Shot By Adam wrote:
It's 90 days within the time of first commercial publication. - SNIP -

I knew it was something along those lines ... I actually have people that work for me handle all that, so I have more time to play on MM

Shot By Adam wrote:
Once you learn more about the value of licensing your images, you'll be able to answer these types of questions for yourself.

oh blah whatever, I know where to go to get licensing for using DC comics (WB) characters and so-on for tshirts and other collectable 2nd party items. How you went about yours I just assume you call it a parody.

Shot By Adam wrote:
The retailers are using this photo because the wholesaler/manufacturer gave it to them and the license to use the image to sell the product on their behalf. This doesn't mean that they then have to go pay DC to distribute the rights for that photo that the manufacturer took nor do the retailers have to pay DC to use the photo. The owner of the rights of that photo originate with the company who photographed it, in this case the manufacturer or the wholesaler. The rights to use the logo to create the costumes though are part of a completely separate issue and are unrelated to the photograph itself and how it's used commercially.

I'm talking about YOUR use. You (or the model) purchased a costume that includes a trademarked emblem (at least, I'll assume that it is, since it's an "officially licensed" product.) Purchasing that costume does not extend any usage rights to you (or the model) to use that costume for a commercial purpose. The vendor was given license... not you.

You (or the model) then uses this costume in a shoot with intent to distribute the final product. Did you obtain permission from DC to use their registered, trademarked emblem in such fashion?

Unless you're saying that your photograph was commissioned as the pack-in insert art for the bagged costume... then, by all means, point taken.

William Kious wrote:
I'm talking about YOUR use.

I can tell you just like to argue just so that  you can hear yourself talk, even after you've been proven wrong. What part of, "my attorneys side with me on this one" is confusing to you? More specifically, two different COPYRIGHT attorneys from two different law offices. You're wrong on this one William. Move along, there's nothing for you to see here.

William Kious wrote:

I'm talking about YOUR use. You (or the model) purchased a costume that includes a trademarked emblem (at least, I'll assume that it is, since it's an "officially licensed" product.) Purchasing that costume does not extend any usage rights to you (or the model) to use that costume for a commercial purpose. The vendor was given license... not you.

You (or the model) then uses this costume in a shoot with intent to distribute the final product. Did you obtain permission from DC to use their registered, trademarked emblem in such fashion?

Unless you're saying that your photograph was commissioned as the pack-in insert art for the bagged costume... then, by all means, point taken.

I tend to agree with you. Taking pictures of trade marked items with the intention of selling the pictures is different than taking their pictures, posting them on your FB page or in a blog or so on.

Three Cats Photography wrote:

I tend to agree with you. Taking pictures of trade marked items with the intention of selling the pictures is different than taking their pictures, posting them on your FB page or in a blog or so on.

what is the point in agreeing when multiple IP attorneys and lawyers both here on the list and on retainer with the OP say it's wrong?  Agreeing with someone who is either deliberately trolling or completely misunderstands what googleship gave him doesn't get you anywhere.   Next time I run a marathon or do a 100km inline skate do you honestly think I'm going to be asked to sign papers by Nike? and will the official photographer have to get clearance from Nike for each and every finisher they shoot (believe me thats commercial. when you see what they charge? haha).  and a separate one for Reebock?  By his arguement about IP law thats exactly how it would have to work.   Do you see how laughable his argument is?  So ask yourself why is it laughable? because...because...its not how the law works. thats why.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

what is the point in agreeing when multiple IP attorneys and lawyers both here on the list and on retainer with the OP say it's wrong?  Agreeing with someone who is either deliberately trolling or completely misunderstands what googleship gave him doesn't get you anywhere.   Next time I run a marathon or do a 100km inline skate do you honestly think I'm going to be asked to sign papers by Nike? and will the official photographer have to get clearance from Nike for each and every finisher they shoot (believe me thats commercial. when you see what they charge? haha).  and a separate one for Reebock?  By his arguement about IP law thats exactly how it would have to work.   Do you see how laughable his argument is?  So ask yourself why is it laughable? because...because...its not how the law works. thats why.

