Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Walter Banks, Apr 19, 2010.

  1. Walter Banks

    Paul Furman Guest

    I knew a guy who shot TV commercials and they went to great lengths to
    avoid recognizable buildings, but his style required dramatic urban
    settings so they'd fly to Budapest or Vancouver or wherever or build
    elaborate sets to look like fancy modern buildings. But now that you
    mention it, I think most of their clients were European, although he was
    based in LA.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Apr 25, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Walter Banks

    Walter Banks Guest

    I doubt that I could just the artist image as a commercial logo.
    It would make an interesting test case.
    It is possible they have some form of license or a grandfather
    image. They have been around for 20+ years with that logo.
    They have their corporate offices in SanJose so they might
    also be "connected".

    Walter Banks, Apr 25, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. It wouldn't surprise me the Lexus Pebble Beach edition cars,
    which do include a licensed "Lone Cypress" logo, include
    components made by Cypress Semiconductors.

    You may find these 4 links interesting.

    All of these are major national or international companies. All of
    them are aware of each other, and I'm pretty sure all of them get
    competent legal advice. Yet as far as I know, there is no history
    of trademark litigation among them.

    Nor, knowing what I do about the companies and their markets,
    would I expect any such litigation absent a major change in
    the law. Let's just say that trademark law is not simple as
    some here would make it out to be.

    There was a nice little squabble about the domain
    name, but that involved the airline and two _more_ firms named
    Delta and no trademark claim was made.
    Michael Benveniste, Apr 26, 2010
  4. A simple agreement; or, it doesn't look enough like 'that tree' to ever
    be considered an infringement.
    John McWilliams, Apr 26, 2010
  5. Can-O-Worms is a registered trademark, and products are actively
    marketed under that name:

    Don't expect a cease and desist letter any time soon, though.
    I'm sure there are more than that, but I just chose the 4 that people
    are likely to have heard about. And that's not counting all of the
    other triangle-based trademarks out there. Bass Ale's red triangle,
    for example, is cited as Britian's first registered trademark.

    The point is that similar trademarks can peacefully co-exist, even
    though under U.S. law you have to actively defend your trademark
    or risk losing it.
    Michael Benveniste, Apr 26, 2010
  6. Walter Banks

    Walter Banks Guest

    Contains the following effectively closing the matter

    " Ultimately, the question of whether the Harley exhaust sound
    was functional was never decided because Harley abandoned
    its trademark application in the face of substantial opposition."

    Mxsmanic your were right.

    Walter Banks, Apr 26, 2010
  7. Walter Banks

    tony cooper Guest

    Not for the lack of trying, though. Harley-Davidson filed an
    application for trademark on February 14, 1994 based on: "THE MARK
    The application was withdrawn six years later after a great deal of
    legal wrangling.

    It was not the first trademark application for sound. The National
    Broadcasting Company has trademarked the sound of the musical notes
    G,E, and C played on chimes. MGM Studios has trademarked the roar of
    the lion.
    tony cooper, Apr 27, 2010
  8. Perhaps you would, but before reaching this conclusion you
    might want to research the Chicago "Cloud Gate" and New
    York "Charging Bull" controversies.

    I'm not sure what the law is in Canada, but the United
    States carved out a statutory exception specifically for
    photographs of architectural works. Did Canada?
    Michael Benveniste, Apr 27, 2010
  9. Walter Banks

    Walter Banks Guest

    What has been most interesting on this thread is almost everyone
    has an opinion, some case a passionate opinion but there are
    very few cases that has been decided in a court.

    Walter Banks, Apr 27, 2010
  10. In the U.S., if you paint a work of art on the side of a car,
    it just as eligible for copyright protection as if you painted
    it on canvas. Nor do you lose your copyright for taking that
    car out on the street, any more than you do for displaying a
    photograph or sculpture in a park or a store window.
    Cool. I did look it up. Canada has a similar exception to the
    U.S. Trimming section 32.2 a bit:
    "It is not an infringement of copyright ... for any person
    to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or
    cinematographic work [a copy of] an architectural work, provided
    the copy is not in the nature of an architectural drawing or

    But Canada goes further than the U.S. The next clause extends
    the exception to: "... a sculpture or work of artistic
    craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of
    artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public
    place or building." So under Canadian law, it looks like
    pictures of the "Charging Bull" might depend on the definition
    of "permanently."

    Private home photography also raises issues of privacy,
    which is another area where I know nothing about Canadian
    Michael Benveniste, Apr 28, 2010
  11. Walter Banks

    Walter Banks Guest

    There is probably a gray line between restored and copyrightable.
    White leather when the car always came in black for example or
    maybe detailing on the finish. The car I have only seen in pictures,
    the owner I have known for about 35 years.

    Walter Banks, Apr 28, 2010
  12. It's case-by-case factual determination with a fairly low
    bar. According to the Feist v. Rural case, to qualify for
    copyright protection a work must be original to its author
    and possess a minimal degree of creativity. Racing stripes
    might not meet even that minimal degree.

    As for some of the other claims made here, you might find
    the section on "Useful Articles" of interest here:

    Reminder: I'm a random internet poster.
    Michael Benveniste, Apr 28, 2010
  13. Walter Banks

    Walter Banks Guest

    What this discussion seems to have uncovered is the large distance
    between what the various copyright laws seem to state and how they
    are enforced or used.

    Most works are copyrighted few seem to use copyright laws as the
    basis to file suits

    Walter Banks, May 4, 2010
  14. Walter Banks

    Patrick L Guest

    The copyright protects the image taken by the photographer, not necessarily
    the idea or content in the photograph.That is my "opinion".

    in other words, you cannot use the other's image without his permission.
    You are free to take the same picture, stand in the same spot, using the
    same camera and the same settings on the same time of day. The subject
    matter of a photo is not copyrightable, the rights to use it, sell it, etc,
    is what is copyrightable. But "I'm not a lawer".

    Ask a lawyer to be certain.

    Patrick L, May 15, 2010
  15. Walter Banks

    Kent Wills Guest

    You are in error. The crime will be copying the work, not in any
    money transfers as a result of the copy. Although money changing hands
    can add to the damages.
    I wasn't aware of this. Last I knew, copyright remained in
    effect for the life of the owner plus, I think, 70 years.
    What issues have to be renewed every decade or so? Not an
    attempt to flame, but an honest question.
    Kent Wills, May 15, 2010
  16. Walter Banks

    kiss my U*U Guest

    Unless you're Disney, somehow the US Goverment has granted them copyright,
    and trademark protection until the end of time!
    kiss my U*U, May 18, 2010
  17. Walter Banks

    Walter Banks Guest

    This could be a an interesting copyright case to follow.

    It is the case of an artist taking an AP photo allegedly and
    photoshoping an Obama teashirt and other images. It has it all
    fair use, copyright image ownership, and changes to the original

    At this point there is an added twist, a judge who has commented,
    "A judge urged Friday that a copyright dispute between an artist and
    The Associated Press over the Barack Obama "HOPE" image be
    settled quickly, saying it was likely the AP would win the case."

    Walter Banks, May 31, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.