Pixtus - Photography Forum, Photographers, Photo Tips

kamari · **copyright question -** 10-23-2006, 03:49 PM

ok so I got a lil bored and started photoshopping away a couple of days ago and came up with these. I looked at the finished product and went CHA CHING! So after being denied printing access at 2 different WalMarts I realized I might get in a lil trouble if the right person sees these or traces them back to me. *sigh* I know, I know, this is a bit of a grey area, but does anyone know if this actually infringes on any of S.I.'s rights. After all, it doesn't actually SAY the entire word, and just like tv shows and movies hide just enough of a soda can or a billboard to get away with unauthorized product advertisement I'm figuring I might be able to do the same. Whaddya think???

Daniel Bates · 10-23-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamari

After all, it doesn't actually SAY the entire word, and just like tv shows and movies hide just enough of a soda can or a billboard to get away with unauthorized product advertisement I'm figuring I might be able to do the same. Whaddya think???

I don't think that "Sports Il_ _ _ trated" hides nearly enough of the logo to try that one.

kamari · 10-23-2006, 04:05 PM

**doing my best lawyer cross-examinimg imitation**
...but sir can you prove to me that, in pic #1, that this does not say "Illll9trated?"
The word does not fit, therefore you must acquit!

Duffy Pratt · 10-23-2006, 04:06 PM

It looks more like a trademark question than a copyright question. In trademark law, the question is whether a consumer would be likely to confuse what's before them with the protected trademark. Some of that will depend on what you plan on doing with these images. If you are going to put them for sale on a newstand, you could have a problem. If they are for your personal use, or for a select group of people who will be told their source, then you shouldn't have any problem.

If you really think that this might be a copyright problem, tell us what you copied here. Is it anything more than the SI logo?

Duffy

kamari · 10-23-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffy Pratt

If you really think that this might be a copyright problem, tell us what you copied here. Is it anything more than the SI logo?

Duffy

well I didn't actually copy anything. Did everything from scratch. The idea is to sell the photos to the parents at the games I shoot at but these would be sold in-person, and not thru the site that I run (www.mygamepic.com)

Steelsun · 10-23-2006, 04:45 PM

The definitive test on Trademark Infringment (it's a TI case, not Copyright) is whether or not you have permission from the TM holder, and whether or not the use implies permission or could be easily confused as to make others think it was official or implied permission.

I think this fails that test, so it would be a TM infringment.

Just my 2 cents, Not a lawyer or shyster, although I have done a fair amount of work for both and do TM investigations on occassion.

Dokk · 10-23-2006, 05:36 PM

Doing everything from scratch means nothing in this case. Sports Illustrated would probably not really mind you using this for this use as I've seen this done in the past. However, in the trademark world, there has been numerous cases where someone lost a lot of money to a big company based on "Look and Feel". Intent is also a big issue. If you use the look and feel of someones trademark with the intent of profiting or capitalizing on that look and feel, you'll most likely lose. The other end of this stick is the fact that Sports Illustrated can most likely afford many more very expensive lawyers than you can which, unfortunately, can kill your case before it even gets started.

My recommendation would be to keep the look of the photo and cover design but change the name to something else entirely.

Clayton Wallace · 10-24-2006, 09:59 AM

So where is the dividing line on profiting from players with jersey's that say A&M and Broncos? What if he did some PS work on a Jersey and blew it up, using it as background or something?

Wes · 10-24-2006, 10:44 AM

Do you have to use, "Sports Illustrated"? Couldn't you go with something ficticious like, "Football Illustrated"? It would still have the same magazine look and feel, but it wouldn't have as much of the SI look.

boomerd35 · 11:01 AM

I don't know the answer to your question, but nice work on the mock magazine cover!

Edit: I don't think Sports Illustrated would approve at all. Big companies like that seem to vigorously defend their TradeMarks, even against people/companies that would have little to no impact on their profitability.

Troy T.

kamari · 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xmenporsche

Do you have to use, "Sports Illustrated"? Couldn't you go with something ficticious like, "Football Illustrated"? It would still have the same magazine look and feel, but it wouldn't have as much of the SI look.

well not necessarily, but would you rather purchase a photo of your son on sports illustrated or football illustrated? Would you rather say "hey buddy, look what I got for you...you're on the cover of SI" or "hey buddy, look what I got for you...you're on the cover of, uhh, FI." Maybe I'll go with something less in the public eye: hmm...maybe Sporting News, lol. Well actually you bring up a good point, maybe I'll just switch it to IBFA Football Weekly or somethin.

...and while we're at it, those templates were NOT as simple to make as it may seem. There. My resume's out there now. Anybody need a photo editor?

brad · 10-24-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boomerd35

Big companies like that seem to vigorously defend their TradeMarks, even against people/companies that would have little to no impact on their profitability.

Part of owning a trademark is vigorously defending it. If they are a nice company, their first "shot across the bow" would be a cease and desist order.... if they aren't, they'll bury you in lawsuits so quickly you'll be bankrupt in a week.

This is a Very Bad Idea (tm).

Seriously, no question that this violates trademark. By doing this, you are implying an endorsement by the magazine, which you do not have. Even if they cannot prove that the letters behind the helmet say something else.. your attitude here (and this is a public forum) says your intent is to capitalize on their trademark.. and that's all they would need. You'd be toast.

IANAL and YMMV

Cope · 10-24-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brad

Part of owning a trademark is vigorously defending it. If they are a nice company, their first "shot across the bow" would be a cease and desist order.... if they aren't, they'll bury you in lawsuits so quickly you'll be bankrupt in a week.

This is a Very Bad Idea (tm).

Seriously, no question that this violates trademark. By doing this, you are implying an endorsement by the magazine, which you do not have. Even if they cannot prove that the letters behind the helmet say something else.. your attitude here (and this is a public forum) says your intent is to capitalize on their trademark.. and that's all they would need. You'd be toast.

IANAL and YMMV

I agree, especially since you ay you plan to sell these. Even if they were free, SI would want to protect their trademark.

brad · 10-24-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clayton Wallace

So where is the dividing line on profiting from players with jersey's that say A&M and Broncos? What if he did some PS work on a Jersey and blew it up, using it as background or something?

That would also be a violation of trademark. Those teams have special permission to use those jerseys and logos and pay a royalty back to the original owners.. in this case, Texas A&M and the Denver Broncos/NFL... the photographer/OP does not have the same permission. He can take pictures of those kids in those uniforms and sell them, but cannot blow it up and use the logo in another way. Same goes with all little league teams who use professional team logos/colors. Those are specially licensed properties... i.e. they have permission.

Clayton Wallace · 10-24-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

He can take pictures of those kids in those uniforms and sell them, but cannot blow it up and use the logo in another way. Same goes with all little league teams who use professional team logos/colors. Those are specially licensed properties... i.e. they have permission.

Right, I'm just saying where is that line exactly? If you did some cool angle where the logo was more prominant, at what point would it violate trademark? Just a thought...