What is this anger? Seems like you come here to vent your anger instead of exchanging ideas or reading different opinions.
Your example is not valid in my opinion because you will be taking the picture of an event or an athlete. Logo is a part of the scene, not defining it. Try cropping those pictures so that the focus is on the logo not everything else. I think things will change.
To answer your question, I do not believe everything people post here. I do not know the OP and no offense to OP but how do I know he is telling the truth? Anyone who has consulted with lawyers do know that they never give such straight answers and there are always gray areas in law. Not to start another argument but reading some of OPs older posts made me question this post.

Three Cats Photography wrote:

What is this anger? Seems like you come here to vent your anger instead of exchanging ideas or reading different opinions.
Your example is not valid in my opinion because you will be taking the picture of an event or an athlete. Logo is a part of the scene, not defining it. Try cropping those pictures so that the focus is on the logo not everything else. I think things will change.
To answer your question, I do not believe everything people post here. I do not know the OP and no offense to OP but how do I know he is telling the truth? Anyone who has consulted with lawyers do know that they never give such straight answers and there are always gray areas in law. Not to start another argument but reading some of OPs older posts made me question this post.

OK, I surrender. My attorneys and the attorneys who have actually written in here are all wrong but you're right. There, I hope you're happy that you've won this debate. Congratulations, I'm conceding to you that you're right. The world can now go back to revolving around you. Have a nice day.

Shot By Adam wrote:

OK, I surrender. My attorneys and the attorneys who have actually written in here are all wrong but you're right. There, I hope you're happy that you've won this debate. Congratulations, I'm conceding to you that you're right. The world can now go back to revolving around you. Have a nice day.

I do not see a brain in the skull in that animation

Shot By Adam wrote:

OK, I surrender. My attorneys and the attorneys who have actually written in here are all wrong but you're right. There, I hope you're happy that you've won this debate. Congratulations, I'm conceding to you that you're right. The world can now go back to revolving around you. Have a nice day.

If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. That is all I am going to say.

Three Cats Photography wrote:

What is this anger? Seems like you come here to vent your anger instead of exchanging ideas or reading different opinions.
Your example is not valid in my opinion because you will be taking the picture of an event or an athlete. Logo is a part of the scene, not defining it. Try cropping those pictures so that the focus is on the logo not everything else. I think things will change.
To answer your question, I do not believe everything people post here. I do not know the OP and no offense to OP but how do I know he is telling the truth? Anyone who has consulted with lawyers do know that they never give such straight answers and there are always gray areas in law. Not to start another argument but reading some of OPs older posts made me question this post.

How nice to see you have an opinion. Is it based on years of study and/or the practice of law? Or is it just an opinion you feel ?  when I see people unthinkingly agreeing with stupid posts I react to them. sorry but your post qualifies. As for your attempt to 'win' rather than understand, the fkn logo pretty much DEFINES the race bib these days. Do I have to post an example of someone wearing a NIKE cap, NIKE singlet with NIKE race bib, NIKE shorts and....wait for it NIKE shooz to demonstrate how your argument fails to scale? NO. I dont think I have to.  I'm sure you figured it out yourself and hoped to troll right by during supper hour or something.

As for your contention that no lawyers give such straight answers well you are wrong again.  if you go into a lawyer's office and ask "DO I NEED INSURANCE AGAINST THE SKY FALLING?" even the most cautious lawyer (out of an abundance of caution) will still say "no I don't think you need to worry about that. shall we focus on the matter at hand?"  They will give qualified responses on things that are reasonably possible or potentially unclear or uncertain as to evidence.   This whole bullshit about always having gray areas in law is just a device used in arguments on the internet.  Sure. one judge in one jurisdiction once will go against two million decisions but you dont go by the one judge and call it a gray area. you go by the two million.  Do I need an earthquake proof house? sure it wouldnt hurt. but if I dont have an unlimited budget do I focus on insulation and flooring or do I go for earthquake proof living where I am.  Imagine if all lawyers felt professionally compelled to advise based on all possible crazy impossible things that might happen and all the crazy ass arguments that no sane person would buy?  Every client memorandum would be 5,000 pages long and the initial fee would be a mil. Now does that make any fucking sense? 
learn to think critically instead of simply trying to argue and relying on "oh...I dont believe you" without qualifying.  Your life will be enriched.

Shot By Adam wrote:

OK, I surrender. My attorneys and the attorneys who have actually written in here are all wrong but you're right. There, I hope you're happy that you've won this debate. Congratulations, I'm conceding to you that you're right. The world can now go back to revolving around you. Have a nice day.

