# Can I Take Pictures of Brand Name Items and Put Them On My Shirts?



## blakghost (Jan 28, 2011)

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if it would be legal for me to take a picture of a brand name item, put it on my shirt, and sell it? For example: I take a picture of my BMW(i wish i had one) and then put that picture on my t-shirt and sell it. Also, can I remove the BMW emblem in Photoshop and sell it like that? Is this legal?

Thank You!


----------



## jean518 (Sep 23, 2009)

Don't think so! IF it is your BMW and you only want to put a pic of your BMW on a shirt for you to wear, maybe. However, taking a pic and putting it on a shirt to sell with or without the emblem is most likely not a smart move.


----------



## blakghost (Jan 28, 2011)

What if I re-worded the text on my site to say "Free t-shirt" when you make a $25 donation?


----------



## poker (May 27, 2009)

No. Even if you took off the words the styling still belongs to BMW. 



blakghost said:


> What if I re-worded the text on my site to say "Free t-shirt" when you make a $25 donation?


Funny! You are joking right?


----------



## blakghost (Jan 28, 2011)

poker said:


> No. Even if you took off the words the styling still belongs to BMW.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny! You are joking right?


I'm not joking....lol. I have heard of people running businesses by saying its a donation instead of a purchase. Well, I guess you guys have answered my question. Its not the answer that I want but the law is the law. Thank You for replying.


----------



## Dennis Graves (Apr 27, 2009)

They ask for donations because they don't have to pay taxes on donations. They have to pay taxes on income from purchases.

Dennis Graves


----------



## mrmopar64 (Oct 1, 2009)

I called and talked to a photog friend and was told that as long as YOU take the pix out in public you can print and sell with no prob if there is a person in the pic you must get their ok in order to be able to sell it
She is going to send me some info I'll post when I get it

Hope this helps

MM64


----------



## blakghost (Jan 28, 2011)

mrmopar64 said:


> I called and talked to a photog friend and was told that as long as YOU take the pix out in public you can print and sell with no prob if there is a person in the pic you must get their ok in order to be able to sell it
> She is going to send me some info I'll post when I get it
> 
> Hope this helps
> ...


Where is the "Thanks" button??...LOL. Thank You!


----------



## mrmopar64 (Oct 1, 2009)

blakghost said:


> Where is the "Thanks" button??...LOL. Thank You!


 BTW... she also said that if you take a pic of the logo only and put it on a shirt you would be getting into a gray area even if you took the pix

Also the pix that are called stock photos are pic that are taken so there is no bradning that can be seen in the pic

MM64


----------



## jwininger (Sep 18, 2008)

if you take a picture of something you own IE (your dream BMW) and put onto a t-shirt and sale then chance are you will be okay.. now if you do this and it becomes a hit and you sale thousands upon thousands of them well then BMW could and might catch on and have an issue with it.. Now dont quote me on this but i think if you sale a few here and there you should be okay... good luck in whatever you choose.


----------



## poker (May 27, 2009)

mrmopar64 said:


> I called and talked to a photog friend and was told that as long as YOU take the pix out in public you can print and sell with no prob if there is a person in the pic you must get their ok in order to be able to sell it
> She is going to send me some info I'll post when I get it
> 
> Hope this helps
> ...


I am a photographer and have a portfolio on istockphoto.com. Even if you take a photo out in public, there can be no identifiable brands in the photo. As you said, people will need release forms and some forms of property will need release forms as well.

I took a photo at an outdoor market and my photo was rejected because a company name was readable (barely) on a rusty can. I took a photo of a common brick building with zero company names on it and it was pulled even after approval since I didn't have a property release.


----------



## ChameleonPrints (Apr 7, 2007)

mrmopar64 said:


> I called and talked to a photog friend and was told that as long as YOU take the pix out in public you can print and sell with no prob if there is a person in the pic you must get their ok in order to be able to sell it
> She is going to send me some info I'll post when I get it
> 
> Hope this helps
> ...


This is not an entirely accurate statement, and I wouldn't be so quick to take the word of an artist or photographer. 

If you are part of something like a BMW car club which has gotten permission from BMW to use the logo and sell t-shirts with pictures of their cars and such, then you most likely can sell a picture of a BMW. But if you are just joe on the street trying to make an easy buck off someone else's brand by selling a pic of your BMW to BMW enthusiasts... then prepared to be sued into the stone age.

If your serious about wanting to do this, talk to a copyright lawyer first, they would know more than any of us would about the legalities of your plan.

On a side note... something doesn't have to be illegal for you to be sued.


----------



## veedub3 (Mar 29, 2007)

I have actually had this happen but with Volkswagen. I am in a VW car club, we were using the VW logo within our club design, we were sent a cease and desist notice and had to go through the proper channels to use the logo. The design that year was of the winning show car incorporated with the VW logo and we were selling them to the club members and we later found that this was in fact illegal. 

I seriously suggest that you not take the advice of those that are not legal professionals including mine, but if you are serious about this then take the time to get a consultation from an IP Attorney. Some of them will give you an hour for free.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

mrmopar64 said:


> She is going to send me some info I'll post when I get it


Yes, please post the info when you get it.

I would like to read the part about how copyright ownership of a photo automatically grants reproduction rights of the intellectual property within the content of the photo.


