robertbanks Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I'm doing a promotional shoot tomorrow for a large fashion event that is coming up in August in London. Shoot is on location, using models and designers that are in the event. The client wants the images to convey Britain and London. They gave as an example of using an old red telephone box as a backdrop/prop. The images will be used on their website, on flyers, on their printed brochure/programme, and of course on social media. I've had a look around the location, which I knew quite well anyway, no red phone boxes of course, but some other possibilities, and I saw that there is a Barclays Cycle Hire station nearby. For those that don't know, this is a scheme run by Transport For London and sponsored by Barclays bank that allows anyone to hire a cycle for use around London. The bikes are quite distinctive and are becoming something of a London symbol, known as Boris Bikes after the mayor of London Boris Johnson who introduced the scheme. Anyway, at a cost of one pound for 24 hours seems like a bargain to use them in the shoot, you know the kind of thing two models frolicking on bicycles in their designer dresses ;) BUT do you think Transport for London or Barclays might object to their use? I was thinking of photoshopping out any logos that would otherwise be shown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 <p>They would probably not object to free advertising but even if they did, they would have no case to argue.</p> <p>Just like the iconic red phone boxes and double decker buses, they are out in the public and can be viewed and photographed by anyone.</p> <p>Given the problems which Barclays are having at the moment concerning interest rate fixing, I don't think they will be complaining about someone photographing a bicycle which they contribute some of the running costs to.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 <blockquote> <p>BUT do you think Transport for London or Barclays might object to their use?</p> </blockquote> <p>Seems to me the best way to find out would be to contact them...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 <p>I expect that you could find many instances, even in commercial advertising, with a model stepping onto or off of a London Routemaster bus and I doubt that any photographer, editor or advertising member of staff ever bothered to ask London transport or AEC for permission.</p> <p>The Boris Bikes are no different in this respect.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvy Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 <p>I am sure that they would be fine what with being part of the London landscape. For some reason when I used one of these last summer it had cost me just less than £5 for just over an hour's use. Not sure what I might have done wrong!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 <p>I don't know the laws in the UK, but if there are logos, you can't use them when advertising another product without permission. It doesn't matter how public they are, same goes for logos on buildings or T-shirts or whatever. There is an implied endorsement when another logo appears and it is tantamount to using a person who hasn't given permission in an ad. In a magazine news story, it is fine, just not for commercial use.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danmarchant Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <p>The bikes are fine. As others pointed out above you are free to photograph objects that are in public. However I would photoshop out the Barclays and TFL logos.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <blockquote> <p>There is an implied endorsement when another logo appears and it is tantamount to using a person who hasn't given permission in an ad.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Only a problem if you are advertising a similar product. An advertisement for clothing with e.g. a car in the scene with the Ford logo showing wouldn't be a problem and in any case, there is no law banning it. Any objecting business/logo owner would have to try to prove a loss.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <p>Steve, that is not true, it is about "endorsement" not competition. In fact, note that often the Apple logo is removed/covered from laptops in many TV shows. If they don't have permission, then they have to take it out. Same with logo T's on TV, in reality shows, they will blur most of them if they don't have permission. (Then, of course, in some cases there could also be copyright issues with the person who made the design/photo that appears on the t-shirt)</p> <p>I have had more than a few hours spent when doing shoots with people either finding clothes without logos or removing ones that were there. I have also removed logos from ice chests, you can't have another company's logo in a commercial use for any other product without permission. If you look at most advertisements, you will notice you never see another company's logo in a shot.</p> <p>I have done aerial shoots where the client tediously removed logos from every building that could be recognized in the shot.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <blockquote> <p> If they don't have permission, then they have to take it out. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> They don't have to take it out. They do it because if they don't, other manufacturers will not pay the TV companies for advertising time as they will claim that these products got unfair free advertising. There is no law that says you cannot show a company's trade mark on TV.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <p>Steve, I don't know, maybe you know more than I do, I just know that I have worked for large national companies and ad agencies and other companies' logos are always removed. I also had a friend sued over copyright just because someone's art was in the background--he lost. The legal issues are complex and I would not include logos in a commercial shoot without a good attorney's opinion that it would be OK.</p> <p>Here is an article which sheds some light on the subject, note that even though Ford may be overstepping, she acknowledges that the logos are probably an issue.