Oops, my first DMCA take-down notice!

[MattNQ]

Here's a trap for the unwary (I should have known better really..:rolleyes:)
Those of you looking to make a few $$ from your hobby, be aware when photographing items with prominent trademarks & logos


The only money I have really made from photography is freelance travel writing & accompanying photography for magazines - Camper Trailer Australia, 4wd Touring Australia, & About Fishing NQ

But as a lazy way of selling images I have a selection on RedBubble. Only sold a grand total of 5 so far, so can't retire yet as margins are very small on RB:D

Anyway, as some of you have noticed, I play guitar & have taken a few shots of my guitar & amp. This shot below I set up with my own guitar & amp, my well-worn Docs & a couple of spirit bottles.

I quite like it...so I put it on RB without really thinking of the trademarks . Sold 2 prints of it so others took a liking to it as well.

Anyway, late december, Redbubble rather apologetically informed me that they had to remove the image.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you will be aware from our IP/Publicity Rights Policy, Redbubble requires a certain amount of information before it acts on such a complaint, including that:
• the relevant content is specifically named;
• the complaint came from the owner of the respective rights (or someone authorized to act on their behalf); and
• they have a good faith belief that the use of the relevant content is not authorized by content owner, its agent or the law.
On the basis of that information and in accordance with our User Agreement and IP/Publicity Rights Policy, we've removed the above-mentioned content from Redbubble.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wondered if Vox, Rickenbacker, Bundaberg Rum, or even Doc Marten had complained...turns out Korg, who currently own Vox submitted a complaint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redbubble has moderated the content that was reported in accordance with our IP/Publicity Rights Policy, as it was specifically named in a complaint received from Korg USA, Inc, the claimed copyright owner or licensee of Korg, Vox, Blackstar, Ashdown, Lag, and HK Audio related IP.
We have not explicitly said that the work does or does not infringe copyright or registered trademark, but we have a legal obligation to act on reports filed in accordance with our IP/Publicity Rights Policy where the content is specifically named.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My other shots where the Vox logo is blurry are fine (doesn't qualify as "specifically named")

Naughty image :action:
http://mattlarsen.smugmug.com/Other/Mashup/i-NjG43gZ/0/L/DSC_5830mod2-L.jpg

Good image :th3:
http://mattlarsen.smugmug.com/Other/Mashup/i-QDtftd9/0/L/DSC_5882mod1-L.jpg


Anyone ever applied to a company for permission to sell images with their logo?
Probably not worth my while I am guessing. Could always clone the logo out. Everyone can still tell what amp it is :D

While the Vox AC30 is a classic amp, they really don't sell many new ones these days - outgunned by the competition. If someone wants a nice Vox, they will buy a vintage one:D
So I reckon they need all the exposure they can get :lol:

So folks, moral of my story is if you want to sell photos, check you are not infringing on copyright by showing trademarks or logos.
Don't be a :gumby: like me :D

[ricktas]

I have had a few of these over the years (for AP). Sometimes I get it, other times I really do not understand why they bothered. As you say, after all it is advertising for them (n your example). But it is easier to just comply than fight it, and possibly end up in having to pay lawyers etc.

Vox..never heard of em.. and now I have, and it is negatively :D

[bricat]

A lesson learned. I would like to think that the only objection is that you are making money out of the photo with their logo on it, and not getting permission. It costs just a little time to draft an email and ask for permission? love the VOX sound. Haven't played since I was a teenager. cheers Brian

[Warbler]

Photoshop the "V" into a "P" and repost it. It's a bit like Holden objecting to a picture of a commodore, but I suppose if you're selling the image for commercial use, they're entitled to object. If just selling prints, it would be a bit frivolous.

[Bax]

Photoshop the "V" into a "P" and repost it. It's a bit like Holden objecting to a picture of a commodore, but I suppose if you're selling the image for commercial use, they're entitled to object. If just selling prints, it would be a bit frivolous.

That's all I'd be doing, or just change it to XOX as the letter is already there.

