Copyright of doll vs Copyright of photos of dolls?

I work for a publishing company. In the US, the photographer owns the rights to any photos she takes, regardless of subject matter. The right to publish them, however, is dependant on other factors that usually involve people, not objects. For example, If person A takes a picture of a patient, HIPAA dictates person A must have a signed patient release waiving the patient's rights to medical privacy.

In some cases, you might need model releases, such as for images of people who have an expectation of privacy. (People on the street or in the normal course of performing a job in a public place are usually exempt, as they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.)

If the photo was taken by someone else, you always need the photographer's permission to publish it. Permission laws can be complicated, but in your case (taking photos of objects you own) there shouldn't be any conflicts. It's no different than publishing a photo of a bird at your backyard feeder.

EDIT: I should add that if you portray a product in a negative light, you could open yourself up to a defamation lawsuit.

 

Ah good to have someone in the publishing industry weigh in.

I can say that if you portrayed a product in a negative light, it would depend entirely on the context. It could be argued that this comes under the "fair use" doctrine of criticism and critique which is absolutely protected. If it wasn't no one would ever be able to write book/movie/product reviews.

Defamation is also very, very difficult to prove in the US. The plaintiff has to provide absolute proof that s/he was substantially harmed, and usually hurt feelings do not count, you have to show actual monetary loss. This is why the tabloids get away with saying the outrageous things they do.

 

Very true!

 

Just going to add to that that if your photos are published to market something, you definitely need a model release. Most other times, it's not necessary. And, it's the job of the publisher to have the model release, not the photographer, though it's good practice for the photographer to obtain the release when they're taking photos if they think their image will be used to sell something.

If you're just making art, you don't need a release, though it's wise and courteous to let the people you're photographing know that you're going to publish photographs of them, and give them the chance to tell you that they're not comfortable with that.

 

Thanks! This is really interesting! I know some books with photos have come out like the BJDobraryum (sorry can't spell) and I think at least one person is submitting a photostory to a comic book company so I was wondering how this all this played out!

I might like to do something with my own dolls one of these days too!

 

Writing a review is one thing, but that's not what we're talking about here, I think. If you're using the products as a part of your work and are publishing it and selling it, it probably needs some sort of permission, just to be safe.

 

well i work as a free lance photographer as many other things. photographs always fall under the catagorey of art but that the same time it can always be bent. you are only covered so far but even as a photographer it is good to give out due where it should be given like who made the object ect. this covers you incase of random actions ect. but really it is a case per case sit.

 

No... As far as ordinary objects go, it's not required. Cars, red couches, the vase your flowers are arranged in... They're all fine. You don't need to get a clear from Ford, Bassett or Noritaki to have any of those things in art photographs, not even "just to be safe". If you're using them prominantly for marketing purposes (Say, using a Ferrari in your fashion magazine ad spread for high heeled shoes-), it's polite to ask for a sign-off and to mention the make and model of the item... but IIRC, even that's considered a courtesy and not a legal requirement. It's still just a prop.

Live models are a different story (Getting model releases has already been mentioned-) and publishing photographs of other art objects (Original paintings, sculptures and the like) gets into a very tangled gray area... but as much as we like to consider our dolls "art" and more than just sofa-like objects, I seriously, honestly doubt that they'd ever be covered as such re: questions over the publication of existing art. A unique, one-of-a-kind, original artist's sculpt, sure... But not Standard El #37,965.

Copyright, patent and trademark holders do have certain rights and controls over their creations, yes, but generally speaking when you buy an ordinary object, it's yours... They can tradmark the name and basic likeness, patent the construction process and hold the copyright IP rights for its "story" or the original sculpt for a certain amount of time... Making and marketing knock-offs isn't kosher, for those reasons... But using it as a photo-prop is solidly covered under Fair Use.

ETA: Someone up above mentioned Mattel and their actions against the artist who liked to mangle Barbies... That raises an interesting issue. Some IP and treadmark holders like to push the limits of what the law actually allows them... They choose to act as if they have more control over their products than they really do. They push with the hope that the courts will side with them in spite of the law, or that the individuals they're taking action against will just fold rather than fighting an expensive legal battle to prove a point.

For a lot of reasons, it's dangerous to let them to get away with that. If enough precedents are set, the doctrine of Fair Use can be erroded. That's not a Good Thing...