</p> <p>http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=246</p> <p>Of course, this discussion is US law, UK law may be different.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <p>This covers it: <a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Trademarks-In-Film---Best-Practices&id=1954364">http://ezinearticles.com/?Trademarks-In-Film---Best-Practices&id=1954364</a></p> <p>(this one is US too but I don't think English law would be much different).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <p>Steve, an interesting article, but it is about film which is not the advertising of someone's product. I would refer you back to my link above--and the others she refers to, including the new trademark law. Film and Advertising are two different things.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <p>The article also talks about networks giving the film airtime and effectively free advertising.<br> I think there is only a problem if you show the trademark/logo/product other than the way it is intended to be used or if you show it in a bad light or with an intent to defraud or confuse. If you show a can of Coca Cola and point out that it's a can of Coca Cola (or imply it just by showing it) there cannot be a problem.<br> And unless you do show someone's product in a bad way, I can't see why they would have any reason to complain.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 "The article also talks about networks giving the film airtime and effectively free advertising." Yes, it talks about how using a product's trademark in a film may, in effect, provide free advertising for that product. That is not at all the same thing as that product's trademark being used in a commercial advertisement for a different product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <p>Here's another link to the ASMP site and a discussion on the topic. I think it makes it clear that there are pitfalls although in some cases it could work out. I think the "in some cases" idea is why people always do remove logos of other companies from their ads, especially if they are prominent or on primary props and such. As from the article I posted above regarding the Ford suit, companies will often sue over things that seem beyond what they can control and it is always best to protect your assets and those of the client from a lawsuit. Spending $30,000 or more in legal fees and then being right is little consolation.</p> <p>http://asmp.org/articles/trademark-faq.html</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <p>The fact is that if you create a photograph for advertising a product and it happens to have the logo/trademark of another manufacturer in it, the trademark police are not going to come knocking at your door. </p> <p>If the manufacturer you have shown in your picture is upset about it they might want to make a claim against you but just having their logo in your picture is not enough of a complaint. They will need to show some loss or mis-representation etc. in order to claim remedies from you. I think it's a very unlikely situation.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <p>Steve, apparently you didn't read the Ford link. It really isn't that uncommon and the big companies are the most likely to sue, they have cadres of attorneys on retainer, it doesn't cost them anything to protect their trademark and they do voraciously! But, certainly, do as you wish I just don't know any ad agency of any weight that would let a logo remain in a shot for a client--there is a reason for that.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_gardiner Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 <p>Rob... are you living in a cave? Do either your clients or indeed do you really want to be professionally associated with that bank right now?<br> I cannot think of a worse choice for something representing London at the moment and we're only at the beginning of a scandal that could easily get a lot worse and is certainly set to run. I very much doubt whether you can count on your clients gratitude for linking them with something so controversial, I cannot see any commercial logic behind that choice. I would look for an emblem that doesn't carry such negative baggage.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 <p>Trademarks aside, sitting here in Washington, D.C., I've never seen or heard of these bicycles and can't imagine they would say "London" to me. If you audience is strictly in the UK it might work. But if it's international you need to phone booths, Big Ben or Tower Bridge to say London. We have some similar bikes available on streetcorners here in Washington but they don't say Washington like the U.S. Captiol, White House or Washington Monument.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 <p>I'm in England (not London) and the first I heard about the Boris Bikes was in this thread so I agree, they are not really an icon of London.</p> <p>Routemaster buses, Tower Bridge and Yeoman of the Guard and Horse Guards would all be suitable icons. Red telephone and post boxes are also iconic but more of the country as a whole than just London.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Williams Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 <p>"For some reason when I used one of these last summer it had cost me just less than £5 for just over an hour's use. Not sure what I might have done wrong!"</p> <p>The catch is they add a 'usage charge' if you don't park it at a hire station within half an hour; it's really only intended for short rides. The 'access fee' is good for the whole day, so you can make many sub 30 min trips and only pay £1 in total, but take it on a long ride and you could pay anything up to another £50 (with big fines after 24 hr):<br> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/14811.aspx</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 <blockquote> <p>take it on a long ride and you could pay anything up to another £50</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> If the charge got that high I would keep the bike!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now