Copyright on posters (Satire / Parody)

[DCB]

I have been making some posters for 00 gauge advertising Hoardings as I find them very useful for hiding things which are better hidden.  Just wondering  about whether altering them as in a parody affects copyright and indeed how a photo image  of a photo sits copyright wise.   I have had phishing claims from copyright claimers over music in the past most later dropped (Some clown claimed to own copyright to "Waltzing Matilda") so I am quite interested.    Had to hide my previous post over people getting wrong end of the stick.

Edited October 9, 2023 by AY Mod
Copyright material removed.

[Bernard Lamb]

If the hoarding is visible from a public place, then you are at liberty to take a photograh of it. You own the copyright of that photograph. As far as I can see what you do with it is up to you. If you turn it into something that is hostile to the company that produced the original design, that might be a different matter.

Bernard

[Jeremy Cumberland]

The image might be copyright, of course. The text is your own, so you've nothing to worry about there. The biggest concern might be any logos or trade names, since these will be trademarked. Many businesses are very particular about unauthorised use of trademarks.

 

"Sidevalve"?

[PMP]

It they’re personal use for your own layouts it’s not a problem. If you’re making them to sell/distribute as a product, then some elements of copyright law come into play.

[TheEngineShed]

The optional heater is funny!  I can imagine the complaints from the Mrs when you didn't purchase that option...

[Danemouth]

My parents first car, a 1959 Standard10 saloon had the heater as an optional extra. When they purchased it in 1963 it had no heater but after the first winter one was fitted - luckily my mother ran the accounts office of the main dealer so had staff discount!

 

Dave

[Wheatley]

2 hours ago, DCB said:

 Had to hide my previous post over people getting wrong end of the stick.

You mean you didn't like the replies from people telling you ripping off Alamy's image was breach of copyright. 

 

You need to clean your track too :-) 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 08/10/2023 at 20:25, Danemouth said:

Standard10 saloon

First car I ever drove (12 y.o. while on an estate private road on holiday). Left me convinced that there was no way of achieving mastery of this art. Happily my Pa shortly after bought a Triumph Herald estate, and the following year at the same location it turned out to be much simpler...

[AyJay]

Interesting subject, thanks for raising it as no doubt many of us have copied elements of reality on our layouts.

However, I do wonder how long it will be before written text itself is a minefield in the litigation crazy world we live in?  Apparently, the word ‘easy’ is owned by and for the sole use of a budget airline. And if you wish to honour a Scottish ancestor by naming a shop after them, you are almost guaranteed to be hounded by lawyers for a certain eatery.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

47 minutes ago, AyJay said:

Interesting subject, thanks for raising it as no doubt many of us have copied elements of reality on our layouts.

However, I do wonder how long it will be before written text itself is a minefield in the litigation crazy world we live in?  Apparently, the word ‘easy’ is owned by and for the sole use of a budget airline. And if you wish to honour a Scottish ancestor by naming a shop after them, you are almost guaranteed to be hounded by lawyers for a certain eatery.

EasyGroup, the owners of easyJet, do not "own" the word "easy", but they have trademarked various brands with "easy" in them, including "easyLife". The band "Easy Life" said they are changing their name because they do not have the resources to cope with the consequences of losing a lawsuit. Quite honestly, I find it hard to imagine any judge finding in easyGroup's favour, but that doesn't stop corporate lawyers from issuing threatening letters, and the recipients capitulating. McDonald's have lost some trademark battles with other people named "McDonald" and using the name for their business, or named Mc-something else and using "mac", but usually the threatening letters and risk of huge legal fees makes people capitulate.

 

Two things from this are relevant here:

• It is trademarks, rather than copyright, that you are likely to get pulled up for (although getting pulled up for anything displayed on a model railway seems highly unlikely).
• Trademark infringements might get you a threatening letter from the business's lawyer, but all you need to do is stop using whatever is being objected to.

So go on, slander 1950s car marques to your heart's content, but if you get a letter from Ford's lawyers, I suggest you remove the poster from your layout.

 

Do beware of copyright of images, though. Again, the risk of action is miniscule, but copyright infringement is a form of theft, and you don't want to be a thief, now, do you?

