brand name objects in renderings

[Shaun Hamm]

Hey all,

 

I tried searching for this but maybe i'm not using the right keywords.

 

What is the rule of having brand name objects shown in renderings. For instance a bar with bottles of Absolut, Jack Daniels, etc.

 

I thought if it wasn't the focus of the rendering, then it was fine.

 

Any advice or site to reference?

 

Thanks!

[neilmcbean]

That's a good question. Based on working in films, I'd say it's probably fine depending on context. If you take a photograph and those objects happen to be in the photos then it's fine. This same rule applies to people - right to privacy doesn't exist in the public space, so anything that is captured in a photo is generally fine. But film has different rules around placement, primarily because it's marketing. Because it's a rendering there's intent behind the placement of the objects, but I don't think that matters much.

 

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/43038/broadcasting+film+television+radio/Keeping+Your+Product+Placements+Legal

 

That said a brand could still reach out and ask you to modify the image to remove their brand if they find it offensive. But I don't know that they'd have any legal case if the context was proper.

 

Also it's art - Warhol did it. There are a bazillion car renderings out there and I've never heard of Audi going after anyone.

[Ernest Burden III]

What is the rule of having brand name objects shown in renderings...

 

There is no rule.

 

This has been discussed here many times before and there is no set answer. But if you look at ANY rendering, you will see representations of 'brand' objects--chairs, cars, airplanes, clothing on people, dishes, kitchen appliances, light fixtures... The renderers are not being sued. You likely won't be, either. (No promises, you are in America).

 

There is differing opinion, legal and in general, about the scope of a copyright or trademark of a design. When you do a painting of a hat, you can call it 'This Is Not A Hat' and it is not--it is a painting that you own copyright to (oops, Magritte already painted that one, paint a picture of a car). Porsche may have some level of ownership of a car design, but you are not making a car from their design when you draw one.

 

So you shouldn't worry about rendering a Herman Miller chair. No one else does. Now, the more direct threat of infringing is trademarks--logos. A logo is by nature an image, so clearly showing the Porsche logo on a foreground car could be challenged but again, I don't hear about this happening in our industry.

 

I understand why you would ask, with the overwhelming sense of corporate entitlement and the predatory use of the courts in the United States. But if I want to put a Tesla car in a rendering I will, am not worried that I'll wake up to Elon Musk standing on the street outside my house yelling rage at me (though with him you can't rule it out).

[Scott Schroeder]

General advice is no, you can't use brand names that you do not explicit permission to do so. That being said, it is extremely rare that you will get called out for it. The chances of that are about as slim as you getting struck by lightning as soon as you win the mega million lotto.

 

If you are ever unsure, try to use a generic name versus a brand name.

 

I believe BMW dismissed their lawsuit against Turbosquid with the option of doing it all over again, so that may set some sort of precedent.

 

My legal expertise is more in bird law.

Edited January 4, 2019 by VelvetElvis

[Shaun Hamm]

Thanks guys for the insight. It sounds like the clients legal dept wants to play it safe and remove any brand logos. I hadn't really worried about it in the past but also haven't had it come up until now.

 

Even using a generic name wasn't good enough for legal dept since it still looked like a absolute vodka bottle. I think i'll just remove text all together.

[Ernest Burden III]

Even using a generic name wasn't good enough for legal dept since it still looked like a absolute vodka bottle. I think i'll just remove text all together.

 

Would an architectural photographer go into a restaurant they were being hired to shoot and ask that the Absolut bottles be taken down from the bar? The bar's owner does not have the right to 'allow' use of Absolut's IP, so saying "I was hired by the owner" wouldn't be cover. As I said, we see branded objects in every paid, commercial rendering and photo in use today, down to clothing, shoes and glasses. To think that ownership of 'designs' (which fall somewhere between copyright and trademark, and third-party images there-of seemingly in neither, and then prior-art (show me a 'new' design and I'll likely be able to show you an earlier version of it) is a tool to call out all commercial references to them as unlicensed infringement is just crap, a nice-try power grab.

 

When Elon Musk shows up I'll pretend I'm not home.

[Scott Schroeder]

To a sense, but that bar already has a contract to sell Absolut vodka, therefore they can display it all they want. If that bar doesn't have a contract to sell Absolut and it is in the bar, then that's a problem. It's no different than us being able to use Coke/Pepsi products in renderings for concessions in sports venues. The team already is sponsored by Coke so they want us to use it. Put Pepsi (or anything Pepsi like) in a Coke sponsored team and you'll see quite a few angry emails almost instantly. So sometimes the use of a particular brand has to to more with association or disassociation rather than copyrights.

 

There is a huge gray area here.

 

TLDR; If you are just hired to do a bar rendering and that is the overall direction. You are 99.9999999999999999% safe to use real world brand liquor bottles from say an Evermotion, Digital X, or personal collection.

[Casey Hawley]

Why wouldn't Absolut want their product displayed in a nice bar/club rendering? That is exactly where one expects to find such a thing!

 

And yes, please use Digital X, Monkey o Doom, and VizualMethod models!

