Subjects that could get you in trouble
If you're photographing for editorial, commercial, or stock, you often have to be very aware of what you're photographing. Recently, and occuring more often, are lawsuits regarding breach of privacy, copyright and trademark infringement when photographs are taken of individuals, buildings, products, etc. and then licensed for commercial or even editorial use. Note all the blurring of names and items on some TV shows where releases or payments for individuals, logos, and products have not been obtained by the network. Just watch MTV for 5 minutes and you'll see what I'm talking about.
A few years ago, showing a brand on television, even in an editorial context, wasn't a big deal. Collateral advertising. Now, product placement is big money and it seems there is now a gray area between what is commercial and what is editorial (advertorial is the term often used), so most instances of "catching a brand" is removed or blurred out to avoid any litigation.
And it's not just noticeable brands or products. Privately owned buildings, parks, and other property gets into the mix as well. A brand isn't necessarliy just a logo. The word a few years ago was that if you were shooting from public property, you could legally photograph private property. Standing on the sidewalk or in the street was ok to capture the Flatiron Building in New York or a local old house.
That's not really true anymore. Things you thought were ok to photograph may not be. Even when the item or logo is not the primary focus or subject of the scene, an incidental capture of a logo in a street scent, for example, the owner of that trademark or copyrighted design could come after you. Using the street scene as a more detailed example, if you capture the McDonald's arches, a Porsche, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and someone wearing a Denver Broncos t-shirt, you might get the attention of one or more of those companies depending upon the use and popularity of the image where these trademarks are found. Recently, many stock photos containing the logo of the London Underground ("The Tube" subway system) were pulled from Alamy in response from pressure from the Transport of London that these images were trademark and copyright infringments. Other images removed included Rubik's Cube and Eurostar.
A photographer needs to be aware of what they can or can't photograph and obtain the appropriate release (model or property), pay any license (or capture) fees, and essentially dot your i's and cross your t's to avoid any future surprises. Just because you have a camera and are a "professional", it doesn't give you license or access to photograph anything you want. When in doubt it's best to ask. If that's not possible, you might go ahead and get the shot, but thoroughly research it and get permission (if needed) before sending it out for publication.
The Picture Archival Council of America (PACA) has put together a Special Releases List, a short list of properties and objects that could cause problems for you if not released. This isn't an exhaustive list by any means.
A few years ago, showing a brand on television, even in an editorial context, wasn't a big deal. Collateral advertising. Now, product placement is big money and it seems there is now a gray area between what is commercial and what is editorial (advertorial is the term often used), so most instances of "catching a brand" is removed or blurred out to avoid any litigation.
And it's not just noticeable brands or products. Privately owned buildings, parks, and other property gets into the mix as well. A brand isn't necessarliy just a logo. The word a few years ago was that if you were shooting from public property, you could legally photograph private property. Standing on the sidewalk or in the street was ok to capture the Flatiron Building in New York or a local old house.
That's not really true anymore. Things you thought were ok to photograph may not be. Even when the item or logo is not the primary focus or subject of the scene, an incidental capture of a logo in a street scent, for example, the owner of that trademark or copyrighted design could come after you. Using the street scene as a more detailed example, if you capture the McDonald's arches, a Porsche, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and someone wearing a Denver Broncos t-shirt, you might get the attention of one or more of those companies depending upon the use and popularity of the image where these trademarks are found. Recently, many stock photos containing the logo of the London Underground ("The Tube" subway system) were pulled from Alamy in response from pressure from the Transport of London that these images were trademark and copyright infringments. Other images removed included Rubik's Cube and Eurostar.
A photographer needs to be aware of what they can or can't photograph and obtain the appropriate release (model or property), pay any license (or capture) fees, and essentially dot your i's and cross your t's to avoid any future surprises. Just because you have a camera and are a "professional", it doesn't give you license or access to photograph anything you want. When in doubt it's best to ask. If that's not possible, you might go ahead and get the shot, but thoroughly research it and get permission (if needed) before sending it out for publication.
The Picture Archival Council of America (PACA) has put together a Special Releases List, a short list of properties and objects that could cause problems for you if not released. This isn't an exhaustive list by any means.
posted by Mike Shipman | 1:41:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home