Is this copyright infringement??

[Nathans_Dad]

Quick question for the business or lawyerly types:

I decided to make a poster for my guitar teacher for his studio. I took a picture of my Fender Strat leaning up against my Vox amp and then put his logo on the bottom of the picture with a slogan I made up at the top. I did it in photoshop and then had it printed at Costco.

My question is, you can see the Fender logo on the headstock and the Vox logo on the amp. Is it copyright infringement to have these things visible in the photo?? I'm not terribly concerned because it will just be for his small studio but I just want to be sure in case he wants to use the image as a flyer or something.

[imcarthur]

In the eyes of the litigious legal system that you possess: probably yes. Does it matter? I am not a copyright lawyer. But I have used & abused the efforts of the output of industry media for decades. Needless to say, I won’t go into detail. My motto was: When in doubt give them credit. At the bottom, in fine print say “Fender is a trademark/copyright of Fender Corp of Blah, Blah USA etc.”.

In the context that he would use it, it should be a non-issue. But I am not a copyright lawyer . . .

Ian

[craigster59]

It shouldn't be an issue (not a lawyer) but in the film industry we usually "greek out" any logos, brandnames..

[slodave]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Quick question for the business or lawyerly types:

I decided to make a poster for my guitar teacher for his studio. I took a picture of my Fender Strat leaning up against my Vox amp and then put his logo on the bottom of the picture with a slogan I made up at the top. I did it in photoshop and then had it printed at Costco.

My question is, you can see the Fender logo on the headstock and the Vox logo on the amp. Is it copyright infringement to have these things visible in the photo?? I'm not terribly concerned because it will just be for his small studio but I just want to be sure in case he wants to use the image as a flyer or something.

I don't think it is illegal. If you are not profiting from the poster then there is not much Fender or Vox can do. Use Porsche as an example. They love protecting their name, but there s no way that they can come after you or the photographer that takes a nice picture of you and you 911 and gives the print to you. At that point, their name is in public view.

I asked about this for my guitar project. I really infringed on Gibson's property rights, but I made the guitar solely for myself. I have no intention of ever selling the guitar (what happens after I'm dead really is not my concern. Gibson could try and take me to court, but I doubt that the case would go anywhere. I'm not profiting in any way off their name.

Now, if the guy that you gave the poster to, decides to make fliers out of it, then he might get into trouble, unless Fender and Vox have given him the okay to use their names. I don't think you could, as you just gave it to him as a gift and he used it for other purposes without your knowledge.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did grow up with one.

[nostatic]

If he is using the poster as advertising, then I believe that it is trademark infringement. Usually these things are dependent on commerce being involved. If the teacher is seen to be profiting as a result of using the trademarks, then it could be a problem. I think Ian's disclaimer is probably sufficient insulation. Basically you want to avoid people inferring that Fender and Vox are endorsing the person.

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by craigster59

It shouldn't be an issue (not a lawyer) but in the film industry we usually "greek out" any logos, brandnames..

And this is your best & easiest solution.

Ian

[slodave]

A funny twist to this.

When Slash (and GNR) was recording Appetite for Destruction, he wasn't using a Les Paul yet. He didn't like the sound of his guitar, so either the manager or producer borrowed a "Les Paul" from a local luthier. Turns out that this "LP" was a copy. After GNR took off, Slash was able to buy that guitar and played it for a long time - still has it. Gibson actually borrowed the guitar to make the Gibson Les Paul, Slash Appetite for Destruction model. In this case, Gibson took things in stride and realized that the copy helped their name.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Quick question for the business or lawyerly types:

I decided to make a poster for my guitar teacher for his studio. I took a picture of my Fender Strat leaning up against my Vox amp and then put his logo on the bottom of the picture with a slogan I made up at the top. I did it in photoshop and then had it printed at Costco.

My question is, you can see the Fender logo on the headstock and the Vox logo on the amp. Is it copyright infringement to have these things visible in the photo?? I'm not terribly concerned because it will just be for his small studio but I just want to be sure in case he wants to use the image as a flyer or something.

BTDT Maybe could be accused of trying to trade on (profit from) their name, but not likely. The worst that can happen is that you will get a cease and desist order. You take it down, they're happy. All good.

