Copyright question
Discussion
Well that's one possible problem out of the way. As for replicating the Corona brand, what do you intend to do with the T-shirts? If it was one for your own use, I'd say carry on. However if you intend selling them for profit you might be in trouble as you're making money from their brand without permission.
Owzat?
Owzat?
Flibble said:
Copyright is no problem - you own the copyright on your own photos.
Trademark is a problem - they have the right to restrict use of their trademarks.
However as others have said, they won't notice this most likely so go for it.
The OP will own copyright in his own photo, but his photo reproduces the Corona label, which is a copyright work, without Cornona's consent. So copyright is indeed a problem. Trademark is a problem - they have the right to restrict use of their trademarks.
However as others have said, they won't notice this most likely so go for it.
The OP will only infringe the Corona trademark if the mark is registered for the specific class of goods that covers T-shirts.
Greg66 said:
The OP will own copyright in his own photo, but his photo reproduces the Corona label, which is a copyright work, without Cornona's consent. So copyright is indeed a problem.
This is difficult ground. What if I take a photo of a Ford car, or a scene in which there is one, and you can see the blue oval? Is that illegal, even if it never goes beyond my PC? In theory the same situation as yours above but clearly nonsensical.Simpo Two said:
This is difficult ground. What if I take a photo of a Ford car, or a scene in which there is one, and you can see the blue oval? Is that illegal, even if it never goes beyond my PC? In theory the same situation as yours above but clearly nonsensical.
Well that's me stuffed! I took these two, then got them made up onto canvases that adorn my walls!
IMG_0001 by co1856, on Flickr
DSC06720 by co1856, on Flickr
The reality is, quite frankly, if it's for anything other than your own consumption, then you are breaking copyright law.. If not, it's fine.
Greg66 said:
Flibble said:
Copyright is no problem - you own the copyright on your own photos.
Trademark is a problem - they have the right to restrict use of their trademarks.
However as others have said, they won't notice this most likely so go for it.
The OP will own copyright in his own photo, but his photo reproduces the Corona label, which is a copyright work, without Cornona's consent. So copyright is indeed a problem. Trademark is a problem - they have the right to restrict use of their trademarks.
However as others have said, they won't notice this most likely so go for it.
The OP will only infringe the Corona trademark if the mark is registered for the specific class of goods that covers T-shirts.
HedgehogFromHell said:
Well that's me stuffed! I took these two, then got them made up onto canvases that adorn my walls!
Suggest you hand yourself in at the nearest cop shop on Monday morning!If, whilst serving your sentence, you receive a cake with a PH logo on it, it will have a file in it...
The law is that there is no distinction between copying for personal use (at least, that isn't for research or private study, and then there are conditions) and copying for commercial use. They are both infringements.
The reality is that copyright owners don't bother to pursue personal copying.
Back in the day Amstrad got sued for selling their tape to tape recorders. It was an infringement of copyright for a person to make their own copy of a record or tape they had bought. Amstrad were sued for a specific infringement: authorising another person to infringe. The House of Lords found in favour of Amstrad because the hardware facilitated, rather than authorised copying. The Law Lords noted, IIRC, that it a law (against making a copy of your own purchased record) that was so widely ignored was not a good law. No one argued that it wasn't the law though.
FWIW, IAAL, and I used to work in this field.
The reality is that copyright owners don't bother to pursue personal copying.
Back in the day Amstrad got sued for selling their tape to tape recorders. It was an infringement of copyright for a person to make their own copy of a record or tape they had bought. Amstrad were sued for a specific infringement: authorising another person to infringe. The House of Lords found in favour of Amstrad because the hardware facilitated, rather than authorised copying. The Law Lords noted, IIRC, that it a law (against making a copy of your own purchased record) that was so widely ignored was not a good law. No one argued that it wasn't the law though.
FWIW, IAAL, and I used to work in this field.
Greg66 said:
FWIW, IAAL, and I used to work in this field.
That was clear from the outset, but it's good you say that whilst something may not be legal, in reality it is allowed/permitted/blind eye turned because (a) it cannot be enforced and/or (b) everybody does it. In the OPs example, Corona's lawyers would have to enter every house in the world, look at every photo on every computer... and that is before they can assemble a case. So it ain't gonna happen. And it's quite clear, to me at least, that selling someone a recording device is not authorisation to break the law. Authorise and facilitate are entirely different! My cooker facilitates my dinner preparation, it does not authorise me.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff