What's the rule?

[richard_ritter1]

Can I take photos of a product, such as a box of crackers, with the product name

clearly visible, and sell the prints as fine art? Does the cracker manufacturer

have any legal recourse? Thanks.

[Matt Laur]

You're fine with crackers. It's the corn chips that are the real problem.

<br><br>

Gentlemen, start your Googles. The thing you want to watch out for here is <i>trademark</i> troubles. I'm not a lawyer, etc., but there's a reason that so many other entertainment vehicles fuss over pixelating-out brand names and logos on all sorts of surfaces/products/clothing/gear while otherwise just showing you some entertainment (art). Such an image, used editorially, is generally free and clear. But used as the basis of, or as key component in the entertainment product (your images) that you, in turn, are selling... that gets a little touchy. This topic comes up here regularly, and there's rarely an authoritative, concise, simple answer, other than the ol' "talk to an intellectual property lawyer about that" bit of safe advice.

[bobatkins]

I doubt Andy Wahol got permission from Campbell's soup when he first made the "soup can" prints, though I'm willing to be corrected on that if anyone can cite a reference.

 

Don't try it with a Disney product through, they have rabid lawyers on staff!

 

It's one of those areas where you might or might not get sued and if you do you might or might not win.

 

Manufacturer's always have a legal recourse, because they have more lawyers than you do.

[Jerry_]

"Does the cracker manufacturer have any legal recourse?" Yes. (Consider the TM marking on the package or product name. That is the company's name and they, through their legal department, may have a problem with you making money using their product name.) You could try to Photoshop Coca Cola into Boca Cola and not change their bottle design or shape. I'd wager you will get stationery in the mail asking what are you doing.....?

[craig_gillette]

Campbell and Warhol found that they could both deal with the art (revenues). There are discussions on the web and "searching with Google" (that in itself is a "nod" to the trademark and - Google, like Kleenex and Xerox are nouns - and as they become verbs the trademark value is impacted).

 

Trademark issues can be a problem. Here's a fast read:

http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1996/FederalDilution.html

 

But there is a substantial amount of latitude under the 1st Amendment for expressive uses. So after you've read up on it, it's still probably a good idea to consider getting competent legal advice. Going from the general to a specific use is where you could have problems.

[richard_ritter1]

Thanks to everyone for your insightful responses. I think i'm going to seek some professional assistance on this one!