Toy photos = copyright violations?

Discussion in 'Transformers General Discussion' started by Nevermore, Apr 27, 2008.

  1. Nevermore

    Nevermore It's self-perpetuating a parahumanoidarianised!

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Posts:
    13,946
    News Credits:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Location:
    Germany
    Likes:
    +400
    Came across this on Wikipedia:
    This is not about "using someone else's toy photos or Hasbro stock photos". This is about "Taking a photo of your own toys". Could Hasbro legally consider those photos copyright violations because Hasbro holds the copyrights to the toys' designs?

    (Note: I know Hasbro will most likely not start going after fans who advertise their toylines by taking photos of them. My question is not whether they will, but whether they could.)
     
  2. Valkysas

    Valkysas Attack Buffalo

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Posts:
    20,799
    News Credits:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +21
    no. if you own something, and are not knowingly bound by contract or other means NOT to take pictures of it, you are free to do so.

    wikipedia is just stupid.
     
  3. SPLIT LIP

    SPLIT LIP Dry built

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Posts:
    66,340
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    407
    Location:
    agile house
    Likes:
    +811
    QFT.
     
  4. Spekkio

    Spekkio Master of War

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Posts:
    2,332
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Likes:
    +3
    Not only that, but I would think that taking pictures for an educational resource would be covered under fair use.
     
  5. DJ Soundwave

    DJ Soundwave Action Figure Master

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,152
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    That would be totally stupid if it's a violation of copy written products......
     
  6. microclone

    microclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Posts:
    3,262
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    172
    Likes:
    +6
    so does this mean we cant take photos of toys to be sold on ebay? thats utter BS, true or not, the world just got a bit crazier.

    this the kind of crap i hear and think 'why do i even buy toys', they are worth only what heat they would release upon burning to cook food. This is about somebody somewere making an extra buck, its sweet FA about honest copyright.
     
  7. General Magnus

    General Magnus Da Custodes of the Emprah

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Posts:
    12,916
    Trophy Points:
    222
    Likes:
    +11
    Heck some of what we do here could be considered advertising.
     
  8. Nevermore

    Nevermore It's self-perpetuating a parahumanoidarianised!

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Posts:
    13,946
    News Credits:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Location:
    Germany
    Likes:
    +400
    Just to avoid any confusion here:

    The noun is "copyright", the verb is "to copyright", the participle form/adjective is "copyrighted". "Copywriting" means something else. :) 
     
  9. dark69

    dark69 BlackArachnia Terrorize!

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Posts:
    5,955
    News Credits:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +7
    Ebay:
    i'm with you on that!
     
  10. Moonscream

    Moonscream YES, We EXIST!

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Posts:
    4,334
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    202
    Location:
    The best, the Pacific Northwest!
    Likes:
    +17
    Actually, I think they could be argued as 'transformative works' which is a legal gray area JK Rowling is trying to negotiate at the moment. Something like 'Obsidian's Lament' where they're clearly being used to make artwork that adds to or derives from the original art (the toys and the TV show) is an example of a transformative work.

    Besides, if the companies were that into prosecuting derivative works using their toys, the webcomic Alien Loves Predator and the various Lego ones would have been shut down years ago.

    --Moony
     
  11. Sammael

    Sammael MightyMegatron from ATT TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    3,159
    News Credits:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Likes:
    +39
    Photos you create of items you own are your property. Wikipedia is wrong.
     
  12. Nevermore

    Nevermore It's self-perpetuating a parahumanoidarianised!

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Posts:
    13,946
    News Credits:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Location:
    Germany
    Likes:
    +400
    Well, Hasbro can't use photos you take of their toys.

    But a comic book publisher could stop you from posting photos you take of the inside of their comic books, even though you purchased those books.

    Owning something doesn't equal holding the copyrights to it.
     
  13. DJ Soundwave

    DJ Soundwave Action Figure Master

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,152
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
  14. Pravus Prime

    Pravus Prime Sorcerer

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Posts:
    14,116
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    277
    Likes:
    +70
    No, it's not true.

    A photo of a toy is the copyright of whomever took the photo. (Or distributed it, or paid for said photo, etc.)

    That's different because that's intellectual property. You can't take pictures of every page of a book and put it up online for the same reason, people pay for the intellectual work, and thus replicating it is copying it, thus making it copyright infringement.

    You can read/look at the scans of a book and get the same enjoyment you would out of it as if you'd purchased it. You can't get the same use out of a picture of a car, soap, or a toy as you do the actual object.
     
  15. Nevermore

    Nevermore It's self-perpetuating a parahumanoidarianised!

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Posts:
    13,946
    News Credits:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Location:
    Germany
    Likes:
    +400
    The photo itself is yours. But it's also a derivative of someone else's copyright.

    If you take photos of the interior pages of a comic book, are you free to distribute those photos?
     
  16. Moonscream

    Moonscream YES, We EXIST!

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Posts:
    4,334
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    202
    Location:
    The best, the Pacific Northwest!
    Likes:
    +17
  17. Gigatron_2005

    Gigatron_2005 President of Calendars

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Posts:
    7,871
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +1
    Actually, I think this could be one of those legal gray areas.
     
  18. kenm2474

    kenm2474 LORD DC TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Posts:
    6,061
    Trophy Points:
    241
    Likes:
    +0
    This sounds like the DVD Copying Debat again.
     
  19. Steevy Maximus

    Steevy Maximus Movie Megs eats your soul

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Posts:
    2,626
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    201
    Likes:
    +1
    Here is how I read the situation:
    When you take an image of a page from a book, you are reproducing material owned by a company. Material you have to purchase to view. I think we can agree on that.
    But, if you are taking a picture of the cover, you are reproducing a commercially available material.

    In the toy realm, if you buy a Transformer and proceed to make mold castings of the toy for distribution (a company recently got in trouble for distributing casted reproductions of GI Joe accessories and body parts), you are infringing on Hasbro's product.
    An image doesn't replicate the effect of actually owning the product in the case of a toy.

    That's how I see this situation. But no company is going to go after people for taking photographs of the toys they purchased.
     
  20. Nevermore

    Nevermore It's self-perpetuating a parahumanoidarianised!

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Posts:
    13,946
    News Credits:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Location:
    Germany
    Likes:
    +400
    Taking a photo of the cover is no different than taking a photo of the content in legal terms. It's just less likely that the copyright owner will be coming after you.

    Well, it is a 2D derivative of a 3D work.

    However, if you're using the photo for review purposes, it'd fall under "fair use".

    That only applies to the USA, however. Other countries don't recognize the concept of "fair use".
     

Share This Page