-2

Is it copyright infringement to take a photo of toys, collectibles and dioramas and have the image transferred to a print or canvas and then selling that item on Amazon or Etsy?

EWolf
  • 1
  • 3
    The phrase take a photo has multiple meanings. For clarity, when you say "take a photo of ...", do you mean capture an image using a camera, or copy (i.e., steal) an image you found on the internet? – scottbb Sep 25 '18 at 02:44
  • Also, in the case of the diorama, is it one you created or one someone else made and is displaying as a work of art? – Michael C Sep 25 '18 at 04:16
  • The design and brand of the figure can be copyrighted by itself. The impact to your "business plan" is depending where you living. Also the quantity you added to the picture (not the push on the button and print on canvas, but the artistic work you add to the whole thing, can be importaint). If it is e.g. social critical art work with a barby doll repressed by a g.i. joe to repressent the repression of the women, than the exact toys are just random representations of the genter rolls and the copyright of the toys may become trivial against the scene by itself.So no exactly answer can be given. – Horitsu Sep 25 '18 at 04:26
  • 1
    Related: Commercial use of photos of toys? – scottbb Sep 25 '18 at 17:30

1 Answers1

-1

The short answer on modern toys is - yes - you would be in breach of the manufacturer's copyright to render photos of their products to canvas and then sell the pictures. Disney is an excellent example of a company that is extremely strict about its Trademarked toys and how they can be used https://info.legalzoom.com/legal-use-disney-characters-21231.html not least because the pictures you want to sell might be against the brand image that the company has spent time and money to promote. As far as collectables are concerned - I would avoid Trademarked Toys where the manufacturers still exist. If the toys were made by artists / designers/ companies that ceased to exist or died more than 70 years ago - UK - (95 years in the US if made before 1978), then the copyright is likely to have expired... I have taken and have sold photos of 100 year old and older antiques that I own - or have written permission to use - but even there you need to be a little careful as when Books and Toys fall out of copyright - new versions and editions appear that are, in their turn, copyrighted and trademarked. For example E H Shepard died March 24, 1976 - the copyright on his artwork won't expire, in the UK, until January, 2047 - although A A Milne's widow sold the Winnie-the-Pooh rights to Stephen Slesinger, whose widow sold them on to Disney - the other beneficiaries didn't sell until 2001 and made around $350m. According to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._A._Milne "Winnie the Pooh [was] the most valuable fictional character in 2002; Winnie the Pooh merchandising products alone had annual sales of more than $5.9 billion. In 2005, Winnie the Pooh generated $6 billion..." so you can see why copyright infringement is a big issue.

In response to Mattdm's comment about the confusion of Trademark and Copyright in my response - both concern the protection of Intellectual property rights - there is a blurring of these rights in the question. The question asked about copyright issues in taking photos of toys and reselling the photos after they had been rendered on canvas... at that point it stops being just a potential violation of copyright and becomes a probable violation of Trademark as well - and I felt that it needed to be addressed.

GMGP
  • 72
  • 6
  • 3
    This answer blends copyright and trademark in a confusing way. – mattdm Sep 25 '18 at 11:49
  • @mattdm - sorry didn't see I could respond to your comment yet (newbie) so I edited the original answer with a response at the end. What I should have also have added, however, is that most art / crafts are copyrighted automatically without the need for declaration - an author / artist / independent toy designer has an intellectual right to copyright at the point of creation. Trademarking enforces that intellectual right by registration of the logo / image / character / name in a similar way to the patenting of an idea - creating clear legal ownership. Most popular toys have trademarks – GMGP Sep 25 '18 at 12:24
  • Editing the answer is preferable to a comment anyway. :) I think it'd be stronger if you start out clarifying the distinction. Also, just to add fun, there might be design patents (which are separate from utility patents) involved, too. Also, copyright in toys is ... complicated. See https://nydailyrecord.com/2012/09/17/ip-frontiers-from-planes-to-dolls-copyright-challenges-in-the-toy-industry/ – mattdm Sep 25 '18 at 12:31
  • @mattdm - fascinating link - thank you - complicated, indeed :). In terms of the original question though - am sticking with my first thought - EWolf will be skating on thin ice taking photographs - particularly of recognisable toys and reselling them (on canvas or otherwise) - it is inviting legal action by the manufacturers ...unless he gets permission / or a licence... – GMGP Sep 25 '18 at 12:53
  • I'm not sure they're even creating these photographs — they may be asking about copying them from websites! – mattdm Sep 25 '18 at 12:57