There's a lot of good things about copyright law, but in general I think it's just a mess. It's outdated and the whole thing needs to be rewritten.

[Lance B]

One would have thought that VOX would be happy to have their name plastered around the place for free. If they think you are gaining money by using the name of VOX, I think they would benefit way more than you will.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Whoever took offense , should probably take a good long hard look at themselves.
Sure laws are laws but a little less automated thought could have benefited all parties
A fine example of principles for principles' sake at its peak - hope it didn't cause you much stress !

[I @ M]

Redbubble used to be a good thing, or at least the last time I looked at it about 5 years ago.
Having a look today, they seem to be contactable in California and that about sums it up to me.

USA = Unusually Sensitive Aliens easily placated by litigation. :rolleyes:

[jjphoto]

Redbubble used to be a good thing, or at least the last time I looked at it about 5 years ago.
Having a look today, they seem to be contactable in California and that about sums it up to me.

USA = Unusually Sensitive Aliens easily placated by litigation. :rolleyes:

And on the same (contact (http://www.redbubble.com/contact)) page:

Suite 1, Level 3
180 Flinders Street
Melbourne, Victoria 3000
Australia

According to RB, HQ is in Melbourne (http://support.redbubble.com/kb/top20/where-is-redbubble).

[I @ M]

And on the same (contact (http://www.redbubble.com/contact)) page:

Suite 1, Level 3
180 Flinders Street
Melbourne, Victoria 3000
Australia

According to RB, HQ is in Melbourne (http://support.redbubble.com/kb/top20/where-is-redbubble).

Yes, they do have a presence in Australia, closer looking needs to be done to determine who controls the entity. Funnily enough so much of their product is produced in the USA though and they list Australia as having logistical problems outside of the company's control.

http://support.redbubble.com/kb/top20/shipping-and-delivery#from

[bcys1961]

Maybe they did not like the association between their product and alcohol ?
As we know electric guitar players are all tea drinking, health food loving types !:D

[MissionMan]

I've never understood why logos are protected in this manner. I'd be inclined to never buy a product from a company after they sent me a DMCA noticed for a product I purchased myself and photographed, so what they gain in a miserable commercial photo being take off the web! the lose in sales.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[danny]

Heard a story once that Quentin Tarantino would create his own logo/brand instead of asking permission to use established real world brands. Many of his films have people smoking "Lucky Apple" cigarets.

danny

[MattNQ]

Maybe they did not like the association between their product and alcohol ?
As we know electric guitar players are all tea drinking, health food loving types !:D

Of course! You wouldn't believe the sacrifice I had to make in the interests of art to make those bottles look half empty :beer_mug:

- - - Updated - - -


One would have thought that VOX would be happy to have their name plastered around the place for free. If they think you are gaining money by using the name of VOX, I think they would benefit way more than you will.

Most brands go out of their way to be plastered everywhere. But I guess they want that control. Maybe Korg were worried that because I had sold 2 prints, I was on the verge of selling 2 million (which I doubt very much:D)

I reckon people bought it because of the Rickenbacker guitar myself. Time to write some e-mails to see where I stand :D

Marketing is a funny animal. I always find it amusing that western consumers will pay more for a 'name brand' shirt that has nothing on it but the brands logo (eg Elwood, Levi, etc come to mind)
They are paying the brand for the privilege to advertise for them. :confused013

Nikon are funny too. They think that I might want to pay $35 for a "I am Nikon" t-shirt or $70 for an "I am covered" beach shelter :lol:
Seriously. I'd prefer to put that money towards a lens.....(preferably a Sigma prime Art series:D)

[jjphoto]

Yes, they do have a presence in Australia, closer looking needs to be done to determine who controls the entity. Funnily enough so much of their product is produced in the USA though and they list Australia as having logistical problems outside of the company's control.

http://support.redbubble.com/kb/top20/shipping-and-delivery#from

So, do you also have an opinion about a second gunman on the grassy knoll? I also hear Stanley Kubrick shot the fake Moon landings.

