#1
So while designing the album art for our new EP my bass player took a picture of our amps and drums and shit in the space to use as a background. The question is this: Do we need to blur out the names (Orange, Marshall, DW) because we're using it as promotional material?

I know there' is a 99.9999999999999% chance nothing would ever happen anyways as I doubt those companies give two flying ****s if a nothing band from Boston prints 200 EP covers with their equipment on it, especially since we're making no profit off of them, they're all being given away.

You out there axeman? You seem to be the guru of all things copyright around these parts.
And maybe we can fly away from here, surf on the debris of a broken scene...
#3
I wouldn't worry about that, its free publicity for them right? :p

its not like someone will buy your ep because someone of the band has a gibson or whatever?

if ur worried about this you should probably take a sharpie and cover the names on your equipment, for when you go gigging :p


but in short: no it shouldn't be a problem, I just checked multiple local band eps next to me and no one seems to have bothered



Stop highlighting my signature!!


</td><h1>yay!</h1>
#4
Interesting question. On one hand, a logo is trademarked, and if you wanted to create a poster for your event and had the McDonald's logo on it without their permission, you can bet that somebody would have a problem with it.

However, you take a photograph of Times Square and sell your photograph, I don't *think* the fact that you have, essentially, a collage of advertisements attached to buildings, is a real problem.

The difference.... how the image is used.

I *think* that if the image is being used - or interpreted as being used - to imply an association of that brand with something else, then it is problematic. If the name brand basically appears only circumstantially in the image, then it is probably okay.

So, if you have a picture of the band and the gear where you can make out the Marshall logo on the amp in the background, that would probably be fine. If you took a picture of you languishing lovingly against your Marshall stack, where the Marshall logo was in clear view, and you were seen as endorsing their product - or interpreted as them endorsing you - you could find yourself with issues.

Keep in mind, though, that this is an educated guess... but still just a guess.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#5
Warning, legal definitions and descriptions involved. May vary between jurisdictions, this is from Canada which is similar to most other western countries.

"A trade-mark is a word (or words), a design, or a combination of these, used to identify the goods or services of one person or organization and to distinguish these goods or services from those of others in the marketplace."

"People occasionally confuse trade-marks with patents, industrial designs, copyrights, and integrated circuit topographies. Although all of these are forms of intellectual property, they differ as follows:

• a trade-mark is a word (or words), a design, or a combination of these, used to identify the goods or services of one person or organization and to distinguish these goods or services from those of others in the marketplace;

• a patent covers a new invention (process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter) and any new and useful improvement to an existing invention;

• an industrial design consists in the visual features of shape, configuration, pattern, or ornament (or any combination of these), applied to a finished manufactured article;

• a copyright provides protection for a literary, artistic, dramatic, or musical work (including a computer program), as well as three other subject matter, namely; performances, sound recordings, and communication signals; and

• an integrated circuit topography refers to the three-dimensional configurations of the electronic circuits in integrated circuit products or layout designs."

Source: A Guide to Trade-Marks, Canadian Intellectual Property Office


Basically, use of Trade-Marks is not regulated by an authority, but enforcement of Trade-Mark use is done by the holder of the mark. Generally, the appearance of a trade mark on a product for sale (especially if it looked like the holder of the trade mark was endorsing or involved in your product in any way) would create problems.

In your case, the trade marks are obviously attached to their own products, not yours. If anything you might be accused of endorsing said products, but I don't think the manufacturers would care about it and if they did, chances are you would just have to change or modify your picture. This is just my opinion, the decision to use the picture or not is yours and your liability and you should seek a legal opinion if it is of concern to you. Just covering my ass here.

Now, if the picture shows your band destroying a piece of equipment with a visible trade mark with the caption "Because it sucks" underneath it, then you could wind up in trouble. Remember that the action will be brought against you by the trade mark holder, not the Courts directly, so chances are they will send a friendly "Cease and Desist" by letter first since that is a cheap first action.

Trade mark enforcement is basically only done if it has the potential to damage the registered holder.
Last edited by Quintex at May 29, 2010,
#6
Thanks guys!

Edit:
Trade mark enforcement is basically only done if it has the potential to damage the registered holder.


Then I hope none of them ever listen to the EP or our asses are sued for sure.

heyyy-ooooooo
And maybe we can fly away from here, surf on the debris of a broken scene...