This thread has been pretty pointless for awhile but i did learn a few things from you. I didn't realize you can file copyright by huge batches, I thought each work was $35.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

How nice to see you have an opinion. Is it based on years of study and/or the practice of law? Or is it just an opinion you feel ?  when I see people unthinkingly agreeing with stupid posts I react to them. sorry but your post qualifies. As for your attempt to 'win' rather than understand, the fkn logo pretty much DEFINES the race bib these days. Do I have to post an example of someone wearing a NIKE cap, NIKE singlet with NIKE race bib, NIKE shorts and....wait for it NIKE shooz to demonstrate how your argument fails to scale? NO. I dont think I have to.  I'm sure you figured it out yourself and hoped to troll right by during supper hour or something.

As for your contention that no lawyers give such straight answers well you are wrong again.  if you go into a lawyer's office and ask "DO I NEED INSURANCE AGAINST THE SKY FALLING?" even the most cautious lawyer (out of an abundance of caution) will still say "no I don't think you need to worry about that. shall we focus on the matter at hand?"  They will give qualified responses on things that are reasonably possible or potentially unclear or uncertain as to evidence.   This whole bullshit about always having gray areas in law is just a device used in arguments on the internet.  Sure. one judge in one jurisdiction once will go against two million decisions but you dont go by the one judge and call it a gray area. you go by the two million.  Do I need an earthquake proof house? sure it wouldnt hurt. but if I dont have an unlimited budget do I focus on insulation and flooring or do I go for earthquake proof living where I am.  Imagine if all lawyers felt professionally compelled to advise based on all possible crazy impossible things that might happen and all the crazy ass arguments that no sane person would buy?  Every client memorandum would be 5,000 pages long and the initial fee would be a mil. Now does that make any fucking sense? 
learn to think critically instead of simply trying to argue and relying on "oh...I dont believe you" without qualifying.  Your life will be enriched.

To answer your question, yes.
I would like to see you on a jury trial explaining the jury, hey these lawyers i have are experts in the field, if they say the other side is guilty he must be guilty. You are not law experts, your opinions cannot be trusted. Try that argument.
I am sure ambulance chasing lawyers are telling their clients the truth too.
"think critically"? that is exactly what i am doing, thinking critically unlike you believing in these so called "experts" But i will repeat myself again. If you ask the wrong questions even the best experts will give you the answers that will not fit your situation.
Your example of asking a lawyer a question is pathetic by the way. Why would you ask a lawyer that question to begin with? It seems like you let your lawyers run your life.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

How nice to see you have an opinion. Is it based on years of study and/or the practice of law? Or is it just an opinion you feel ?  when I see people unthinkingly agreeing with stupid posts I react to them. sorry but your post qualifies. As for your attempt to 'win' rather than understand, the fkn logo pretty much DEFINES the race bib these days. Do I have to post an example of someone wearing a NIKE cap, NIKE singlet with NIKE race bib, NIKE shorts and....wait for it NIKE shooz to demonstrate how your argument fails to scale? NO. I dont think I have to.  I'm sure you figured it out yourself and hoped to troll right by during supper hour or something.

As for your contention that no lawyers give such straight answers well you are wrong again.  if you go into a lawyer's office and ask "DO I NEED INSURANCE AGAINST THE SKY FALLING?" even the most cautious lawyer (out of an abundance of caution) will still say "no I don't think you need to worry about that. shall we focus on the matter at hand?"  They will give qualified responses on things that are reasonably possible or potentially unclear or uncertain as to evidence.   This whole bullshit about always having gray areas in law is just a device used in arguments on the internet.  Sure. one judge in one jurisdiction once will go against two million decisions but you dont go by the one judge and call it a gray area. you go by the two million.  Do I need an earthquake proof house? sure it wouldnt hurt. but if I dont have an unlimited budget do I focus on insulation and flooring or do I go for earthquake proof living where I am.  Imagine if all lawyers felt professionally compelled to advise based on all possible crazy impossible things that might happen and all the crazy ass arguments that no sane person would buy?  Every client memorandum would be 5,000 pages long and the initial fee would be a mil. Now does that make any fucking sense? 
learn to think critically instead of simply trying to argue and relying on "oh...I dont believe you" without qualifying.  Your life will be enriched.

