Trademarked names on photography

Sell it for what usage? An ad for Ford? Not the brightest thing to do. Editorially illustrating an article about restoring old cars? Sure, no problems there.

Hello Matt,

It depends on how you use the photo. Use in fine art is perfectly acceptable. Use to sell cars is... less so. The rule of thumb I'd use is "would the mystical power of the trademark influence a buyer's decision"? In other words, trademarks create certain expectations in a buyer's mind about a product's quality. Would you trust a delivery to FedEx? Perhaps. Would you feel hurt if a flakier business used the FedEx logo and you decided to trust them because of the logo? Almost certainly.

My own opinion is that selling these photos as art is not a problem. Some feisty young attorney may send you a letter about it, mostly to show that Chevy is still defending the mark, in which case you'd contact your own attorney and he'd likely draft a reply explaining why your use is allowable, and that would most likely be that. (Note: were you to add color /only/ to the BelAir name could suggest you were using the value of the mark to help sell the image. Just a thought, IANAL.)

Finally, this advice is worth about what I got paid for it, and you should consult a real attorney in case you want someone to point fingers at later. You may also find a more extended discussion here: http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html

Honestly, images such as you posted help to perpetuate an enthusiasm for the American automotive industry. I seriously doubt the auto manufacturers would want to impede this sort of expression in any way -- especially during this time of economic hardship.

If trademark infringement is anything like copyright infringement, one of the relevant factors would be whether the sale of your print would adversely impact sales by Chevrolet. I suppose if they had a line of Belair memorabelia, including imagery such as yours, then someone might buy your print instead of theirs. Then they might have a complaint and a case. Otherwise, as I say, I think they would give you nothing but encouragement.

If you're worried about it, ask them for permission. I'm sure they'll grant it.

BTW, very nice image!

Trademark law is not the same as an individual's own privacy/publicity rights, nor is it copyright law.

Trademark legal problems arise when there is confusion or dilution. Essentially someone thinks your product is actually affiliated or from the "trademark" owner/source. Would the owner of the trademark think "his" customers think they are buying from him when buying from you? Some trademark owners are very, very aggressive about this, perhaps even more than might be necessary under the laws.

The other problem arises when the trademark symbol or name begins to get used for any product of that general type. Seems less an issue when you would be selling pictures and they were selling cars. OTOH, Coke and Pepsi still are very sensitive to the issues.

Part of the problem is that the trademark owner may look at the use far more intensely or differently than you or I might. It won't hurt to do some added research on this before seeking legal advice, or reviewing the issues with some of the sources (books, websites, etc., prepared by lawyers). Be careful about making your decisions based on info that may not be current or may not apply to the particular circumstances of your use. There was a fairly recent problem with a particular car company and calendars and a lot of the discussions on photo forums did not correctly or completely address the facts of the problem or the legal issues involved. .

Thanks for the responses. I've seen numerous products with automotive items, some marked as "officially licensed," and others not, without mention of "Chevrolet is a trademark of General Motors," and so on. It is also my intention to provide a part of the sales to a charity that is devoted to the preservation of classic cars and the history of the automobile, and I figured that would only be a good thing.

Did Campbells Soup sue Andy Warhol?

I don't think you have anything to worry about when it comes to limited edition, fine art sales.

Any commercial usage, I'd want permission in writing. They'd want to know how it's going to be used and would likely pretty narrowly define anything they might permit.

But, ask a trademark attorney, to be sure.

(Very, very agressive = Disney.)

I wonder whether this is really primarily an issue of potential trademark infringement. After all, you are not using the mark to designate the source of your product (i.e., you are not trying to indicate that the photo is made by a car company, or any company called "Bel Air" for that matter). In fact, your use could be said to confirm the owner's rights in the visual appearance of the design of the car.

My guess is this falls under copyright law, and the key defense to a copyright claim would be whether your use constitutes a "fair use" of the copyrighted subject matter (the appearance/design of the vehicle and its logo). The use made of the copyrighted subject -- whether commercial or otherwise -- is only one factor in the four-part fair use test.

You'd probably get a few trademark claims, too, were the owner inclined to sue you. But copyright and trademark are entirely separate (and frequently confused) bodies of law, and the focus, in my opinion, would be on copyright law.

That said, and as has already been alluded to above, I would get permission for this use if you plan to sell it. I do tend to be conservative, but I sleep better that way. But don't take my word for it: consult an intellectual property lawyer.