(No. I'm not an IP or trademark lawyer. I'm just the former content contracting and rights management specialist for a politics and opinion magazine, and a long-time Project Gutenberg geek. You don't even want to get me started on what over-zealous IP protection has done to the concept of the Public Domain. ^_^)

 

Thank you Brightfires, Mistress of Many Turtles! That is exactly the clarification that we needed on the legal issues.

 

If this isn't debate-worthy, or has been done before, as always, I apologize. I'm just not sure where else this would go.

Basically, I'm wondering as to whether or not it is (or should be) permissible to sell prints of photos you've taken of your doll.

On one side, it's your doll -- you've customized it, you did the work taking the pictures, and most often, still lifes aren't composed of objects that were created by the photographer anyway! Only the arrangement has been.

On the other side, the doll is art in itself -- it is not your sculpting (obviously this argument is null if you DID make the doll! ), and selling photographs of it would therefore be like selling photographs of someone else's art without their permission.

So, what do you think? And how does this stand IRL in terms of legality?

 

My kneejerk reaction is people take still life photographs of things that don't belong to them, like trees, plants, etc. And they frame them and sell them. Photography is capturing what you see through a lens, you are selling what you can view and capture, I don't see the harm in that and think it is totally fine personally.

 

I don't see why not. If you're stealing company pictures it's bad, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a law against me selling prints of any of my own dolls.

 

I agree.

Photography is a tricky medium, but Nice N Spicy basically said exactly what I wished to. Many photographers do not own the things they photograph, like famous architecture, or landmarks. And they have not usually made the objects that appear in still-lifes either, even though they may be quite recognizable.

It is more about the capture than the subject matter. Since we're talking about dolls, it is like saying that just because many people own an El doesn't mean each is capable of capturing a professional photo of him that another person may want to hang in their home.

 

This has been discussed before a few times. Legally, it's ok to do, from what I remember.

 

I see no issue with it, and I've done it before. *shrug* I didn't make the doll but I dressed it, posed it, set up the picture, did the editing, etc. It's no different from taking a picture of a building or a horse and selling those.

 

Check copyright laws. I know in some countries there are different cases depending on whether the focus of the photograph is the work copyrighted by another artist, or if that's just one object in a new composition.

For example, a photograph of a painting that just shows the painting and frame would be different from a photograph of the room a painting is hung in, where the focus is the room in general and the painting happens to be in the room.

 

I'd say it's fine. I mean - if you're taking a portrait, the person isn't your creation (and to be a little more serious - you aren't required to do their makeup and hair to be responsible for the art).

So I don't see why taking a beautiful photograph of a doll - whether or not you own it - should be any different. If someone wants to pay you money for the print, that's up to them. There are lots of pictures on DeviantArt that I'd love to see turned into prints.

I think the debatable issue is whether or not photographs of dolls are undervalued or not. I feel like still life photographs of objects that tend to be of personal value to somebody (like a doll, a stuffed animal or anything like that) can sometimes not be considered "art" the way a landscape might be.

 

haha, sorry, I hit this post already and forgot.

 

According to laws, you're allowed to take and sell photos of anything - Unless it primarily features a trademarked logo or someone else's artwork (i.e. another photo or painting etc. I think public (outdoor) statues are ok though.)

You shouldn't photograph people (especially children) without permission first - The exception of this is say if you take a photo of people on a city street without focus on anyone's face. It should be ok to photograph performers though. I mean it's expected that people will take photos of them. :P

If the doll doesn't belong to you, you should definitely ask the owner for the permission, although it would be pretty impolite to snap their photo, run off and sell it without them knowing about it. :P

 

Actually, the focus doesn't matter. There's legislation that protects street photography. If something's happening on public property, you can photograph it. A great example of this is the famous end-of-WWII photograph with the sailor smooching the nurse - that happened spontaneously in front of the cameraman and he clicked away.

So if a kid does something cute in front of you, you can take a picture. It's polite to inform the parents, of course, especially if you intend to sell the photo. But there's a legal precedent that says you don't have to. FYI, you also don't HAVE to respect someone's religious convictions, it's just obviously polite to do so - the case was actually over an Orthodox Jewish man who didn't want his picture taken because of his religion. The judge ruled in favor of the photographer.

-a budding street photographer