Your Nike example shows you do not understand my point. Posting that will be OK. But try to make a poster out of it and sell it and let's see what will happen.
You just like to argue don't you?

D0127H wrote:
I usually chuckle when I hear MM photographers say "my attorneys"....but if you can afford a battle using lawyers you already excel in copyright law.  Good luck with the dispute.

When somebody continuously talks about being a victim, how his attorneys are going to handle it, how he will sue them, make them pay, being stalked, I raise an eyebrow.

They do not even know the cost of going to a trial, possibility of appeal, even after you win the difficulty of collecting the money. All this is for a couple of hundred maybe a few thousand dollars? Minus the cost?! I think the best you can get out of this easily is getting them to take your picture down.

Three Cats Photography wrote:
To answer your question, yes.
I would like to see you on a jury trial explaining the jury, hey these lawyers i have are experts in the field, if they say the other side is guilty he must be guilty. You are not law experts, your opinions cannot be trusted. Try that argument.
I am sure ambulance chasing lawyers are telling their clients the truth too.
"think critically"? that is exactly what i am doing, thinking critically unlike you believing in these so called "experts" But i will repeat myself again. If you ask the wrong questions even the best experts will give you the answers that will not fit your situation.
Your example of asking a lawyer a question is pathetic by the way. Why would you ask a lawyer that question to begin with? It seems like you let your lawyers run your life.

OK, I have resisted posting here for a day or so just because of this argument/discussion/debate. Since you seem to have not caught the clues yet, like when they said there are a couple of lawyers speaking in this thread, AVD is one of them (or has his JD, can't remember exactly, but he knows of which he is speaking). There are at least 4 I know of on MM, and at least 2 of them have spoke up in this thread.

Your continued arguing this matter seems to be borderline trolling to me. Sorry, just calling it how I see it.

And this reply:

Three Cats Photography wrote:
I do not see a brain in the skull in that animation

seems borderline personal attack, which is also against forum rules. Why not just agree to disagree and move on?

Three Cats Photography wrote:
Your Nike example shows you do not understand my point. Posting that will be OK. But try to make a poster out of it and sell it and let's see what will happen.
You just like to argue don't you?

Here it seems that you are the one trying to argue.

UltimateAppeal wrote:

Three Cats Photography wrote:
To answer your question, yes.
I would like to see you on a jury trial explaining the jury, hey these lawyers i have are experts in the field, if they say the other side is guilty he must be guilty. You are not law experts, your opinions cannot be trusted. Try that argument.
I am sure ambulance chasing lawyers are telling their clients the truth too.
"think critically"? that is exactly what i am doing, thinking critically unlike you believing in these so called "experts" But i will repeat myself again. If you ask the wrong questions even the best experts will give you the answers that will not fit your situation.
Your example of asking a lawyer a question is pathetic by the way. Why would you ask a lawyer that question to begin with? It seems like you let your lawyers run your life.

OK, I have resisted posting here for a day or so just because of this argument/discussion/debate. Since you seem to have not caught the clues yet, like when they said there are a couple of lawyers speaking in this thread, AVD is one of them (or has his JD, can't remember exactly, but he knows of which he is speaking). There are at least 4 I know of on MM, and at least 2 of them have spoke up in this thread.

Your continued arguing this matter seems to be borderline trolling to me. Sorry, just calling it how I see it.

And this reply:

seems borderline personal attack, which is also against forum rules. Why not just agree to disagree and move on?


Here it seems that you are the one trying to argue.

The problem comes from the fact that some people do not respect others' opinions. As soon as I stated that I tend to agree with William's post, attacks with anger started. So, what you may see it as trolling I see it as exchanging opinions on a subject with another photographer. So, every time a lawyer states an opinion on a subject, do we have to end the discussion there?
Sarcastically saying somebody has an opinion is not borderline personal attack but making an observation on an animation is? Please! You do not even recognize a joke?!
I am giving an example to explain my view. How is that arguing?
I could respect your opinions if you were being objective but please,..I was not born yesterday.

Shot By Adam wrote:

I can tell you just like to argue just so that  you can hear yourself talk, even after you've been proven wrong. What part of, "my attorneys side with me on this one" is confusing to you? More specifically, two different COPYRIGHT attorneys from two different law offices. You're wrong on this one William. Move along, there's nothing for you to see here.

And I can tell that you're missing my point entirely.