----------



## binki (Jul 16, 2006)

I think if you have to ask the question then you know it is wrong.


----------



## gotshirtz001 (Sep 23, 2008)

I am not a lawyer, but...

I would imagine that the heart of the matter is whether the brand or likeness of the BMW was a significant factor in the purchase of the shirt. If a case can be made that no sale would have taken place without the presence of the BMW on the shirt, then I would imagine that you are using another person(s) intellectual property for personal gain... hence they have the right to grant or deny you permission of use and collect a fee.

*Example 1:*
*A BMW happens to be on the Golden Gate Bridge (along with other automobiles) at the time a panoramic picture is taken.*
I would imagine this would be a tough case to make that the presence of the BMW was a driving force for the sale of this picture. You may be fine.

*Example 2:*
*A BMW is the primary focus of a picture that includes the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. *
It would be easy to make the case that the customer bought this picture for the presence of the BMW. Congratulations!... You have infringed on intellectual property.

Does this make sense?


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

I think you are trying to draw lines that the law may or may not agree with. Is there any legal basis or precedence that backs up your examples?

If BMW marks are not an important part of the artwork, then it would make much more sense to just eliminate those identifiable marks. This would be a much more effective way to avoid infringement.

Because the way I understand it, if you reproduce intellectual property on a salable good (such as a t-shirt), then you are at risk to be sued for infringement. The driving force behind the sale or the size of the reproduced mark will not matter. All that matters is whether BMW's attorneys decide to sue. You can go to court with the information you provided in your examples, but it will be up to a judge to decide. So unless your examples have some legal basis or precedence, I wouldn't assume it has a legitimate chance to hold up.


----------



## gotshirtz001 (Sep 23, 2008)

kimura-mma said:


> I think you are trying to draw lines that the law may or may not agree with. Is there any legal basis or precedence that backs up your examples?
> 
> If BMW marks are not an important part of the artwork, then it would make much more sense to just eliminate those identifiable marks. This would be a much more effective way to avoid infringement.
> 
> Because the way I understand it, if you reproduce intellectual property on a salable good (such as a t-shirt), then you are at risk to be sued for infringement. The driving force behind the sale or the size of the reproduced mark will not matter. All that matters is whether BMW's attorneys decide to sue. You can go to court with the information you provided in your examples, but it will be up to a judge to decide. So unless your examples have some legal basis or precedence, I wouldn't assume it has a legitimate chance to hold up.


Disclaimer added...

Maybe TSF should create an auto-response for anyone asking this question.
My point was that the shirt the OP was planning to produce would be a pretty blatant violation.

However, people are gonna do as they see fit, it's a matter of whether they want to roll the dice or not. 
The OP is obviously just looking for someone to tell him it's OK (which I am not doing)...


----------



## fajedi (Oct 6, 2010)

Good stuff.


----------



## blakghost (Jan 28, 2011)

Yes it does. Thank You!


----------



## Dante2004 (Aug 23, 2010)

blakghost said:


> I'm not joking....lol. I have heard of people running businesses by saying its a donation instead of a purchase. Well, I guess you guys have answered my question. Its not the answer that I want but the law is the law. Thank You for replying.


I used to try to pull that crap in college. I was broke and we would get football season tickets dirt cheap. I would scalp the tickets - which was illegal (if you sold them above face value). I tried a few different ideas...all funny...none of them "legit".

I sold regular pencils for $XX...and you got a free ticket to the game.

I also sold "autographed ticket stubs" for $XX. It just so happened it was MY autograph and the ticket stub just HAPPENED to be for the game that day. 



*I* thought I was sneaky, creative and innovative

The *COPS* that would eventually catch me...not so much.


----------



## Red Leaf (Feb 2, 2011)

Try and stay away from using other peoples brands because it may come back to bite you later. You can make a sweet BMW shirt for yourself to wear around the town, but trying to mass produce or sell is a bad bad idea


----------



## poker (May 27, 2009)

This isn't really a great example but it shows that the big companies will pick on the little people. They ARE watching:

Law.com - Nonlawyer at 9th Circuit Beats Toyota on Trademark Law


----------



## ChameleonPrints (Apr 7, 2007)

I don't know the OP, but this just sounds to me like another person looking for a shortcut to success. You can look for all the shortcuts in the world but success comes from hard work and doing business honestly.


----------



## jeryharvey (Nov 29, 2010)

I wonder if you take a pic of Barack Obama and put it on your tees to sell, you wont get any trouble.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

jeryharvey said:


> I wonder if you take a pic of Barack Obama and put it on your tees to sell, you wont get any trouble.


Politicians are the exception to the rule. While they don't actually waive their Right of Publicity, it is rare for them to pursue legal action due to the possibility of negative media attention. That said, you still have to respect copyright laws. So if you didn't take the photo you could still get sued by the photographer, who owns the copyright to the photo.


----------



## poker (May 27, 2009)

kimura-mma said:


> . So if you didn't take the photo you could still get sued by the photographer, who owns the copyright to the photo.



I was wondering what was the end result of the artist vs photographer battle:

Obama 'HOPE' poster artist, AP end copyright battle | Tulsa World


----------



## ChameleonPrints (Apr 7, 2007)

So basically, the AP won... not surprised.


----------