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, AyJay said:

Interesting subject, thanks for raising it as no doubt many of us have copied elements of reality on our layouts.

However, I do wonder how long it will be before written text itself is a minefield in the litigation crazy world we live in?  Apparently, the word ‘easy’ is owned by and for the sole use of a budget airline. And if you wish to honour a Scottish ancestor by naming a shop after them, you are almost guaranteed to be hounded by lawyers for a certain eatery.

No, "easy" is only copyrighted in the context of company names, so you couldn't set up EasyModels (the mind boggles) as the EasyJet group could argue your company could be wrongly associated with them and bring them into disrepute.  The examples of companies using such names and being challenged have often involved them using orange lettering and logos as well, fairly deliberate attempts to associate them selves with a famous brand.

 

Actually the McDonalds Clan used the law to challenge the restaurant company during the McLibel trial.  They were able to argue that the company was bringing the Clan into disrepute and it was unarguable that they had the rights to decide who used the name, not the restaurants.

 

Or what @Jeremy Cumberlandsaid.....

Edited October 11, 2023 by Northmoor

[Wheatley]

Reproducing it on your own layout for you own use isn't the issue. It was posting it on a public forum which was the problem. 

[PhilH]

Which leads to the thorny question of how long does copyright last for? People make huge assumptions about this, but, as with everything nothing last forever. Part of this also is who actually owns the copyright. Just because you buy something does not necessarily give you the copyright as far as I can make out copyright belongs to originators not custodians.

 

[MyRule1]

Having some experience in this field it is indeed a minefield and I wouldn't attempt to give any advice on a forum like RMWeb.

 

All the topics: copyright, trademarks, patents and "passing off" fall under the general heading of Intellectual Property and each has it's own rules. The British Library web-site has some useful guides for all IPp issues.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

19 minutes ago, MyRule1 said:

All the topics: copyright, trademarks, patents and "passing off" fall under the general heading of Intellectual Property and each has it's own rules.

My hot button, in that this is totally unethical. The fundamental IP from which all other IP derives its commercial value is technical invention, and yet this has the least protection! Unify the rules to patent duration. 

[melmerby]

6 hours ago, AyJay said:

Apparently, the word ‘easy’ is owned by and for the sole use of a budget airline.

AFAIK That hasn't yet been tested in court.

When I saw the article on it last week I went onto Companies House site and found literally dozens of companies with the name "Easy" as part of their name, many existed before Easyjet was born!

I think it's just a bit of corporate bullying.

 

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

EasyGroup, the owners of easyJet, do not "own" the word "easy", but they have trademarked various brands with "easy" in them, including "easyLife"

There are many pre-existing Companies with EasyLife in their name.

EasyGroup are going to be fighting a lot of legal battles.

 

[Chris M]

Luckily for me the milk marketing board no longer exists. 
 

 

While personal use is clearly ok how about exhibitions? I might or might not have some images from Google street view on my backscene.  I’ve modified them quite a lot so the original source would not be obvious.

[melmerby]

Just looked up the trademark EasyLife and it has been registered in different forms to a fair few companies over the years and still active in most.

 

[Reorte]

On 08/10/2023 at 19:40, Bernard Lamb said:

If the hoarding is visible from a public place, then you are at liberty to take a photograh of it. You own the copyright of that photograph. As far as I can see what you do with it is up to you. If you turn it into something that is hostile to the company that produced the original design, that might be a different matter.

Bernard

My understanding is that you'll be breaking copyright if the hoarding is the subject of your photo, but not if it just happens to be in the background. Of course if it's entirely private, not published or shown anywhere, no-one will know or care (until they come crawling in the future hoping someone's actually got a picture of their now long-lost advert).

[kevinlms]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

EasyGroup, the owners of easyJet, do not "own" the word "easy", but they have trademarked various brands with "easy" in them, including "easyLife". The band "Easy Life" said they are changing their name because they do not have the resources to cope with the consequences of losing a lawsuit. Quite honestly, I find it hard to imagine any judge finding in easyGroup's favour, but that doesn't stop corporate lawyers from issuing threatening letters, and the recipients capitulating. McDonald's have lost some trademark battles with other people named "McDonald" and using the name for their business, or named Mc-something else and using "mac", but usually the threatening letters and risk of huge legal fees makes people capitulate.