[ricktas]

And on the same (contact (http://www.redbubble.com/contact)) page:

Suite 1, Level 3
180 Flinders Street
Melbourne, Victoria 3000
Australia

According to RB, HQ is in Melbourne (http://support.redbubble.com/kb/top20/where-is-redbubble).

Yep, but in 2012 it took on $6.5 in funding from Bebo founder and Pinterest investors, Michael Birch and Stan Chudnovsky, and thus it shifted its main operations to San Fransisco. The founder of redbubble is now its CEO. But it would be dubious to call it Australian these days.

[Kym]

While its not worth fighting, my take is that you have not breached any law, i.e. their logo is simply incidental.
Repost the image with the logo altered and who would care

[MattNQ]

After Korg's action, I figured I'd better check whether my images of my guitar would be a problem.

After all, as well as their logos, Rickenbacker's "R" shaped tailstock has even been registered as a trademark.

I e-mailed Rickenbacker's head office late last night.
I explained who I was & what I was selling on RB
I even included a few links to images on RB.
I also enquired as to what licensing arrangements they had.
I had this rather candid and positive reply from their CEO within 4 hours!

---------------------------
Dear Sir,

Thanks for your e-mail. Many people would not be so diligent to research proper legal rights in this manner, so I really appreciate that you asked.

Original photographs or artworks depicting trademarks do not infringe on those marks. A classic example would be Andy Warhol's use of the Campbell Soup cans in his artwork.

The only area of conflict would be in the marketing; as long as they are not sold as a Rickenbacker product or it is suggested they are licensed or endorsed by us. In an eBay listing, for instance, the title has special legal and eBay policy with regard to keyword spamming- you should say something like "Photo of Rickenbacker", not "Rickenbacker Photo" to avoid implication that this is an official product.

Cheers,


John C. Hall
Chief Executive Officer

Rickenbacker International Corp


-----------------------------

Now this seems to be a company who has confidence in their products and has a realistic view of the world.:th3::th3:

[bcys1961]

Of course! You wouldn't believe the sacrifice I had to make in the interests of art to make those bottles look half empty :beer_mug:

- - - Updated - - -



Marketing is a funny animal. I always find it amusing that western consumers will pay more for a 'name brand' shirt that has nothing on it but the brands logo (eg Elwood, Levi, etc come to mind)
They are paying the brand for the privilege to advertise for them. :confused013

Nikon are funny too. They think that I might want to pay $35 for a "I am Nikon" t-shirt or $70 for an "I am covered" beach shelter :lol:
Seriously.

That's marketing isn't it. you are not paying to advertise their brand. You are paying to advertise yourself as a user of that brand or a member of that exclusive club .

[I @ M]

So, do you also have an opinion about a second gunman on the grassy knoll? I also hear Stanley Kubrick shot the fake Moon landings.

Hey John, lighten up a bit. :)

I can't quite see how the rather erroneous references to conspiracy theories sit with the discussion but I will answer you questions.

The gunman on the grassy knoll --- well, the US government conducted reviews, enquiries and made many public statements that there was no other person involved in the assassination so the existence of said gunman must be total bulldust because the US government stands for truth and justice and can be trusted 100% in everything they say.

Stanley Kubrick ---- saw a film he directed a million years ago called clockwork orange and was left with the distinct impression that he was a genius fruit loop so even if I have never heard of the rumour ( I haven't ) that he shot a film about moon landings I find it entirely likely that the idea would have tickled his fancy. Apart from that, I watched the first moon landing as an awe struck child on TV at school and we all know that everything we see on TV is true. Isn't it?

Back to the topic though.

My take on the take down notice issued to Matt by RB is that ---

Americans are the true champions of free trade, competitive marketing and bastions of the capitalist lifestyle, or at least they say they are. I also believe American companies are hugely protective of their products, whether they actually invented an item or merely adopted a design and made in a different way. Of course in order to stifle competition protect their unique product, they generally pay an annual amount to lawyers that represents a developing nations gross output for a decade to hunt down the verminous elements of society that would seek to profit from their name with sales of images on the net.

