Taking pictures of something possibly copyrighted by not trademarked.

[kevin_b.2]

<p>I would like to take a picture of a Vox bottle of Vodka. That got me thinking if it was legal or not. The bottle is clearly distinguishable to Vox even if I do not show the logo or any text for that matter. Is this legal? Or anything similar?</p>

[markci]

<p>It's not really illegal to take a picture of anything. How you use it is what counts.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Kevin,</p>

 

<p>That you think it necessary to even ask such a question is a powerful indictment of our no-longer-free

society.</p>

 

<p>I know there are those here who are deeply concerned about having their photographs

“stolen.” This is the flip side of that coin. The walls you build to keep out the wolves also

lock you in with the vampires.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Kevin, the only time it would be a problem is if the shot was used to endorse another product and the identity wasn't removed--or some similar commercial use. I have never heard of a photographer getting in trouble for self promotion using any label or trademark for a shot that they did. But Nike couldn't use it nor could you sell a shot with a Nike swoosh on it to a company to promote their product, you would have to clone it out of the shot.</p>

[mechanic]

<p>Kevin<br>

< The bottle is clearly distinguishable to Vox even if I do not show the logo or any text for that matter. Is this legal> There are © signs here as well as other signs so hiding what you know by the positioning of the bottle will only lead to problems. WHY not contact VOX and tell them the purpose of you wanting to take the pictures or do you allready know what their answer will be. As you can see, it is not made in USA so just maybe the assumed USA laws do not appy. Much better to be safe than sorry in my opinion. <a href="http://www.voxvodka.com/voxv2/(S(32u2pn552tkynu45zd4obrqc))/Default.aspx">http://www.voxvodka.com/voxv2/(S(32u2pn552tkynu45zd4obrqc))/Default.aspx</a> <br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/business-photography-forum/00W8Mz"></a></p>

 

[craig_gillette]

<p>Asking about how to observe someone's intellectual property rights is an indication of courtesy and respect.</p>

<p>A bottle is not copyrighted (can't be). However, there could be artistic (or text, etc.) elements in the decorations or labeling that is. Then as in other matters of fair use or infringement, it depends on what you do with the pictures.</p>

<p>The bottle (or again label elements) might be a trademark. In that case, again, how you use it might be an infringement.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>I seem to recall some artist using the image of a soup can...............</p>

[enlightened-images]

<p>Mark Ci was absolut(ely) -pun- right. It's how you use the photo that counts.</p>

<p>You wanna read about Vodka Bottles and Intellectual Property. Grab a fork & knife & dig in:<br /><a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits_Inc">http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits_Inc</a>.</p>

[kevin_b.2]

<p>I should clarify I intend these shots to be sold as fine art prints.</p>

[enlightened-images]

<p>You can certainly take and display as many photos of the bottle as you like. But chances are, the minute you sell one, you might be violating their copyright or trademark, and they could sue for infringement or dillution. Unknown if they'd win, but chances are they have lots of expensive lawyers they keep on hand for this, and you don't. Remember, taking and showing are your rights, but selling may cross the line. I have a bunch of legal resources on my weblog, listed oddly enough under "legal". FWIW - copyright is about artistic design and expression in a tangible medium, trademark is about use of a design, logo, or saying used in commerce.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>"Selling" is not the problem. In trademark, it's a use that confuses people about the source/or ownership - that the pictures come from the Vox vodka company or that instead of a particular vodka, that the distinctive shape/"mark" would be equally applicable to any "vodka." (Think of "Google" or "Xerox" being used as a verb instead of a noun. "Google these search terms." as opposed to "Do a Google search on "these" terms." Or "Please get me a Kleenex." meaning you'll take any kind of tissue, not just that specific brand.) That kind of dilution or confusion could arise if you sold or gave away the pictures so selling is not the trigger to infringement. </p>

<p>There are a number of sources of competent "legal" advice on these topics, prepared by real lawyers, professional organizations, etc. Taking advice from forums or casual blogs, etc., is probably not the wisest choice without at least checking truly competent sources as well.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>A bottle is not copyrighted (can't be).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just for the sake of discussion, could a bottle be made fancy enough to mimic a copyrighted image be used in an infringing way?</p>

[mechanic]

<p>Kevin,<br>

As per your statement "Just for the sake of discussion, could a bottle be made fancy enough to mimic a copyrighted image be used in an infringing way?"<br>

Your sole reason for doing this is to attempt to make fine art prints from another,s work and very likely SELL them for financial gain. I see no difference in this than printing $100.oo bills and wanting to sell them--likely a lot more profit involved UNTILL you get caught and your room and board will be paid by the government for a very long time. Ever hear of Criminal counterfeiting <a href="http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Trademark_Law">http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Trademark_Law</a> <a href="http://www.marques.org/class46/default.asp?D_A=20100304">http://www.marques.org/class46/default.asp?D_A=20100304</a><br>

Designs of a piece of glass ARE Protected for example Coke. Vox paid someone to design the bottle then paid others for the ® and © then paid to advertise the product then you come along and want it for free minus the Vodka. There is a word that describes one when they take from others and don't pay--wonder what that word is? It is also against the law. <strong>Aspect of Packaging or Shape <a href="http://archive.agda.com.au/dm/projects/TradeMarkLaw.html">http://archive.agda.com.au/dm/projects/TradeMarkLaw.html</a></strong></p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>I'd expect if the bottle is being used to contain and deliver a product, it's still basically a "useful article." The US copyright laws do appear to accommodate the ability to protect design elements though.</p>

<p>“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."</p>

<p>I believe things like china patterns and silver patterns can be protected. It may solely be through trade dress and trademark type protections, however, there are constant reports on prosecutions for counterfeiting "useful articles" like designer jeans, purses and the like.</p>

<p>There is a lot of discussion on the conflicts between trade mark laws and first amendment expression protections. Some may be academic, some more simply posturing and pontificating. Trademarked products are used blatantly in advertising competing products with minimally obtrusive disclaimers - by big corporations with serious money available for staff or hired gun legal advice. </p>

<p>Just because one sees similar uses to what one might want to do, there may be no way to determine what underlying agreements may exist or whether the "example" (as in "everybody does it") is simply a case of not having been caught, etc.</p>

<p> </p>