Product Copyright Question

[Porky]

If i produce a product with a British royalty theme and use images (off the net) of say Lady Diana, charles, other royals - am I going to get claims for copyright? You see plenty of mugs about with silver jubilee etc etc on them?

Im thinking if its a real live person they could object? If dead not so, if a landmark or generic item no chance? Anyone experience of this?

What if it was say james bond? Fictional but if the mugs all had bond stars Roger More, etc then im going down a real person route? Can i use names of bond actors?

What if it was generic theme like say London landmarks, tower bridge etc - would that be copyright?

Trying to get a feel for what is safe to work with and what could cause me some grief- any thoughts appreciated

Thanks

 

[WaveJumper]

Copyright notice: digital images, photographs and the internet

www.gov.uk

 

[FreddyG]

If i produce a product with a British royalty theme and use images (off the net) of say Lady Diana, charles, other royals - am I going to get claims for copyright?

Yes, of course!

What if it was say james bond? Fictional but if the mugs all had bond stars Roger More, etc then im going down a real person route? Can i use names of bond actors?

No, because they have additional image rights.

What if it was generic theme like say London landmarks, tower bridge etc - would that be copyright?

As long as you have taken the photos yourself, you are free to use any public image that everyone can see for themselves.

 

[DontAsk]

All images are copyright somewhere by someone.

In very general terms you need to own the image or use something like wikimedia commons. Even then you may need to credit the owner.

 

[Porky]

So just to be clear here, sorry for being a bit thick on this copyright issue just dont want to get caught out:-

If i want to put a selection of images on products for resale, let's say i want a picture of Big Ben or Buckingham Palace on a box of biscuits.

If i go to a site like Vecteezy.com or similar and buy an image file and then use it selling biscuits all over the world is that image purchase the extent of my liability?

Is there any risk of someone coming to me later and saying oh you have sold thousands of biscuits using my image I want further royalty or fees off you?

Thanks

 

[FreddyG]

If i want to put a selection of images on products for resale, let's say i want a picture of Big Ben or Buckingham Palace on a box of biscuits.

Then you must go to Big Ben and/or Buckingham Palace and photograph them! Simples!

Is there any risk of someone coming to me later and saying oh you have sold thousands of biscuits using my image I want further royalty or fees off you?

Yes, an almost racing certainty. You will have to read their T&Cs and the chances are that there will be limitation clauses in there - "no commercial use" or some such phrase. It really is a case of having to knuckle down and read the whole thing and understand what is meant.

The safe way is to do it yourself or find a service that expressly allows full and unmitigated commercial and public use of their images and all derivatives of those images.

 

[Porky]

@FreddyG
Thanks for that. Appreciate you taking the tine I dont take great pictures and dont want to travel down to London either to take them.

So based on this as you say i need to find a service that will allow me to use the images for commercial use.

So on that note: anyone here able to recommend such a site they have used for this purpose? Thanks very much in advance.

 

[fisicx]

https://www.shutterstock.com/

iStock

iStock. Explore the official iStock website for millions of exclusive, royalty-free, stock files. Find the perfect stock for your project, fast. Search now.

www.istockphoto.com

There are plenty more you can find on Google.

But anything to do with films, sports, brands, the arts and so on will have separate licensing arrangements.

 

[eteb3]

Im thinking if its a real live person they could object? If dead not so, if a landmark or generic item no chance? Anyone experience of this?

copyright first belongs to the person who created the image - it has nothing to do with the subject of the image. The creator has a property right that they can sell or license as they wish, on whatever terms they wish.

 

[syedsheraz]

If i produce a product with a British royalty theme and use images (off the net) of say Lady Diana, charles, other royals - am I going to get claims for copyright? You see plenty of mugs about with silver jubilee etc etc on them?

Im thinking if its a real live person they could object? If dead not so, if a landmark or generic item no chance? Anyone experience of this?

What if it was say james bond? Fictional but if the mugs all had bond stars Roger More, etc then im going down a real person route? Can i use names of bond actors?

What if it was generic theme like say London landmarks, tower bridge etc - would that be copyright?

Trying to get a feel for what is safe to work with and what could cause me some grief- any thoughts appreciated

Thanks

Using real people, especially living royals or celebrities, on products can trigger copyright, publicity, or image rights claims. Deceased figures may still be tricky if the photo is copyrighted. Fictional characters like James Bond are protected, and using actor likenesses commercially is risky. Generic landmarks or your own illustrations are usually safe. Stick to original designs or properly licensed content to avoid legal trouble.

 

[eteb3]

Using real people, especially living royals or celebrities, on products can trigger copyright, publicity, or image rights claims.