[Ernest Burden III]

To a sense, but that bar already has a contract to sell Absolut vodka, therefore they can display it all they want...

 

That misses the point. If I have a gallery to sell art, a customer cannot photograph a painting on my wall and make posters of it. That would be considered a violation of the copyright, which is to say, ownership of the right to reproduce, or 'image' a thing--in this case a painting. A vodka company or clothing company might be happy with 'free press', but we are talking about a matter of what is the law. And clearly none of us know, and that includes the actual lawyers the OP mentioned being all scared to 'go there' by rendering a bottle in a bar.

 

A painting is by nature an image, but it is still a thing. A car is a thing, but not considered inherently an image. A car in not considered a copyrighted thing, but a photo of a car is. The photo occupies a different legal distinction than its subject. That is because copyright covers only audio-visual-literary works. Dance is covered only when the choreography is written down, and only the actual document. A musical performance would not be copyrighted, but a recording of it would be.

 

The invention of digital art creates new territory. A computer 3D model of an airplane is neither an airplane nor an image of an airplane. You can make a CG image or you could build a plane from it, but the 3D model is neither. Does anyone have any ownership claim to that model as IP?

 

shaunph78

 

...the clients legal dept wants to play it safe and remove any brand logos...Even using a generic name wasn't good enough for legal dept since it still looked like a absolute vodka bottle...

 

See? Real lawyers have no idea.

 

If you are going to worry about showing even the shape of an Absolut bottle in a rendering, then you should not show the shape of any product, ever. Do not show a Porsche, or a Calvin Klein jacket, not Ray Ban glasses, not Pilkington glass, not an iphone, not a Boeing if you're rendering an airport. Show none of it, without express written releases from every one of the owners of each and every product visible. Don't forget the buildings, those have owners and designers, too. I think the only things you could safely put in renderings would be naked people, dogs and the sky. Some plants are now considered designed products, so just stick to bare earth. How's that for entourage?

Edited January 10, 2019 by Ernest Burden

[James Vella]

I have been uploading my photography lately to Shutterstock and there is a considerable bar for what is and is not copyright material, this includes 3D renderings for illustrative purposes.

 

So far I have encountered a few things which were interesting to me as a 3D artist:

 

Property release for any product that has a design/logo/trademark such as Pepsi - that company must sign a release for use of their product in your images, this also covers images of peoples private property or landmarks such as statues, art installations, museums etc.

Model release for anyone whos face is shown within the photo (this means if you take a photo on the street every person who is recognisable must sign the release, this could be 20+ people) + a witness for each person.

Minor release for anyone under the age of 18 which requires their parents signature and a witness.

Nude image release of people release which is similar to the model release however they must supply additional information such as their passport/license to accompany the release, plus a witness.

 

The witness in all these examples cannot be the photographer or the parent/guardian of the model being photographed.

 

Some things regarding vehicles (but I would recommend reading the site link below for more information):

 

Airplanes – photographs are acceptable as long as the airplane model cannot be identified

Illustrations and 3D models of isolated airplanes are acceptable as long as they do not bear close resemblance to actual copyrighted designs

Boats/Ships - photographs, illustrations and 3D renderings of boats, yachts and ships, whether isolated on white or in a natural environment, are acceptable for commercial use as long as the design of the vessel is generic, the boat tags are not visible, and the manufacturer or brand is not identifiable

Isolated photographs of cars, whether isolated on white or in a real environment, are unacceptable for commercial use. These types of images are acceptable for “illustrative editorial” use if the image is staged (i.e. shot either in a studio environment or set up in a natural environment)

Construction and farm equipment/vehicles - Photographs are acceptable as long as the equipment/vehicle model cannot be identified

 

...the list goes on you can read below:

 

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000006561?q=vw+beetle&l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle

 

In essence it seems like there is quite a list of things which are considered a copyright violation, there's many examples available on Shutterstock to which you can read further if you are unsure. I have had many of my images denied so far as it goes through a manual review process with feedback as to what part of the image violates copyright law and how you can submit them to avoid this (such as editing the image to remove these items or submit it as an editorial/illustrative image)

 

Editorial has a few interesting differences to a commercial image such as being able to show peoples faces, art installations and museum pieces as long as its not sold as a commercial image and contains lots more information such as what date the image was taken/created, where it was, who/what is the focus of the image etc. A short quote from their website regarding editorial images:

 

"An image labeled as “Editorial Use Only” on Shutterstock (an “editorial image”) is an image that cannot be used to advertise or promote a product or service. The people, objects or places in editorial images are not released.

 

An editorial image can be used to illustrate newsworthy and current events. It can also be used to illustrate subjects of human interest, including: the arts, business, culture, health and fitness, lifestyle, social events, technology and travel

 

We do not accept images for editorial use simply because they fail to meet the criteria for commercial images. For example, we will not automatically accept an image showing a recognizable person, but which does not have a model release, for editorial use. Rather, an editorial image should depict a specific subject that could be the topic of a news story or piece of commentary..."

 

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/announcing-shutterstocks-new-editorial-guidelines

 

You can also view on the last link what is described as an Illustrative and Documentary image which also has different requirements to commercial made imagery.