You are co-opting DC's intellectual property by using licensed merchandise in commercially purposed shoots. You're not taking journalistic images at a con... these are posed and digitally manipulated photos.

Go ahead and keep posturbating about your team of lawyers. They will agree with you because your "case" is a quick buck in their pockets. My original point stands: I think it would be funny for DC to come after you.

Lars R Peterson wrote:
OK, this conversation now has me wondering a few things...

For example, I took this photo.
I did the body paint, took the photo, and did the Photoshop...
there was no commercial intent, and I have not sold prints of it.
Image Link (18+)

If the model were to sell it... or if someone were to steal it, and then use it commercially on their site,... who might be at risk for being sued?

Am I safe, since I am not using it commercially? Do I need to state in the fine print "Any resemblance to DC or Marvel characters is purely coincidence." ??

--
Edit:  Oops, meant to link to THIS picture: Image Link (18+) ... but I guess the same would apply to the Seahawks or NFL...?

The answer will change according to who answers. In my opinion
you are not in trouble since you did not commercialize this picture.
model is in trouble for using your photo without your permission (unless you otherwise agreed) and for commercializing it

William Kious wrote:

And I can tell that you're missing my point entirely.

You are co-opting DC's intellectual property by using licensed merchandise in commercially purposed shoots. You're not taking journalistic images at a con... these are posed and digitally manipulated photos.

Go ahead and keep posturbating about your team of lawyers. They will agree with you because your "case" is a quick buck in their pockets. My original point stands: I think it would be funny for DC to come after you.

"You're not taking journalistic images at a con". This is why I tend to agree with William. It is not an editorial shot, it is not a journalistic shot, it is not a hobbysit playing. The intention is to make money by using those logos. One question that can be asked is, would this photo be as commercially valuable without those logos or symbols? I doubt it.

D0127H wrote:
I usually chuckle when I hear MM photographers say "my attorneys"....but if you can afford a battle using lawyers you already excel in copyright law.  Good luck with the dispute.

I guess you missed the part where the OP has already taken legal action in the past and has been awarded enough money to pay the legal fees and still have profit. Plus it doesn't take much effort on his part, the lawyer is doing all the work, and its not like he has to appear in court or anything.

Lars R Peterson wrote:
For example, I took this photo.
I did the body paint, took the photo, and did the Photoshop...
there was no commercial intent, and I have not sold prints of it.
Image Link (18+)

If the model were to sell it... or if someone were to steal it, and then use it commercially on their site,... who might be at risk for being sued?

Am I safe, since I am not using it commercially? Do I need to state in the fine print "Any resemblance to DC or Marvel characters is purely coincidence." ??

--
Edit:  Oops, meant to link to THIS picture: Image Link (18+) ... but I guess the same would apply to the Seahawks or NFL...?

For all the "You're not a lawyer!" types, this is just an educated opinion...

Are you safe? Most likely. By doing your theme in body paint, you've changed the medium. You've stylized (especially with the Dark Phoenix example.) Using the Seahawks logo? I'm not so sure. You could say it was parody, etc... but the NFL gets pretty anal about that shit. You're still using a trademarked emblem without permission. You could always claim that you were unaware that the model (or another entity) was using the image commercially.

Then again, they might not even care about commercial use. It's why I brought up the little leprechaun from Notre Dame. They are an extreme example when it comes to protecting their intellectual property. They DO NOT CARE about the purpose of the usage. If permission is not obtained - and all of their guidelines followed - they WILL get their panties in a bunch. Students can't even use iconography on their own webpages without seeking permission.

Individual mileage may vary, but the OP carrying on and on about his legal right to use DC iconography without obtaining written permission is laughable at best. The fact that's he's collecting damages for his "stolen" images also makes me giggle a little.

*shrugs*

William Kious wrote:
Individual mileage may vary, but the OP carrying on and on about his legal right to use DC iconography without obtaining written permission is laughable at best. The fact that's he's collecting damages for his "stolen" images also makes me giggle a little.

*shrugs*

You are welcome to laugh and giggle all you want. The fact of the matter is, numerous legal experts have all disagree with you on this matter. Why you continue to argue on this matter is beyond me but I can assure you, it just makes you look silly at this point. I guess in your world though, the sky isn't blue, the grass isn't green, and chocolate never makes you fat either.

studio36uk wrote:
For Christ's sake you people should FIRST learn the fucking difference between a copyright and a trademark before spouting off for 107 posts in a thread like this.

