Logo types as "copyrights"

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Cześć, postaram się napisać przejrzyźcie, tym razem w języku polskim. Jeśli nie zrozumiecie, przetłumaczę na język angielski.

Chciałym umieścić do swojego "stock portfolio" logo które każdy z nas może zobaczyć na samochodzie na ulicy, a dokładniej logo "uber" czy "taxi". Teoretycznie, ktoś te logo stworzył, więc ktoś jest twórcą logo, ale taki znak może być również "ogólnodostępny" do kupienia online i zamontowany na samochodzie. Pytanie jest zatem, kiedy przekraczam granicę możliwości wykorzystania takiego znaku na samochodzie jako "do użytku komercyjnego"? Nie chodzi już nawet o to czy to zdjęcie kiedykolwiek by się sprzedało na adobe stock czy nie, ale czy w ogóle mam prawo do umieszczenia tego zdjęcia w adobe stock? PS: Dobrze wiem, że znaki FIRMOWE danego produktu tak jak napoju czy nazwy restauracji jest zabronione (bez wyraźnej zgody), aczkolwiek w tym wypadku mamy do czynienia z prawdopodobnie ogólnym logo. Nie sądzę, że właśnie taki znak "taxi" czy "uber" podchodzi pod "copyrights". Nie jestem ekspertem, dlatego pytam.

[George_F · Accepted solution]

Theoretically, the creator of a design owns the intellectual property of the design.  You would need explicit permission with a signed property release form from whoever owns the intellectual property of a design in order to use it commercially. 

Cheers!

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Thank you George. I share the same emotions with you. It has intellectual property of design as I suspect. But sometimes I ask myself where is the edge of commercial use. Even Taxi sign could be treated as intelectual design if it would be in different color or shape. Weird topic.

[Nancy OShea]

Uber is a protected brand name like Coke or Pepsie. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber

This image cannot be used commercially without written permission directly from Uber which they'll never grant you.

If you're allowed, submit as Illustrative Editorial content.  But keep in mind, Editorial content has limited use in journalism & news reporting.  It won't appeal to as many customers.

[Abambo]

Uber is a protected brand name like Coke or Pepsie. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber

This image cannot be used commercially without written permission directly from Uber which they'll never grant you.

If you're allowed, submit as Illustrative Editorial content.  But keep in mind, Editorial content has limited use in journalism & news reporting.  It won't appeal to as many customers.

By @Nancy OShea

If you are an Uber driver, you probably get an Uber driver's kit from Uber.

Non related, but as you mentioned it: Coking coal is called “coke” in the same way as an apple is called “apple”. But I got, on one stock database, a picture refused for IP violation because I submitted it as “hot coke”, picturing “hot coke”. I discussed a while, then I gave up, and forgot about it. At some stage, I noticed that they silently accepted my “coke”.

Apple did sue a small restaurant in Luxembourg for using the brand name "appleaday": https://www.luxtimes.lu/luxembourg/apple-a-day-keeps-apple-away/1300312.html

[Nancy OShea]

I'm old enough to remember when Apple Corp, the Beatles record label & holding company filed a lawsuit against Apple Computers for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with Apple Computers paying an undisclosed big ca$h $ettlement to Apple Corp.

[Abambo]

I'm old enough

By @Nancy OShea

Unfortunately, I'm also one of those old guys. I think that one of the conditions for using the Apple brand was that Apple Computers would not enter the music business… What was iTunes and iPod about?

[Abambo]

Even Taxi sign could be treated as intelectual design if it would be in different color or shape. Weird topic.

By @SzymonBednarz Photography

Yes, but Taxi on a yellow background and a standard shape is not copyrightable. Special designs could be copyrightable. Depending on from where you are, taxi sign designs are standardized, to help people to recognize taxis immediately. In Germany, even the car colour is (or was) standardized.

The London Taxi cab is copyrighted, as is probably also the London bus.

[George_F]

And just to add:  Just the word taxi is not IP protected as far as I know, but a graphic with any sort of design on the side of a car probably has copyright attached to it.

Uber is a trademarked brand and would likely be not accepted for commercial use in any form, at least from my understanding.  You could probably submit a photo of an Uber logo used on a car as illustrative editorial though.

Edit: I do wonder if a text graphic with "Taxi" has IP attached to it?

[Abambo]

Edit: I do wonder if a text graphic with "Taxi" has IP attached to it?

By @George_F

No!

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

Obviously "Uber" is a trademarked logo and business name. I don't think "Taxi" is since it's a generic noun. 

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Thanks Jill. I will probably avoid this type of stocks just to be safe tbh.

[Jill_C]

Photographing in public places often doesn't work out for a Stock photographer, because there are so many potential IP and privacy concerns. Signs, logos, people, vehicles, even some buildings, can contain IP and frankly, it usually isn't worth trying to edit them all out. If I can clean up an image in 5 minutes or less, I might consider submitting it as a Stock image; otherwise I don't bother.