Edited January 15, 2019 by redvella

[neilmcbean]

That's interesting. It's a pretty challenging list. When I dealt with the clearances department in film the list was similar.

 

Wonder what online model markets do? Tons of places offer accurate models. I've never submitted anything - anyone know if they have the same requirements?

[James Vella]

Its generally a good idea to read the individual license agreements with each vendor. For example CGTextures (now known as textures.com) allows you to use their textures when selling your own 3D content online provided you are not selling the textures as a texture pack or a material pack specifically as well as additional documentation provided with the model that states "One or more textures bundled with this project have been created with images from Textures.com. These images may not be redistributed by default. Please visit http://www.textures.com for more information."

 

https://www.textures.com/faq-license.html

 

Turbosquid has some similar license agreements to that of Shutterstock with different categories for uploading your content such as Editorial, Educational, Corporate and Games usage. You should read each carefully before uploading your content under those categories of course to ensure your content gets the best exposure and lifespan on the shelf, an example is when they had BMW come down their throat regarding the use of their designs(cars) on their site without expressed permission and the artists who made those products basically lost out on that deal (you can search on Turbosquid for BMW you wont find anything - oddly enough Mercedes you will).

 

https://blog.turbosquid.com/royalty-free-license/

 

All in all to be honest, at the end of the day as the artist as long as you are contracted to do a job and the client has requested a specific brand/item to be in their commercial image then the onus is on the client to get the permission, once you are paid the image can be licensed to them** and you have nothing to worry about essentially (if you want to take extra measures then you could always put a clause into your terms and agreements mentioning that the client takes responsibility for any copyright infringement by commercially using the 3D renders once they receive them, then you are legally out of the loop). However if you are selling 3D products online then I would be ensuring you're following copyright standards and submitting content in accordance with those eg. Editorial content is a good option for products with well known branding as you are essentially not requesting any copyright to that material and those who buy the content are liable for how they use it - not you.

 

In regards to your question yes there are plenty of websites that dont bother quality checking the content that is uploaded and as time goes on and the internet/laws become tighter (this is already happening on Shutterstock now for example), this will have a backlash effect on those providers if caught. I purchased a model just yesterday of a vehicle which happend to be a renamed max file with all the textures missing linked from an Evermotion package, the artist didnt even bother to change the paths or textures and I immediately asked for a refund (which they gladly gave me).

 

Here is some additional information regarding the copyright law of 1988 and specific to 3D rendering and scanning etc written in basic english, no law jargon with interesting case examples.

 

https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/3d-digitisation-and-intellectual-property-rights

 

edit:

**Licencing images for clients and royalty options (if you have an employer that you work for than your work essentially belongs to them and this is up to them to discuss with their clients):

 

"1. Artists sell copyright outright. They have no control over the ways in which images are subsequently used, and the new owner of the copyright is free to sell licences as they see fit and to retain all the profits. (Sometimes, however, agreement is reached that copyright will be sold but royalties will still be paid to the artist. See below.)

 

2. Artists sell copyright for a specific limited purpose; neither artist nor publisher can use the image for any other purpose. For example, if the image is published as a limited-edition print it can never be used for anything else, either by the artist or the print publisher.

 

3. Artists sell reproduction rights, or a licence, for a specific limited purpose; the artist retains copyright and can continue to profit from it. For example, the artist sells the image for use on a set of table mats, but can then go on to sell it for other uses."

 

https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/artists/advice/169/an-artists-toolkit/essential-information/copyright-law-for-artists

Edited January 15, 2019 by redvella

[Riaan Van Jaarsveldt]

On 1/4/2019 at 4:33 PM, VelvetElvis said:

...The chances of that are about as slim as you getting struck by lightning as soon as you win the mega million lotto...

Well I'm off to the races then as I got a letter from Land Rover Jaguar legal department today to cease and desist in the use of 2 Land Rover vehicles (bought from Hum3d and Turbosquid) in client presentation renders on my website. Anyone else been here?

Edited June 22, 2020 by Riaan Van Jaarsveldt

[Thomas Edward Allen]

That sucks. Did they give you any guidance? Were you able to just remove the logos?

[Riaan Van Jaarsveldt]

No they didn't but they want to me to sign a document that says I shall never do so again. The internet reveals that a 'hero' type shot with the car in full view is the problem. It may not be in full focus or construed to be the focus of the view. In my case, cars parked in a driveway. Letter was complete with screenshots from my website as reference. I'm just replacing them with other brands, easy.

[muhamadtaufiq]

So if the car is slightly blurred or obstructed it's not a problem then?

[Scott Schroeder]

It makes sense from their point. If their vehicle is front and center, it could be misconstrued as Land Rover is in support of this project somehow.

I almost wonder if they have some sort of program that searches around for their stuff so they can go after it. It just seems odd that they would single you out like that.

[Scott Dombrowski]

I'm not sure about Hum3D, but many branded models on TurboSquid are licensed for editorial use only. In their search options, you can specify the license type so that you get unbranded vehicles. It certainly cuts down on the number of models to choose from.