Half of you are blowing smoke out of your ass and the other half is inhaling it. Y'all ought to be charged with theft of MM's bandwidth for this thread!

Studio36

Here's the deal. It may be McDonalds trademark, but the image, and the copyright to the image, and all the other rights under copyright law in respect of the image, belong to the author of it. SIMPLES!!!

John, these guys don't get the "SIMPLES" thing, just like they don't seem to get anything that's been discussed here. Perhaps they are too "simples" minded?..=*^)

(for those who are not in the UK - "SIMPLES" comes from a hugely popular ad campaign in the UK):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compare_the_Meerkat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0AKC3wZdw4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKsSOEto3B0

studio36uk wrote:
For Christ's sake you people should FIRST learn the fucking difference between a copyright and a trademark before spouting off for 107 posts in a thread like this.

Half of you are blowing smoke out of your ass and the other half is inhaling it. Y'all ought to be charged with theft of MM's bandwidth for this thread!

lol only on MM

studio36uk wrote:
For Christ's sake you people should FIRST learn the fucking difference between a copyright and a trademark before spouting off for 107 posts in a thread like this.

Half of you are blowing smoke out of your ass and the other half is inhaling it. Y'all ought to be charged with theft of MM's bandwidth for this thread!

Studio36

Here's the deal. It may be McDonalds trademark, but the image, and the copyright to the image, and all the other rights under copyright law in respect of the image, belong to the author of it. SIMPLES!!!

And if someone is using/selling that picture of a trademarked product/symbol for a commercial purpose, you see absolutely no grounds for McDonald's suing for damages? I don't think anyone is arguing that the OP owns his images... only that he doesn't possess the rights to use the shit IN the images.

Is that REALLY so damn hard to understand?

If all this blowhard shit were true, I could lift logos out of a picture of some NASCAR shit and produce my own line of products without fear of lawsuit.

William Kious wrote:
And if someone is using/selling that picture of a trademarked product/symbol for a commercial purpose, you see absolutely no grounds for McDonald's suing for damages? I don't think anyone is arguing that the OP owns his images... only that he doesn't possess the rights to use the shit IN the images.

Is that REALLY so damn hard to understand?

If all this blowhard shit were true, I could lift logos out of a picture of some NASCAR shit and produce my own line of products without fear of lawsuit.

Where did the OP ever say he was using the image commercially.  He has it in his MM profile which some may argue is a commercial purpose.  But he has never claimed to print it, or sell it for any purpose.  For all we know the subjects of the photo paid him to take that picture which would be well within his rights just like taking a picture of a runner in a marathon wearing Nike.

Perhaps a lawyer can tell us if by requiring a copyright violator to pay for using his, at the time, non-commercial image now means it is being used for commercial purposes.

ETA: if the OP's picture was of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton at a party I am pretty sure he can bill TMZ $2000 for the rights to use it (if they wanted to pay that much) without anyone having to ask DC for permission.

William Kious wrote:
And if someone is using/selling that picture of a trademarked product/symbol for a commercial purpose, you see absolutely no grounds for McDonald's suing for damages? I don't think anyone is arguing that the OP owns his images... only that he doesn't possess the rights to use the shit IN the images.

But that is not what this thread is about, nor was it ever what it was about. It is only what you have bizarrely manufactured it to be in your little dream world. I never said I was using the image in a commercial manner. You just manufactured this theory out of thin air that because I'm taking a legal stance to defend my copyright of the image that I am somehow using this for commercial purposes. Attorneys in here said you were wrong. Attorneys for me said you were wrong. Everyone says  you are wrong but you keep pressing the matter.

Azimuth Arts wrote:

Where did the OP ever say he was using the image commercially.  He has it in his MM profile which some may argue is a commercial purpose.  But he has never claimed to print it, or sell it for any purpose.  For all we know the subjects of the photo paid him to take that picture which would be well within his rights just like taking a picture of a runner in a marathon wearing Nike.

Perhaps a lawyer can tell us if by requiring a copyright violator to pay for using his, at the time, non-commercial image now means it is being used for commercial purposes.

ETA: if the OP's picture was of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton at a party I am pretty sure he can bill TMZ $2000 for the rights to use it (if they wanted to pay that much) without anyone having to ask DC for permission.

