unbranded/generic cameras for a photoshoot

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

Hopefully this is in the right section.<br>

I'm planning to have a camera on a book cover, there are some good stock photos I can use, but wanted to experiment with my own photos. As I understand, I can't take photos of my own Nikon. Could anyone tell me what are those unbranded/generic cameras they use in stock photos or where I can get hold of one?<br>

any help much appreciated!<br />Larisa</p>

<p>'As I understand, I can't take photos of my own Nikon'</p>

<p>This puzzles me as you see lots of books on photography with pictures of cameras on the front. Unless your book could be seen as defamatory (Title: 100 cameras never to buy - for example) it is free advertising for the brand.</p>

<p>Some public service broadcasters may not allow 'plugging' a particular brand, but in these cases covering the nameplate is normally sufficient - eg black electrical tape over the prism on a black Nikon. Even so are you planning to advertise your book on TV?</p>

<p>If I am wrong please let me know your source of information so I can avoid issues in the future for myself.</p>

<p>Nick</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If your publisher requires you to avoid brand identification on your camera, cover the Nikon name and the red stripe on the handgrip with black gaffer's tape, which is preferable to electrical tape because it will not leave a sticky residue. (Electrical tape left on only long enough to photograph the camera probably won't leave a residue either, but with gaffer's tape you will be sure.)</p>

<p>Totally agree with Hector regarding only leaving tape on long enough to take a picture.<br>

<br /> I only suggested electrical tape as it is smooth and if carefully trimmed to follow the outline of the camera can appear to be invisible unlike gaffer tape which has an obvious texture.</p>

<p>Hollywood policy: "If *insert brand* don't gift me a bag full of awesomeness, I'll tape their name out."<br>

Example of a rather unbranded camera: Leica M Monochrom (both versions) - For confusion's sake you can mount elderly lenses by Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Voigtländer, Konica vanished and Soviet brands on it. <br>

Using a discontnued film or plate camera that simply looks cute could be another option. - The older ones didn't have manufacturer names all over them.<br>

If you fear IP hassle with camera manufacturer, don't use new out of the box in front of a non existant background. Make something you wore out <em>part</em> of a however personal picture.</p>

<p>Nick,<br>

My book is fiction, I'm not sure if non-fiction books on branded cameras follow different guidelines. I've been reading various articles on trademarks in fiction. (This one is mostly about writing)<br>

http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2010/12/can-i-mention-brand-name-products-in-my.html<br>

Hector,<br>

That was my idea initially - I was going to either airbrush the logo out or not make it visible. But wouldn't it still be a problem if the model is recognisable? The other thing I've noticed, the stock photos with branded items seem to be for editorial use only, so means you cannot use it for commercial purposes.<br>

That's my understanding anyway. I'm no expert so would rather play it safe. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.<br>

thanks!<br />Larisa</p>

 

<p>Jochen,<br>

Thanks for the info and suggestions, I'll have a look at those.<br>

Is this a prop, it looks too basic to be a real camera that was airbrushed?<br>

http://static3.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/7/8/8/large2/88728725.jpg<br>

Re Hollywood - didn't DeLorean try to sue the filmmakers of Back to the future for using their car? How silly..</p>

Of course you can use a Nikon, Canon, Leica, Hasselblad, Deardorff, etc. branded canera on the cover of your book -

unless as soneone pointed out earlier, your publisher forebids it or if the sone is somhow defamatory about that company

- for instance if the camera is a bloodsplattered murder weapon.

 

But most often what I see as a "generic" camera in an ad or on a book cover is a canera with the camera and lens maker's logo removed via retouching.

<p>Your example picture is a consumer level Nikon DSLR with the maker and model airbrushed out (I was going to say photoshopped out, but calling it that could be an issue!) - the red stripe on Nikon SLRs that has been referred to has been cropped off this image as well.</p>

<p>Product placement in fiction is well established - the James Bond books by Ian Fleming are full of such references to cars, toiletries, drinks, cigarettes cars and more, and closer to home - in the book Goldfinger - Bond uses ‘an M3 Leica, an MC exposure meter, a K2 filter’. (Fleming, Ian, Goldfinger. Random House.)</p>

<p>Re Hollywood - didn't DeLorean try to sue the filmmakers of Back to the future for using their car?</p>

<p>The original DeLorean company went into liquidation in 1982 with cars and parts being sold off to a company with a different name. The current DeLorean company was formed in 1995 so I doubt a film made in 1985 like 'Back to the Future' would have caused any trademark infringement, falling in between these two dates. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Of course you can have a Nikon (or any other brand) camera on your book cover or in your book. You don't even have to shoot the photo -- you can go to the press section of the Nikon website and download their stock photos of any current model. They will be happy for the free advertising as long as you are not saying anything defamatory about their brand.<br /><br />The issues come down to a couple of things. First, is whether the attorneys at your publisher are hypersensitive. In that case, they might want a release from Nikon saying the usage is OK, not so much that they actually need it but because it's an attorney's job to make sure i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Or they might prefer that the logo be retouched out or covered with tape if they think getting a release is too much trouble. The fact that the shape is recognizable isn't really an issue, again as long as you're not defamining the brand.<br /><br />The other issue is product placement. Almost in the movies or TV that you see a name brand, they haven't asked for permission to use it. They've demanded payment to use it. In other words, Nikon would gladly pay a huge sum for the star of a major film or TV show to use a Nikon camera instead of a Canon. At the very least, they would provide all the equipment for free. Have you noticed on the TV show NCIS that they use exclusively Nikons for their crime scene photography? Does the star drink Coke or Pepsi? Millions of dollars can change hands over that. Think about all the TV shows from the 1960s and 70s where all the cars just happened to be the same brand and there were credits at the end for "Automobiles furnished by" GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc.<br /><br />One last thought. If you are working with a major publisher as opposed to self publishing, what goes on the cover isn't up to you. The writer can make a suggestion, but cover design is up to the publisher. It's part of their marketing for the book, which is their area of expertise, not yours.</p>

Many photography textbooks I've seen

use cameras old enough nobody cares

about trademark.

<p>"bloodsplattered murder weapon" Lol, thanks Ellis for brightening up my day!<br />It is an important plot point, not defamatory, but who knows what someone else would "make" of it.<br>

Nick, thanks for identifying the camera.<br>

Craig, that's the thing, I don't have the backing of a publisher, I'd be self-publishing.</p>

Read this detailed explanation:

 

 

Photos of Trademarked and Copyrighted Works

 

http://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks.html

 

 

If a release is needed, it is the publisher's resposibility to get it.

A release is not necessary unless the public who see the book cover are likely to think that the camera manufacturer is associated with

the book, for example, if people believe the manufacturer paid the author to write the book or is recommending the book or if the

association is detrimental to the manufacturer's trademark.

 

 

It is not always clear whether the association is incidental. That is why most publishers require a generic, unbranded image.

<p>Thank you for the link and info Benoît. Very useful!</p>

<p>Why is Photoshop notan option?</p>