 

Two things from this are relevant here:

• It is trademarks, rather than copyright, that you are likely to get pulled up for (although getting pulled up for anything displayed on a model railway seems highly unlikely).
• Trademark infringements might get you a threatening letter from the business's lawyer, but all you need to do is stop using whatever is being objected to.

So go on, slander 1950s car marques to your heart's content, but if you get a letter from Ford's lawyers, I suggest you remove the poster from your layout.

 

Do beware of copyright of images, though. Again, the risk of action is miniscule, but copyright infringement is a form of theft, and you don't want to be a thief, now, do you?

But I believe under Scottish law, 'McDonald's' and 'MacDonald's' and similar are NOT the same thing and are recognised as separate identities. So that international chain, would find it difficult to win a court case if they wished to pursue one.

[Neil]

Generally this guidance for the UK from the Intellectual Property Office (the official govt. advice) covers pretty much all we would need to know about copyright. It's written in an accessible style too. However there are exceptions listed here which I think goes some way to answering the initial enquiry, in particular these parts on parody and fair dealing seem appropriate.

 

"Parody, caricature and pastiche

 

There is an exception to copyright that permits people to use limited amounts of copyright material without the owner’s permission for the purpose of parody, caricature or pastiche.

 

For example a comedian may use a few lines from a film or song for a parody sketch; a cartoonist may reference a well known artwork or illustration for a caricature; an artist may use small fragments from a range of films to compose a larger pastiche artwork.

 

It is important to understand, however, that this exception only permits use for the purposes of caricature, parody, or pastiche to the extent that it is fair dealing."

 

 

"Fair dealing

 

Certain exceptions only apply if the use of the work is a ‘fair dealing’. For example, the exceptions relating to research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting.

 

‘Fair dealing’ is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?

 

Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:

 

does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair

 

is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work"

 

 

Though I've directly quoted a couple of relevant sections it's well worth reading both the general guidance and exceptions to get a full flavour of the intent of the law and to get a sense of how it would be likely to be interpreted by the courts, though avoiding the courts would be a very good idea. 

 

 

 

 

[Cwmtwrch]

The copyright in posters is most likely to be the property of the organisation whose goods or services are being advertised, as the creators of the artwork would normally be expected to assign their rights as part of the contract. A claim would normally have to show that the complainant has suffered a financial loss, or that the person complained of has made money without having permission to use the material involved. Even without a specific exception a miniature copy of a historical poster is not likely in practice to create a problem, unless you start selling copies.

 

The comments above about EasyJet, etc. are not about copyright but about trademark law, which is often much more important these days to companies as they are very protective of their reputations.

 

NB I am not a lawyer, and the above is just my personal opinion, having had to do some research on copyright in the past.

[Dagworth]

2 hours ago, Chris M said:

I might or might not have some images from Google street view on my backscene.  I’ve modified them quite a lot so the original source would not be obvious.

I don’t know what Google would make of my Ipswich layout, the whole thing is being built on a printout of Google earth imagery! 

Andi

[wombatofludham]

In the past when doing scenery for Microsoft Train Simulator 1 I avoided the need to get permission for brand advertising by inventing brands, like "Svensk" in a blue and yellow oval as a "pastiche" of Ikea, "Liffey" in place of "Guinness" and "Emerald Oil" for the petrol stations.  I got away with it.  Also, as I wanted "Wednesford" to represent 1968-1992 I couldn't use any reproduction advert hoardings as they would date horribly, so again for any permanent advert hoardings I invented local advertising, for the kind of local businesses who would take out a 48 sheet advert like the "Knight Inn, Wednesford's Premier Night Out" and "Len Langlands, Designer furniture store" (a pastiche of "Lee Longlands" whose irritating advert jingle used to be a staple of ATV in the late 70s).  As I enjoy graphic design and having a laugh it was fun and allowed me to design time neutral advertising although Wednesford typographically entered the 1970s around 1968 and stayed there for the next thirty years!

So one way around it might be to design your own posters that suggest a brand but do so in a gentle, non-defamatory way.