Sure, but not because it's a picture of a royal or a cleb. The only relevant question is who has rights in the creative work, and whether you have permission from the rights-holder to use it.

Generic landmarks ... are usually safe.

Not if you didn't take the picture, they're not. Exactly the same principle applies.

 

[paulears]

Yes, of course!

No, because they have additional image rights.

As long as you have taken the photos yourself, you are free to use any public image that everyone can see for themselves.

Unless it is the Eiffel Tower at night where the lighting design is protected! Well - that's one example. You also need to remember it is not just copyright - it is trademarks too - James Bond is not up for grabs in any way really. Images, character names, the titles, the music - all require very careful handling. I've used many images from my business travels and holidays - you can even get in trouble by the combination of items in an image. A hand, with dinner suit sleeve and cuff links holding a Walther PPK that you conjured up using AI in photoshop. The sleeve and the gun separately are fine. Combine the two and the lawyers sharpen their pencils. Even happens within the movies. A story with a boat called the Flying Saucer vs a story with the Disco Volante - the same thing, but not the same thing?

 

[Porky]

Yeah, i have to say im treading very careful. If i pay the licenses on one of those two sites for commercial use of photos took of landmarks i feel safe. The photographer is effectively getting the royalty. I think using those on products in line with the T&Cs should be fine.

To be totally honest i would love to use people images. i would make a killing selling products with say "Taylor Swift" on them but its just plainly obviously they would take me to the cleaners on that, i cant see me getting a license - how would i even try to get license to do that?

Appreciate everyones thoughts on this topic, its an absolute minefield.

 

[FreddyG]

Appreciate everyones thoughts on this topic, its an absolute minefield.

It's very easy! If you own the picture, you can use it commercially (mugs, scarves, websites, etc.)

BUT

If they are famous - e.g. Taylor Swift, Mick Jagger, Tina Turner - then they will have additional image rights. Those are rather like company trademarks. Even if they are stone dead, you cannot use someone else's trademark or their image if that image is registered with the IPO.

You MUST understand that Taylor Swift is NOT just an individual person. She is more than that - she is an industry worth billions, upon which a few thousand people depend for their livelihoods. Just go to any major concert and watch the crew setting up. You will get some idea of the sheer scale of the industry that is Taylor Swift - or any other major artist or group!

Back in the 1990s, Pink Floyd toured Europe with 47 trucks and there was not one venue that could cope with their power requirements. They brought their own Rolls-Royce generators - the sort one has just one of on oil platforms. Floyd used three!

Acts like Rammstein and Taylor Swift are waaay bigger than Floyd ever were! These conglomerates have their own merchandise departments with a platoon or two of lawyers and paralegals to ferret out pirate products.

And the live performances are the tip of the iceberg. Then comes all the rest - record sales, downloads, videos, covers, film rights. It goes on and on!

 

[paulears]

Most people have a sort of wobbly view on copyright - up until the point where it bumps into them. My 'bump' came over 20 years ago when I had to clear music for a production I was running and discovered how complicated it was to do properly. While PRS (don't all spit) could licence me much of what I wanted, I had to negotiate individually for others and get one-off licences. Then when you use it, other people with an interest pop up and want a cut. Somebody who arranged the string section wants a bit - but the record company insist they were on a buy out contract. Crazy stuff. However, from that point I started thinking about the music I had created - either stuff I composed then recorded, or stuff I arranged. From that moment, I submitted every piece to PRS and PPL. Last year, suddenly, payments started to appear, and automated systems that did nothing for years have started kicking in and generating payments. This is for me great, but it means usage is being monitored. I suspect images are subject to the same systems, so use an image on line and somebody is watching. If you cannot verify ownership, expect bills to suddenly roll in now AI is watching. If they spotted my music being used in a random theatre and triggered a payment, then rights have suddenly started being far more visible than in the past.

 

[fisicx]

But of course none of this applies to AI. They slurp up everything and spit out lookalikes (or soundalikes) and there appears to be little anyone can do about it. An industry spending trillions on the tech is not going to be put off by a court case which they can drag out for years.

 

[paulears]

Alan Parsons has just had AI music pretending to be him - he's grumpy about it, but little even a 'senior' music producer can actually do.

One of the AI singing apps has a really trained female singer's voice. The trouble is it is clearly trained on Adele, so her weird accent and phrasing is making the training source very obvious.

 

[fisicx]

Not even the good old boys of Nashville are immune:

The No. 1 country song in the US right now is AI-generated

Breaking Rust already has 2 million Spotify listeners

www.musicradar.com