Product photography on the house

Last year, an interesting ruling was passed by the judge regarding the use of stock photos. Normally, stock photos are protected by copyright law. The main rule is, that an intellectual creation has to be made independently. In short, creative choices have to be made. In case of pictures, these conditions are normally met given the composition, the angle, the use of light etc., but is this also the case with stock photos? Clearly not, according to a car company that used a close-up picture of a temperature gauge in a car.

The picture belonged to a Stock agency that demanded a compensation of € 3.200,- for the use of the photo. However, the judge agreed with the car company. “For every photo one has to adapt the use of light, the distance and the angle, if not already done automatically by the camera, but this does not mean that creative choices have been made. This is only the case, if the photo can be distinguished from other pictures in a way that demonstrates that the photographer made personal choices”
Does this mean that all stock photos can be used freely? No, certainly not. Most photos are still protected by copyright. However, in the case of photos of products it can go either way.  (Source image: TeWe)

copyright



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?