this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Photography

24 readers
1 users here now

A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.

This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Is selling a photo of a retro product (which continues to be a brand name today) a type of infringement?

The photo would be sold as wall art, and not for marketing a product.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Videopro524@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Yes it’s possible. IANL, but I do know in movies or tv shows certain brands and copyrighted things have to covered up or replaced. In certain scenarios, you may have a legal case, but I’m guessing Nike probably has more lawyers and money than you.

sold as a fine art print, like and editioned piece of art? no problem. Sold in walmart as a commercial product...nope that's not ok. You can sell anything you want if it's a work of art but not a commercial product.

[–] akshayjamwal@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Likely not. But also, maybe?
Reproducing owned intellectual property is always copyright vs. trademarks vs. usage / sales can of worms, in that the devil is in the details.
The Nike name, swoosh logo and the "Just do it" slogan are all trademarked. Meaning they've gone to the trouble of protecting those intellectual properties so that other people can't use (read: profit off or counterfeit) them.

Regardless of that fact, if you take a photo of , well, anything, *you* are the intellectual owner of the photo, i.e. you own the copyright to every work you produce.

The problem however has to do with *how* you're selling the art. The circumstances.

If you're selling it purely as a work of art, the law is probably on your side. Take that with a pinch of salt: I'm a fairly experienced photographer, but I'm not a lawyer.

Case in point, since someone else mentioned Campbell / Warhol: one of the reasons they never took any legal action is because it would be hard to prove that Warhol was somehow misrepresenting their trademark. Nobody viewing or purchasing his art could conceivably confuse it for a can of soup.

If it even seemed like you were somehow representing Nike itself, or selling on Nike's behalf, they have legal precedent to send you a cease and desist (or worse).

All of that being said, nothing prevents a company from *pursuing* legal action against you.

[–] Paintfloater@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

So take it one step further, would it be actionable to include a photo of a product in a book, or would it be looked on as free advertising by the company?

[–] DarkRecess@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"

[–] usagizero@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

sold as wall art, and not for marketing a product.

The wall art is the product though. As another comment said, it depends on if this a limited edition 'fine art' type thing, or mass produced unlimited.

Honestly though, if you are serious about doing this, just talk to a lawyer who specializes in media law in your state. It's just better to know before you get into a losing battle if they decide to come after you.

[–] Darth_Andeddeu@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

Really it will come down to technique, materials used, composition etc...

What condition is the shoe in, have you edited it to ad any trademark text logo not on the shoe. Is it a copy of one of their early ads etc.

[–] Big_Cut@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just do it

Look around, there is ton's of Nike themed artwork

[–] csl512@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

see what you did there