I’m with Bob and Barry, here, speaking as someone who has had a great many photos published over the years that incorporated a multitude of commercial items without a single incident. I have to regard this thread as sad example of just how much legal absurdity, real and imagined, has infiltrated the minds of most Americans…and lawyers, for that matter.
Let’s face it, if model vehicles appearing in a picture are going to be fair game for copyright issues, then so too are Woodland Scenic’s turf, JTT’s model trees, all structure kit models, and even a commercial backdrop photo used in a shot. The photographers whose pix appear in MR do receive remuneration for them, you know, so in a sense this is a for profit effort and would have to be included if the situation were real.
Incidentally, I’ve even seen these same sorts of claims and questions come up from time to time in discussions of a hobbyist simply copying a FSM structure for personal (not commercial) use on their layout as a potential violation of intellectual property law and it makes me think some folks in this hobby really need to have their heads seriously examined!
I have to regard this thread as sad example of just how much legal absurdity, real and imagined, has infiltrated the minds of most Americans…and lawyers, for that matter.
Not me. I regard the whole thread as an absurd example of being baited into answering of what is essentially a nonsensical question by someone whose photographical skills don’t seem to put him in any danger of obtaining commercial benefit from an attempted sale of pictures of his dioramas.
All five of this guy’s posts have been about the same thing which is essentially asking for free legal advice.
There’s a Standard Hobby Supply ad next to the screen I’m using to write this. There’s a couple of GE locos bearing the BNSF color scheme (and apparently the photo’s reversed as well as the lettering’s backwards). I seriously doubt that SHS obtained permission from both BNSF and GE for use of the image which was probably taken by a railfan.
Go ahead and take your photographs and try to sell you calendars or whatever. I wouldn’t worry about copyrights of the elements in your photographs for the reasons others have stated here. The very worst that could happen is that the owners of said copyrights might file a cease and desist order.
Before you do #1 go to Railphotog’s website and read and re-read his very good article
As a moderator on 3 forums it keeps us busy watching for photo copyright violations-that is protected by law…Now,if we had to worry about copyrighted items in a modeler’s picture there would be no photos being posted.
There is no law stating you can’t scratchbuild a structure following a commercial kit plan…The law steps in when you *sell it…*I asked and that’s basically the answer I recieved.
People get their buttons pushed too easily and go off on a rant without asking what was the OP’s motivation up front. This is especially true when the OP is brand new to the forum and is asking for what amounts to free legal counsel.
I will ignore your snarky and frankly confrontational response to say:
Yes, I am new to the forum, a new subscriber to MRR and new to the hobby as a whole (although I’ve dabbled in other types of model building)
I can assure you that I am not trying to push buttons and I am not a troll (I actually own and run a decent size political forum and have a dim view of trolls)
I don’t have the money for a copyright/trademark lawyer and lawyers specializing in that specific line of work seem to be hard to locate (my experience is that they typically work for very large firms catering almost exclusively to corporate clients). Obviously, I wouldn’t consider anything posted on this forum to be legal advice since it is unlikely that any of you are attornies, but was hoping to be pointed in the right direction through users that have had direct experiences with copyright/trademark issues from within the hobby.
I am convinced there is a market for model railroad and diorama themed merchandise. I am assuming by the lack of it in venues I looked at (including the MRR shop) that the reason could be copyright/trademark obst
I would lean towards the “being wrong part”. The reason you didn’t see any in the hobby shops is probably because there is a low demand.
My suggestion if you wish to persue this is to contact the NMRA and toy collector organizations and ask them how many calenders they sell. since most of their calenders are pictures of model scenes that should give you an idea of the size of the market. Then buy a couple of the calenders and see what the pictures look like. Pick some of your pix that you think are similar composition and quality and have impartial parties or enthusiats look at them in a blind viewiing (you don’t tell them which are yours) and ask them to pick which ones they would pay for.
As a newspaper editor, I can tell you that anything you can see from a public place you can photograph and publish
We sell newspapers every day with photos of identifiable, trademarked items in them.
Trademarks and copyright apply depending on how you want to use something
Lamborghini can claim trademark status for its logos - if you call something a Lamborghini and it ain’t, they’ll come after you.
The designs for their cars are copyrighted - if you copy the design and sell it as a Serres GT, they’ll come after you.
If you take a picture of it and sell it, you’re fine.
If you copy someone else’s picture and sell it as your own, it’s an infringement on copyright law.
It’s pretty simple.
For more information on what can be used in commercial photography, perhaps you might try a photography forum.
And perhaps some of the people on your political forum are lawyers with copyright experience. That’s another resource to tap.
And, for subscribers, MR makes available free downloads of screensavers each month. Go to the magazine section of this site and you should find it there.
It is a little known medical fact that a person’s ears don’t work when he is talking. I suggest you take a deep breath, relax, and do some reading/listening.
While you seem to be well intentioned, I think the sad truth of the matter is that you don’t even know what it is you don’t know!
There are calendars and coffee table books with dioramas and model railroad themed pictures published - by the owners of this forum! The people who have their photographs published in those publications have not “dabbled” in the hobby, nor are they “new” to photography! They have spent many years studying and practicing their art. They have built a reputation for excellence in the hobby!
In short, they know what they are doing!
If you think you are going to turn the publishing world on it’s head over night, let me share an old saying about self publishing - The best way to make a small fortune in the publishing business is to start with a large one!
As a newspaper editor you should know of your special status with regard to trademark and copyright - a status that doesn’t apply to the OP’s proposed non-education, non-urgent, commercial use.
However, as discussed, by taking and selling pictures of models, there is no infringement of the prototype. The only possible infringement would be selling likenesses of distinctive and clearly recognizable models without permission from the manufacturer of the model. 99.99% of the time a simple list of manufacturer credits somewhere in the attached text would be sufficient, and prevent any hard feelings on anybody’s part. And/or advance contact with the makers of those items in the photo that are clearly recognizable and identifiable.
Woodland Scenics scenery products unless depicted in their recognizable packaging are no longer distinctively Woodland Scenics products in a scene. Likewise, a boxcar model is not likely to be reconizeable as a particular manufacturer’s product. Even a Jordan horse-drawn delivery truck has to be assembled and painted by the modeler - which is probably sufficient customization to avoid and/or defend a law suit.
But again, the 2 best ways to avoid hard feelings are advance contact, and publishing or making available at least a partial list of key manufacturers’ products used in the making of a diorama. Newspapers give credits on their articles and photos all the time.
The UP did go after some railroad calendar publishers during their “crazy period” for publishing images of the UP railroad without permission. I did not discuss in detail one very bitter calendar publisher’s case at a show so I don’t know whether he won, settled, or lost. But he was de