. Personally I have put in more voluntary hours than I can afford but I like to think that we have been able to assist people who have been worried sick by the bullying, harassment and unethical practices used by the imaging companies. These are practices which at best cause extreme concern (that's what they are carefully designed to do) and at worst have prompted one person to consider suicide.

Our FSB forum also has a member who is a qualified US attorney. He has taken up the cudgels on our behalf because he, too believes that the imaging companies' practices are unethical and bordering on being illegal. We are also now receiving national publicity. The situation was covered in a Financial Times article last month and just yesterday I received a call from a well known journalist who has just done a feature for the Guardian. I understand that this is to appear in Thursday's technology section if anyone is interested in reading it.

 

[beedee]

I should perhaps have added that in answer to the insulting language used in regard to my qualifications and integrity, I am now in my eighth year of self employment doing IT consultancy and web design. I started my web design business (Toucher Web Design) after a long career in electrical and electronic engineering. Most of my qualifications are technical and vocational but I do also have an HNC in computing. I am sixty years of age so you could say that I also have a masters degree from the University of Life. more significantly, I have a full portfolio of very happy clients.

 

[Dave Stallon]

Speaking as the moderator of the FSB forum, the only posts I have ever censored / moderated on this issue have been ones where idiots have used language and behaviour like the above which is totally unacceptable on a proffesional business resource such as the FSB forum.
I have NEVER censored a constructive comment.
Currently there is sensible debate from all sides of this argument going on and long may they continue.
Best regards to all
Dave Stallon

 

[Former Member 1]

Yawn.... Wondered how long it would be 'till you turned up :sleep::sleep:

Let me be VERY clear on this Bedee.... If you wish to adopt that mantle for yourself; THAT is ENTIRELY your own concern. In relation to yourself I have said that:

"it's dominated by one character who, in my professional opinion, is not trained or competent to comment on what he chooses to pontificate on and seems hell bent of pursing a personal agenda which is (again; in my professional opinion) dangerous to all who align themselves with it."

And I stand by that. That FSB thread is an complete and utter disgrace; It's a TRAVESTY that an organisation claiming to uphold professionals standards would allow such nonsense to stand in their name. Anyone facing these difficulties who takes ANY action OTHER than consulting a qualified IP lawyer on the matter is quite simply asking for trouble.

UNLIKE YOU Bedee, I'm NOT as you suggest "self appointed". I teach, have written assessment material for, and currently deliver material on IPR on an SQA accredited HND course. What's more my teaching material has been moderated and approved by the SQA. Here's the clue: The authorities don't LET just anyone off the street do that! You actually need to KNOW what you're talking about!

Presumably Beddee you've come to have your ego massaged here too? Well I'm not going to rise to the bait.... So this will be my last word on the subject. If anyone else wants to give you houseroom well more fool them!

People are in this position (i.e they've received these letters from G&C) either because they were ignorant (or contemptuous) of the law or employed charlatans masquerading as professionals who were equally ignorant and/or contemptuous of the law. I have some sympathy for those lay-people who were duped or acted for themselves in ignorance. But the reality of this is that No competent, legitimate, properly trained and properly qualified professional who has done their job properly is, or ever was, in this position nor have they ever placed a client in this position.

As I've said before elsewhere. Only the building industry is comparable to the creative industries for attracting half baked cowboy operators. Anyone can mix cement so anyone can call themselves a builder... Except people are wise to cowboy builders.... NOT so with cowboy creatives.

Anyone buying ANY creative service should make sure that the people they're hiring are PROPERLY trained. PROPERLY qualified LEGITIMATE professionals.... Ideally that means someone with (minimally) an HNC/D level qualification in an appropriate, RELEVANT creative discipline obtained from a legitimate academic institution. Or someone with appropriate industrial training (which will usually be backed up by academic qualifications) and experience in a reliable established creative agency....

But at the very least it means someone who knows the job well enough NOT to botch IPR clearance.

So, for the fourth and final time.....

With all media assets in any context it's ESSENTIAL to have a proper audit trail which includes specific receipting of each element together with copies of all agreements, licenses etc.

The safest way is to commission or create ALL content yourself or buy it from a respected, credible source.

And I'll add that if you HAVE received or DO receive one of these letters; it's VERY SERIOUS. See a qualified IP rights lawyer; a specialist. NOT your neighbourhood solicitor; Not some totally unqualified barrack room lawyer on an internet discussion board.... But a REAL qualified lawyer; someone with specific experience of these matters....

It REALLY IS as simple as that!

Speaking as the moderator of the FSB forum, the only posts I have ever censored / moderated on this issue have been ones where idiots have used language and behaviour like the above which is totally unacceptable on a proffesional business resource such as the FSB forum.

There's only one 'f' and there are two 'ss' in Professional. :001_rolleyes: That thread isn't a professional business resource. And the fact that the FSB lawyers allow something like that to stand in nothing short of SHOCKING.

The only "idiots" are the ones who, when they face such difficulties, instead of seeking appropriate help from suitably qualified legal professionals chose to bury their heads in the sand and indulge in a love-in with some self-appointed barrack room lawyer.

And one final point.... American law does not apply in the UK. Therefore the opinion of an American attorney is of little relevance. It's interesting to note that there are no U.K. IPR lawyers commenting much beyond to suggest that 'victims' call them for help.

 

[beedee]

Presumably Beddee you've come to have your ego massaged here too? Well I'm not going to rise to the bait.... So this will be my last word on the subject. If anyone else wants to give you houseroom well more fool them!

Listen, I have no need to have my ego massaged. I am confident in my own abilities, experience and knowledge. I know what I can and cannot do and leave my clients to judge my output.

I have no interest in arguing with you but I believe that you have defamed my character. You seem confident enough of your case so just respond to my questions.

* Can I just ask you to confirm that you are publicly calling me a "code monkey", "fake", "fraud", "flim flam artist" and "half-assed bloody amateur"?

Also

* Can you tell me what "legitimate academic institution" endorses language like this from one of their lecturers because I would like to discuss this with them?

* Can I also ask you to confirm what qualifications you have that allow you to teach IP law?

 

[beedee]

That FSB thread is an complete and utter disgrace; It's a TRAVESTY that an organisation claiming to uphold professionals standards would allow such nonsense to stand in their name.

Once again you are clearly demonstrating that you do not know what you are talking about with regard to the FSB. They do not claim to "uphold professional standards". Their mission statement is "to be and remain the largest and most effective organisation promoting and protecting the interests of the self employed and small business owners within the UK."

 

[stugster]

Just a quick one from me...

In response to the queries about defamation, I've read this thread again and again. Matt hasn't actually explicitly stated that he was talking about any person or individual. If he had, I would have been quite happy to moderate. However, I cannot and do not see any reason to change/edit any of the posts within this thread.

will be having a look at this today/tomorrow though.