Curious Legal Question (Sort of OT)

[maddog]

Jack's Copyright on his pictures got me thinking. Hypothetical situation: Jack takes a picture of a Bongo, sells the picture to Bass Player Magazine. Should EBMM get royalties since they own the design of the Bongo? Either way, how does copyright and trademark rights work for people who create a 3-D object that gets reproduced in some manner like a magazine or movie for profit? BP? Jack? Anybody else with a legal mind?

 

[TSanders]

yes

 

[smallequestrian]

Well, IANAL, but to speak to your first point. Jack owns said Bongo. Said Bongo ownership is wholly Jacks. He is not under a contract or some kind of license to use the Bongo, because he outright owns it and can do whatever he please with it. If it didn't work that way, you would never see pics of anything on TV or magazines or the internet, because one would have to get licensed permission to show pretty much anything.

 

[Colin]

I'm confused, are you referring to Jacks Bongo shirts?

Colin

 

[SteveB]

The photographer owns the copyright for the photos that he/she takes, regardless of the subject of the photograph.

Therefore, EBMM would not receive royalties from a photo of one of their instruments in a magazine. The photographer would receive some sort of compensation, or at least have to give permission to use the image.

Now, if somebody wanted to build and sell guitars using EBMM's design, they would have to get permission from EBMM and likely pay royalties or some form of compensation. This is what OLP does.

EBMM owns the design, not every photographic image of their design.

I'm no legal expert, but I've read up quite a bit on intellectual property rights in the past, since I tend to file copyright forms for my music (occasionally).

Maybe GHWelles will chime in and enlighten us further?

 

[bovinehost]

Hypothetical situation: Jack takes a picture of a Bongo, sells the picture to Bass Player Magazine. Should EBMM get royalties since they own the design of the Bongo?

Very hypothetical since I can't get them to answer a single email. You'd think Bill would be eager to speak to someone like me, ahem.

The answer to the question is "No" and Paul is correct. Additionally, any company with good sense will appreciate the exposure for their product. Any payment the photographer receives is for the photo itself and the work involved in producing it.

Not sure about your other question.

 

[Big Poppa]

Very hypothetical since I can't get them to answer a single email. You'd think Bill would be eager to speak to someone like me, ahem.

The answer to the question is "No" and Paul is correct. Additionally, any company with good sense will appreciate the exposure for their product. Any payment the photographer receives is for the photo itself and the work involved in producing it.

Not sure about your other question.

Now jackies Bongo Tshirts are illegal as hell.....Ill see you in court you rat linguist!

 

[bovinehost]

I printed out the kitchen pass, you vile capitalist, out there trying to suppress the Little Guy!

Actually, you can have all of the four dollars I've made on those.

Check okay?

 

[Psycho Ward]

I hope my Cowpilot thong is legal, not that I would ever display it in public... well, except for here, once my Bongo comes.

 

[Dr. Nick]

I hope my Cowpilot thong is legal, not that I would ever display it in public... well, except for here, once my Bongo comes.

Okay, what is it going to take to keep this from happening? (reaches for wallet...)

 

[maddog]

Okay, what is it going to take to keep this from happening? (reaches for wallet...)

And I'll see Dr. Nick and add $5 to make it happen...

 

[Dr. Nick]

And I'll see Dr. Nick and add $5 to make it happen...

(falling to knees in office)

...Nooooooo!

 

[maddog]

Seriously tho'. You guys have raised some good points.

He is not under a contract or some kind of license to use the Bongo, because he outright owns it and can do whatever he please with it.

But Trademark and Copyright laws are a basic license agreement.

The photographer owns the copyright for the photos that he/she takes, regardless of the subject of the photograph.

EBMM owns the design, not every photographic image of their design.

This is where I started having problems thinking thru this. I have a right to my image. Newspapers, magazines, radio, tv etc. and such have to ask permission to use my name and likeness. The same is true for the NFL and NFL merchandise as an example.

Additionally, any company with good sense will appreciate the exposure for their product. Any payment the photographer receives is for the photo itself and the work involved in producing it.

I think I'm starting to understand. And yes, you would expect manufacturers like exposure but maybe there are some that can command a price in return for their product's image due to popularity (good old supply and demand).

But I still feel unsettled and should probably go do some research if it really bugs me. As an infamous musician once said,

It's a fine line between stupid and clever.

 

[maddog]

(falling to knees in office)

...Nooooooo!

How about I tell you when not to look.

Of course, who knows, maybe my eyes will be shut just as tight.

 

[smallequestrian]

Seriously tho'. You guys have raised some good points.
But Trademark and Copyright laws are a basic license agreement.

Trademark and Copyright law relate more to the use of things like logos and actual desgin. For instance if I stick a bass neck on a kohler and then label the headstock with the Bongo logo, we are now in a trademark/copyright type issue. Photography can be tricky sometimes, but for the most part your private property is your private property and if I want to take a pic of Chuck in a thong riding his lefthanded Bongo like a pony, as much as EB and all of us might hope to god to stop it, there really isn't anything that can be done.

 

[bovinehost]

I have a right to my image. Newspapers, magazines, radio, tv etc. and such have to ask permission to use my name and likeness. The same is true for the NFL and NFL merchandise as an example.

News organizations, if you ARE the news, don't have to ask.

But this is an entirely different subject.

 

[GHWelles]

I have a right to my image. Newspapers, magazines, radio, tv etc. and such have to ask permission to use my name and likeness.

This reminds me of a very good local Thai Restaurant, which had on its menu the immortal phrase: "cooked to your likeness."

 

[bovinehost]

"cooked to your likeness."

What does it mean?

That they might be able to serve some Pad Thai which vaguely resembles you?

Or that a photo of you was nearby when they prepared it?

Or that they actually burned your photos to generate the heat used to cook?

 

[skabassist13]

Or perhaps they cook it exactly to your liking?

 

[Colin]

I hope my Cowpilot thong is legal, not that I would ever display it in public... well, except for here, once my Bongo comes.

Do Cowpilot thongs come in a lefty?

Colin