[Mark Henry]

My buddy is an independent VW shop, he got oil change stickers printed and the printer thought he could spice them up a bit by throwing a VW logo on them. Someone sent a pic to VW and buddy got a letter.
His printer had to redo the whole batch.

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok, I'll just tell him to put some sort of disclaimer on the bottom of the image if he ever wants to use it for flyers or whatever. I just made the poster for him to hang in the room where he gives lessons so it won't be "advertising", since the people who are there are ALREADY his students.

Plus, I can't image Fender and Vox would take the time and effort to come after a guy who gives guitar lessons out of a two room studio in central Texas...

Here's the image in question (with the logo removed to avoid any "advertising")....

[NutmegCarrera]

Rick-
A couple of points:
1. The FIRST complaint may come from Activision - as you're using one of their product's names (Guitar Hero). That may be as problematic as anything related to Fender or Vox.
2. Mark Henry brings up a good point. Although my experience is more in the line of patents, rather than trademarks - you do get somewhat of a "gimme" for whatever your gaffe is until you get a letter, be it from Vox, Fender, Activision, etc... Once you received the letter, if you do not take corrective action - then you can be held liable for damages if you do not remedy the situation. In your case, taking down any posted fliers is probably the remedy.

I'm not a lawyer, but have seen these sorts of things happen. Manufacturers of hygeinic products (that are made at an alarming rate) tend to patent their products to the hilt. If you fly in the face of owners of such I.P., and you willingly continue to infringe - the courts do not tend to be freindly.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by NutmegCarrera

Rick-
A couple of points:
1. The FIRST complaint may come from Activision - as you're using one of their product's names (Guitar Hero). That may be as problematic as anything related to Fender or Vox.
......

Guitar Hero is a registered mark for video games, interactive software and peripherals/controllers. His use of it does not conflict, different category of goods/services.

Now if he had a Monster Cables branded patch cord in the shot........

[NutmegCarrera]

Ok.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by nostatic

If he is using the poster as advertising, then I believe that it is trademark infringement. Usually these things are dependent on commerce being involved. If the teacher is seen to be profiting as a result of using the trademarks, then it could be a problem. I think Ian's disclaimer is probably sufficient insulation. Basically you want to avoid people inferring that Fender and Vox are endorsing the person.

yes, that is something else to watch our for

re not making a profit - I'm pretty sure that is not the test

maybe an IP atty will post

[Nathans_Dad]

I thought about the whole Guitar Hero thing but isn't that a term that existed before the game was made? If so wouldn't that negate any claim they would have to that term??

[NutmegCarrera]

I think the word "Guitar Hero" is o.k., but I'd be surprised if you could use their logo.
Depends on whether it's a registered trademark or not. Similar to the word "Coke" vs. the word written in the font used for advertising. A company can register several different versions, each with a trademark. If the "R" symbol isnt there - they have less success enforcing infringement - I think, anyway.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by NutmegCarrera

I think the word "Guitar Hero" is o.k., but I'd be surprised if you could use their logo.
Depends on whether it's a registered trademark or not. Similar to the word "Coke" vs. the word written in the font used for advertising. A company can register several different versions, each with a trademark. If the "R" symbol isnt there - they have less success enforcing infringement - I think, anyway.

Trademarks can be for word marks or logo's or both as is the case with Guitar Hero.

But trademarks are also taken out/issued in classes. Meaning it's use is associated with specific goods/services.

If Activision had thought to trademark their product under Educational (an electronic guitar shaped controller with software that aids in musical education) as well as Entertainment classes there would most certainly be cause for issue.

And yes, using their logo would be a big no no.

[Nathans_Dad]

No plans to use the logo at all. I just put the two words Guitar and Hero together. Yes, it is a reference to the game, but also a reference to the artists that most people would call REAL guitar heros (Hendrix, Clapton, Van Halen, my personal favorite Mike Campbell, etc).

[RWebb]

another question is: what is your risk?

If they send a letter and you and he alter the image then, are you in the clear?

or can they just sue you right off the bat? and for how much?

[nota]

Originally Posted by craigster59

It shouldn't be an issue (not a lawyer) but in the film industry we usually "greek out" any logos, brandnames..

I thought that was more to induce payment for product placement
no pay then greeked out mostly