I am developing a web site based on Japanese cars, the site will be non-commercial.

Does anyone know whether I can use car manufacturers logos, and also the copyright of pictures i.e if I take a picture of a car from a garage, can I use this on the site?

 

Copyright automatically belongs to the author (eg writer, photographer, artist) unless they are an employee, in which case copyright belongs to their company.

If the copyright owner has not granted you the right to use their work, technically that would be a copyright infringement. Even most photocopying is technically an offence. But who cares? And that's usually the point with copyright - if you are benefiting from abusing someone's copyright, or they are losing out becuase you've pinched some of their material, that's when it gets actionable.

Many people/companies are quite happy for you to use their stuff, providing you credit them (ie "Photos courtesy of Ian Stamatic") Big companies however often respond to requests with a blanket "no" because they're control freaks and don't really know what you're up to. Then again, will they ever find out? If they do, will they bother to object? If they object and you remove the offending material, what are they going to do then? Almost certainly nothing, but remember that you HAVE acted illegally. Your choice. The internet might be awash with this kind of infringement, but that doesn't make it okay.

Finally, if you take photographs from a public place then in 99.999% of cases you can use them how you like. You are the author. But if you use a massive telephoto lens and there just happens to be a famous couple banging away in the back of that Scoob, you could be up for invasion of privacy etc. Then again, you could make the price of a new Scoob from sales to The Sun, and they'd also have to take the flack as the publishers. Your choice

Richard.

 

Copyright automatically belongs to the author (eg writer, photographer, artist) unless they are an employee, in which case copyright belongs to their company.

If the copyright owner has not granted you the right to use their work, technically that would be a copyright infringement. Even most photocopying is technically an offence. But who cares? And that's usually the point with copyright - if you are benefiting from abusing someone's copyright, or they are losing out becuase you've pinched some of their material, that's when it gets actionable.

Many people/companies are quite happy for you to use their stuff, providing you credit them (ie "Photos courtesy of Ian Stamatic") Big companies however often respond to requests with a blanket "no" because they're control freaks and don't really know what you're up to. Then again, will they ever find out? If they do, will they bother to object? If they object and you remove the offending material, what are they going to do then? Almost certainly nothing, but remember that you HAVE acted illegally. Your choice. The internet might be awash with this kind of infringement, but that doesn't make it okay.

Finally, if you take photographs from a public place then in 99.999% of cases you can use them how you like. You are the author. But if you use a massive telephoto lens and there just happens to be a famous couple banging away in the back of that Scoob, you could be up for invasion of privacy etc. Then again, you could make the price of a new Scoob from sales to The Sun, and they'd also have to take the flack as the publishers. Your choice

Richard.

 

Obviously, as a photographer, I have a little more idea about this than most, and I wouldn't necessarily entirely agree with all Hoppy's points. Particularly those regarding employee's copyright.

Copyright is just one big grey area and, in my experience, if in doubt, ask the owner. Copyright suits are very expensive to pursue, but the 'big boys' are rich enough and vindictive enough to do it. I would also point out that ignorance of copyright ownership is no defence. Therefore it is your obligation to seek out the copyright owner, and ask permission.

At the end of the day though, most people are happy to let you use pix if you ask nicely.

Josh

 

Josh, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, Part 1, Chapter 1.

First ownership of copyright
11-2. Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (eg a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality) is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work..."

Note the the bit about "irrespective of artistic quality" so that still includes you

Seriously, I'm not looking for an argument at all and have a genuine interest in your views. Maybe I should mail you off-line, but I've done it now.

Are you picking up on the definition of "employment"? I take that to mean permanent, salaried and taxed work, not a freelance commission.

Appreciate your comments. Mail me if you prefer.

Best,

Richard.

 

Josh, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, Part 1, Chapter 1.

First ownership of copyright
11-2. Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (eg a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality) is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work..."

Note the the bit about "irrespective of artistic quality" so that still includes you

Seriously, I'm not looking for an argument at all and have a genuine interest in your views. Maybe I should mail you off-line, but I've done it now.

Are you picking up on the definition of "employment"? I take that to mean permanent, salaried and taxed work, not a freelance commission.

Appreciate your comments. Mail me if you prefer.

Best,

Richard.

 

Hoppy

Seeing double again???

Interestingly, if I go to a track day and give my camera to someone to take whatever pics they like, because I'm instructing/letting them so to do, the copyright remains with me as the owner of the film/camera/lens - doesn't have to be employer/employee.

 

Richard and josh there are elements in which you are both wrong.

Richard, I am sorry but you cant just quote the act as it is not black and white. I have about 1000 cases here showing massive shades of grey making the act difficukt to interpret.

Ownership of copyright does belong with an employer, but that depends on the nature of the agreement between the employer and employee, IE contracted to do a work or not. It is also reflected in the size of the payment.

Eg. an architect might be paid a nominal fee to design a house. If the fee is substantial it is more likely the contractors would retain copyright in the work as they have paid fpr the skill labour and judgement reflected in creating the work.

On another note there are level of artistic merit which are acknowledged but not defined in the act.

Also buildings remain the copyright of their designer and are defined as having artistic merit. Strictly speaking photographing a building is copyright infringement but never mind. The essence has been touched upon in that the damages recoverable are normally so insignificant it is not worth a court action.

 

I'm sorry Adam, but isn't that what I said ?

I have become aware of these 'grey areas' because of the amount of friends I have on the national press. Some are Staff, some contractors, some freelance. In fact the only ones who seem to have problems selling work on are the freelance guys who are still subject to the 'well you're free to sell the pix, and we're free to use who we want' attitude.

A friend of mine, who sadly died in the summer, often took more money in a quarter from his Daily Telegraph sales and re-use fees than I was from working.

My experience is that it is a minefield, but if you don't take the pi55 then you'll be OK. I don't mind people using my shots for web-sites and ads in they speak to me first, but I will pursue those who use my work for commercial purposes without asking.

Josh

PS Hoppy, what do you know about my work, you don't buy anything!