I think the subject evolved or mutated whatever you want to call it. And in my opinion it got more interesting. Should we have started a new thread? Possibly.
I never questioned the OP's right to own the images and his right to sue the website posting them. I don't think anybody would argue that. So to the OP, please do not take my future posts against your right for your images just to be clear.
I am just interested in using copyrighted logos in pictures for commercial purposes. So, to the Mc Donalds picture poster above, is it OK to take a picture of a Mc Donalds logo in a way that only the logo shows and print it out and sell it? Is it OK to take a picture of the same logo being the center of attention and picture in a beautiful sunset and print it and sell it? I don't think so.

Three Cats Photography wrote:
I am just interested in using copyrighted logos in pictures for commercial purposes. So, to the Mc Donalds picture poster above, is it OK to take a picture of a Mc Donalds logo in a way that only the logo shows and print it out and sell it? Is it OK to take a picture of the same logo being the center of attention and picture in a beautiful sunset and print it and sell it? I don't think so.

Logos are NOT generally copyrightable matter. So your very first statement - "... using copyrighted logos ..." - may be entirely wrong. And what follows from that train of thought is also wrong. Logos are broadly the subject of trademark protection and thus are protected differently, for different purposes, and in different ways than copyright matter.

Thereafter, the owner of the photograph can do a lot of things with an image that do not rise to the level of commercial use. They can, yes, even display and sell copies.

Where an infringement occurs in respect of the image itself, with absolutely no regard to the subject of that image - a logo or not - then the one and singular issue is infringement of the image. Nothing at all to do with the trademark rights associated with the logo visually perceptible in the image but only depending on how that image might be used, and which is a separate matter between the trademark owner and the image copyright owner.

Example 1: no or very low risk: [label the photo] "This is a picture of my local fast food emporium."

Example 2: much higher risk of McD's taking umbrage and rasing a case against the USER, who might not even be the copyright owner, using it labelled this way: "This place SUCKS!!! Go to Wendys instead"

studio36uk wrote:

Logos are NOT generally copyrightable matter. So your very first statement - "... using copyrighted logos ..." - may be entirely wrong. And what follows from that train of thought is also wrong. Logos are broadly the subject of trademark protection and thus are protected differently, for different purposes, and in different ways than copyright matter.

Thereafter, the owner of the photograph can do a lot of things with an image  that do not rise to the level of commercial use. They can, yes, even display and sell copies.

Where an infringement occurs in respect of the image itself, with absolutely no regard to the subject of that image - a logo or not - then the one and singular issue is infringement of the image. Nothing at all to do with the trademark rights associated with the logo visually perceptible in the image but only depending on how that image might be used, and which is a separate matter between the trademark owner and the image copyright owner.

Example 1: no or very low risk: [label the photo] This is a picture of my local fast food emporium.

Example 2: much higher risk of McD's taking umbrage and rasing a case against the USER, who might not even be the copyright owner, using it labelled this way: This place SUCKS!!! Go to Wendys instead"

studio36uk wrote:

Logos are NOT generally copyrightable matter. So your very first statement - "... using copyrighted logos ..." - may be entirely wrong. And what follows from that train of thought is also wrong. Logos are broadly the subject of trademark protection and thus are protected differently, for different purposes, and in different ways than copyright matter.

Thereafter, the owner of the photograph can do a lot of things with an image  that do not rise to the level of commercial use. They can, yes, even display and sell copies.

Where an infringement occurs in respect of the image itself, with absolutely no regard to the subject of that image - a logo or not - then the one and singular issue is infringement of the image. Nothing at all to do with the trademark rights associated with the logo visually perceptible in the image but only depending on how that image might be used, and which is a separate matter between the trademark owner and the image copyright owner.

Example 1: no or very low risk: [label the photo] This is a picture of my local fast food emporium.

Example 2: much higher risk of McD's taking umbrage and rasing a case against the USER, who might not even be the copyright owner, using it labelled this way: This place SUCKS!!! Go to Wendys instead"

Shot By Adam wrote:
I recently discovered this website stole on  of my registered, copyrighted images and they also have a LOT of images from photographers on MM...

Meanwhile *this thread* languishes on the photography forum without any responses:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=891745

Let's stop whining, put our heads together, and SOLVE the problem!