Now that usually works in their favour when ---

The company that they seek to bully into submission, in this case RB, is a US owned entity and can be brought before an American court where they have a better than average chance of a successful prosecution seeing as they haven't been too triumphant in other countries that thumb their noses at the concept that America rules the world.

When an image that offers lucrative returns on legal fees offends their sensitive souls is posted on the 'net and detected which happens to be hosted on a server in a "friendly" country they can then send a quick email to that company and demand it be deleted with the threat of litigation if it isn't. Win win either way for the company that has such a unique amplifier that it needs protecting from thieves who will profit hugely from stealing it's likeness and for the lawyers who sent a bill to the company for their professional services. Of course, it all happens easily and everyone plays the game because as we all know it just isn't right to cheat, deceive and otherwise behave badly towards the upholders of morality that own the internet and every innovative product known to man kind.:rolleyes:

[jjphoto]

Hey John, lighten up a bit. :)

I can't quite see how the rather erroneous references to conspiracy theories sit with the discussion but I will answer you questions....

Only because no one has submitted any evidence/proof that refutes that RB is NOT run from Melb as per their own statement on their website. I have no reason to doubt RB's statement, but I also don't care either way. The Russian Mafia could run it for all I care. So my issue is with random unsupported comments, that's all.

Re Kubrick. He started his working life as a photographer but soon started to make movies. Clockwork Orange is probably the most challenging of his movies to watch. It's also confronting on a few levels. It's also not a 'typical' Kubrick film but no such thing exists anyway. Almost all of his relatively few films are very different to each other. In some respects it's hard to tell they where all made by the same person.

2001, Eyes Wide Shut, The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, and maybe Lolita are arguably his best and most interesting work. Sparticus is a beautiful film but was not really a Kubrick film although he did direct it (only after the original director was sacked). Barry Lyndon is of interest to many photogs due to Kubricks adaption and use of a 0.7/50mm Zeiss lens made for NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7)and which allowed him to shoot some scenes using only existing candle light.

You can't watch one Kubrick film and have a sense of his style or work, and I'm not sure you can even after seeing most of his films many times over. In any case, I would never recommend A Clockwork Orange as the first and only Kubrick film to see. That might require therapy.

[Mark L]

Quoting John C. Hall in his reply to Matt,

....
Original photographs or artworks depicting trademarks do not infringe on those marks. A classic example would be Andy Warhol's use of the Campbell Soup cans in his artwork.
...


And this is why RB should have stood up and said to Korg something like "it's an artwork that happens to have your logo. "tis not making money because of your logo. Surely you'd rather the exposure. Get real and go away."
:confused013

[Warbler]

Hey John, lighten up a bit. :)

Careful there. I got a warning for telling another member to lighten up. Wouldn't want you to get in trouble. ;)

[Redgum]

In case you haven't noticed "law" is a major industry in this world which pervades the sensibilities of just about every human. I know from my thirty years as a professional in the film industry that there is at least a dozen law firms that specialize in "copyright" and all the issues that surround it (that is, they generate all their income from these matters). You can argue the toss but you can't win in these situations because even a win will be a substantial cost to you which can result in a significant loss of assets (read "home" if you are an individual/amateur).
Our rule of thumb has been not to broadcast any questionable images before obtaining permission (and this includes uploading to public websites) and to make sure any caption promotes the owner, not yourself or project. The latter being critical. i.e. most brand/logo owners will ignore cases with positive promotion but come down heavy on users that promote themselves or their work.
Case study: A local amateur movie club made a film on the poor state of Australia's telecommunications. It included Telstra logos but nothing specific about the company. After a complaint from lawyers the film was withdrawn from YouTube and the master destroyed. The alternative could have been all individual members losing their homes if the club was sued. Implied intent. Could have got away with it but they didn't have the assets to fight the issue.
The moral I guess is to be aware of your perceived obligations or cop the penalty. Your choice.

[PhotoPaul]

I wonder why Yamaha Australia import and distribute Vox when Korg own it. That's a weird one.

[CapnBloodbeard]

It's a ridiculous world we live in, isn't it?

