As is the policy of the forum, I do not provide advice regarding specific matters and I certainly am not going to second guess a legal opinion that is recited second hand. However, with respect to the statement that "Anytime you take a photograph and any piece art, sculpture, photograph, logo or trademark is visible you are breaking the law," this is not true. As explained in a previous posting, whether a photograph infringes or not when it copyright-protected artwork is subject to the doctrine of fair use.

I think this in in line with the questions being raised, but I guess the twist is that it has to do with trademarks/logos. I'll give a more specific example (though it isn't a real situation) and you can then generalize as needed.

If I photographed a product for the purposes of self promotion (putting it on my website to show how well I can photograph those items) could I get in "trouble" with the manufacturer of that product? Say I got ahold of a nice Tag Heuer watch (nevermind how, we'll just pretend), and took some nice pictures of a person wearing it, some of the watch alone, etc. In all cases the brand name was clearly visible so there is no doubt that this is a Tag Heuer watch. (Wouldn't you want to show you can photograph a watch in that way?) Would there be potental trouble for using those images for self promotion? (The watch could be replaced by like Nike shoes, Apple iPods, Tums antacids, etc.)

Has anyone actually run into trouble because of this?

Thanks,
Jason Martin

The gist of a trademark infringement claim is that it must have the tendency to confuse customers about the sponsorship of the goods at issue. It is rarely an issue when it comes to photography. When in doubt, you can reduce the possibility of confusion by using a disclaimer such as a statement that the photograph is not affiliated with party x in any way.

That's cool. I wouldn't want Coke or Budwiser coming after me just because I was trying to show [off] that I could take a good picture of their product. Plus it sounds like a pretty clean and easy rule, unlike some of the "what if's" that are floating around in other aspects of the law.

Thanks,
Jason Martin

In the "rocky" cell phone ring, or the simpsons TV scene, these can be contributors to a storyline.

Consider that a subject in a movie is constantly being beaten by bullies, and that's his cell phone ring. It says something to you the viewer about the personality of the subject, or could be a foreshadowing of things to come.

Consider that a subject in a movie is a buttoned-down executive, but then the next scene shows him watching the Simpsons. That too reveals a side of this supposedly uptight person just by this scene.

I have been compensated by movie companies for the use of my image as art within a scene. They have a "rights and clearances" department for all that type of work.

If you're making images of interiors, and the purpose for those interiors is publication in a magazine, or even brochures to sell similar interiors/houses, I would be less concerned than if the images were appearing in a movie.

John