I'm doing a show at a local gallery where my photos will be for sale. One photo I have copyright questions that will base whether it is included with my other photos for sale or not.
It is a beach/surf landscape shot with a bottle of Corona at the surfline. I titled it "It's Five O'Clock Somewhere".
Now because the Corona bottle is a big part of the photo, can I legally sell it?
Also, the title of the photo is also the title of a song. Can I sell it based on the title?
Someone more knowledgeable that me in this matter will hopefully come along to confirm (and I'm not a lawyer), but my understanding is that if you are selling it as art, you're fine. You would not be able to sell the image commercially (i.e. for a bar to advertise with).
It's not a copyright question, it's a trademark question...
I don't know about the song title but it seems that wouldn't be a problem. Heck there are songs that have the same title.
If it is "art" you should be on pretty safe ground. But I know next to nothin.
If you were selling it for use in advertisement, then I would see an issue. If you took a photo of an old Studebaker rusting away in a field, and sold it in a gallery, you wouldn't owe Studebaker anything. Just about everything made is trademarked. I'm not giving legal advice, just posting an opinion. There has to be a rule of thumb, so as to not require an attorney in your camera bag.
On the extreme example.. Andy Warhol mimic those Campbell soup can label.. I'm sure the can labels were a big part of his painting.. yet, he's seems to be doing okay.. b/c it's ART.
jojosung wrote:
On the extreme example.. Andy Warhol mimic those Campbell soup can label.. I'm sure the can labels were a big part of his painting.. yet, he's seems to be doing okay.. b/c it's ART.
Warhol is dead which might be ok with some but perhaps not Andy's preference.
Jman13 wrote:
my understanding is that if you are selling it as art, you're fine. You would not be able to sell the image commercially (i.e. for a bar to advertise with).
+1
Dennis M 1064 wrote:
If you were selling it for use in advertisement, then I would see an issue.
+2
Dennis M 1064 wrote:
If you took a photo of an old Studebaker rusting away in a field, and sold it in a gallery, you wouldn't owe Studebaker anything.
Yes, you can display and sell a print as a work of art. If you get into poster production, you can run into problems. I'm not sure of the legal logic behind that distinction, but the courts have made such a distinction.
I've seen a situation pass court muster where the artist merely enlarged a portion of someone else's comic book cover art, making the slightest of changes, and called it his own "art."
Good thing this discussion was short, otherwise it would have run into my new law:
RDKirk's Law of Copyright Discourse:
"As any discussion about any facet of copyright grows longer, the probability of the RIAA being used as an example in arguments opposing copyright approaches 1."
I know a professional artist (pen and ink drawings he reproduces for sale, usually in a 11x14 size or small poster size) who made an image showing a VW bug (new one) as the focus of his drawing.
He was sued by VW corp and had a lengthy and expensive legal fight.
Steady Hand wrote:
I know a professional artist (pen and ink drawings he reproduces for sale, usually in a 11x14 size or small poster size) who made an image showing a VW bug (new one) as the focus of his drawing.
He was sued by VW corp and had a lengthy and expensive legal fight.
He lost.
The bug shape is a trademark of the VW corp.
What were the details? There have been other precedents where mass replicated art has been ruled as violations of trademarks, and cases where are bearing trademarks has been produced as limited samples presented in galleries have not.