[zeddicus]

Vox does not have a leg to stand on - you did not infringe on their trademark.

* removed, please read the site rules, in particular rule 3 - admin*

[zeddicus]

In which case could I respectfully request you review rule 3 to make it more targeted to its apparent intent?

I understand the reasoning behind the rule you cite. In this case I believe application of rule 3 was clearly inappropriate. My post in its entirety was a legitimate comment on the situation. The only thing I regret is the thread revive (I did not notice the date on tapatalk).

[ricktas]

In which case could I respectfully request you review rule 3 to make it more targeted to its apparent intent?

I understand the reasoning behind the rule you cite. In this case I believe application of rule 3 was clearly inappropriate. My post in its entirety was a legitimate comment on the situation. The only thing I regret is the thread revive (I did not notice the date on tapatalk).


The rule will not be changed. Your post included comments about a site (redbubble) and those comments we deemed as complaints about the action taken by redbubble. The rule is clear. Until you have 30 days membership AND 50 posts you cannot post complaints.

[ameerat42]

Zeddicus.
It's not unheard of that members occasionally run aground on some site rule.
When this happens, some appropriate moderation occurs (if sometimes a little late).
But that moderation does not extend to in-depth interpretation of users' motives or intents.

Similarly, in this case, you are not being targeted as being engaged in any untoward forum activity.

You just ran aground of a rule. Your being new, and clearly keen to interact, this occurrence is understandable.
Am.

[zeddicus]

The rule will not be changed. Your post included comments about a site (redbubble) and those comments we deemed as complaints about the action taken by redbubble. The rule is clear. Until you have 30 days membership AND 50 posts you cannot post complaints.

*woosh*

You have missed my point entirely. Your application of the rule is inconsistent with the stated aim of said rule.

Oh well.

[bitsnpieces]

Well, I'm glad this thread was revived nonetheless as I was able to read through it, gain some good insights, and also learn of good things - specially love the response MattNQ received in post #18.

:)

[ricktas]

*woosh*

You have missed my point entirely. Your application of the rule is inconsistent with the stated aim of said rule.

Oh well.

No, you have missed the point of the rule. Until you have 30 days membership and 50 posts, you cannot post complaints about companies, people, products, services, as the rule states. You made a comment about RedBubble that we deem to be a complaint about the way RedBubble handled the matter under discussion in this thread. Your comment made reference to RedBubble's poor form (your words), among other statements in your post. The comment was removed as we deemed it a complaint about how RedBubble choose to run their business. Simple!

You have been a member here since 2009, how about joining in photographically with some critiques of members photos, or perhaps put up some of your own photography for critique?

[zeddicus]

The stated aim of the rule is to prevent spammers. Ergo, you have applied the rule inappropriately. I am simply pointing out a facT.

I don't expect to change your mind now, having seen your flawed reasoning thus far.

The reason I have not attempted to participate thus far was due to being marked "inactive" and having certain access removed.

[jollie]

Zeddicus, irrespective of why the rules relating to new members was brought in, it's very clear in it's application and I can't see where the rule has been applied inappropriately. Having fallen foul of this exact rule before I had reached the 50 posts mark myself, I'd suggest just letting it go and moving on.

[ricktas]

The stated aim of the rule is to prevent spammers. Ergo, you have applied the rule inappropriately. I am simply pointing out a facT.

I don't expect to change your mind now, having seen your flawed reasoning thus far.

The reason I have not attempted to participate thus far was due to being marked "inactive" and having certain access removed.

We have no way of knowing if you are a spammer or not. After all, you could run or work for a website in competition to RedBubble for all we know, and by commenting negatively about their service, could be of benefit to your own site. I have tried to be patient and explain the rule to you. The Rule applies to ALL members with less than 30/50. I suggest you move on, and start joining in photographically.

[Mark L]

.......
The reason I have not attempted to participate thus far was due to being marked "inactive" and having certain access removed.

Oh, no. More rules.:eek:
The more you get active here, the less important the rules seem.:confused013