Tomatoville logo copyrighted?

[dmforcier]

CR, you're thinking of trademark. Copyright is national and requires no registration, though it is a good idea since it helps prove that you came up with the creation first.

My take is that Mischka registered the name Tomatoville as a trademark; thus the ® symbol. Copyright may or may not be germane on the name, for a variety of reasons. In any case, trademark is easier to defend.

I suspect that he took a public domain image and used it for the little tomato character. If so then copyright is not relevant. If the character is protected at all it is likely only when used in combination with the trademarked name. Anyone else could use the character in a different context.

[My Foot Smells]

in the famous Ellen Degenres photo shoot - was it the camera owner or the person who snapped the picture who had the rights to the photo?

[dmforcier]

Unless there was a specific arrangement, e.g. work for hire, the photographer.

If I use someone else's pencil to draw a picture, who owns rights to the picture? I do.

Was there a court case on this? How decided?

[My Foot Smells]

Originally Posted by dmforcier

Unless there was a specific arrangement, e.g. work for hire, the photographer.

If I use someone else's pencil to draw a picture, who owns rights to the picture? I do.

Was there a court case on this? How decided?

So, who owns the photo? Surely, Samsung is hoping it’s them. After all, what’s a lucrative sponsorship with an air-tight agreement worth if they can’t own the photos and do with them as they please. And while there would be some issues with regard to publicity rights of all the celebrities, this is where I insert “Hollywood, we have a problem!”

See, Ellen didn’t take the photo Bradley Cooper did. And according to US Copyright laws, it is the one who snaps the shutter who’ll own a photo, barring any specific written agreement otherwise. In that split second when Ellen handed the phone to Bradley she likely wasn’t thinking of the legal implications of that Samsung hand-off. In the moment, Ellen just wanted to get a photo of herself with her friends. But in that moment, someone at Samsung was screaming at the TV “Noooooooooooooo!”

And while I’m using the image, I’m doing so under the Fair Use exception. But unless Bradley Cooper signs over his copyright in the photo, he owns it and it would be up to him to enforce his rights. Perhaps he will sign over the copyright to Samsung, but who knows. This may leave Samsung in a bit of a bind if they’d planned to use the photo. That’s also assuming each person in the photo would sign a release to use their image.

Let this be a lesson though, for both individuals and businesses. If you’re handing your device to someone to take a photo, they, not you, own the copyright. If you ask someone to take a photo of you and send you the photo, they, not you, own the copyright. And if you’re a business and you contract to own the copyright in work created by someone you contract with then make sure they understand what that means.


Previous photographNext photographReturn to the collection

[Cole_Robbie]

Originally Posted by dmforcier

CR, you're thinking of trademark. Copyright is national and requires no registration, though it is a good idea since it helps prove that you came up with the creation first.

My take is that Mischka registered the name Tomatoville as a trademark; thus the ® symbol. Copyright may or may not be germane on the name, for a variety of reasons. In any case, trademark is easier to defend.

Yes, sorry. Copyright is national, sometimes international. TM is regional unless registered.

The tomato man would be copyright of the original artist, assuming it is not free clip art, which is probably is. When coupled with the tomatoville name, then it is a trademark. Almost no one actually registers the mark, except big companies. It's not really worth the money, anyway, since you get regional protection from just using the mark.

[dmforcier]

What a fun photo! I wasn't aware of the controversy, but I will say that if Samsung is depending on any deal with Ellen, then they're SOL. That deal is not binding on Cooper. If, OTOH, Cooper is attending a sponsored event, there may be a controlling contract (possibly implied) independent of Ellen.

Even though the US legal system owes Samsung one for that travesty that was Apple v. Samsung, I'm not rooting for the Koreans on this one.

[dmforcier]

Originally Posted by Cole_Robbie

The tomato man would be copyright of the original artist, assuming it is not free clip art, which is probably is. When coupled with the tomatoville name, then it is a trademark. Almost no one actually registers the mark, except big companies. It's not really worth the money, anyway, since you get regional protection from just using the mark.

Ah, but a web site is not regional is it? This web site thing throws a real monkey wrench into the whole concept of regional protection. And I'm not familiar with the latest developments...

I can see why he registered it. The name would be great on a tomato producing operation, especially with the implication that it is a co-venture with a well respected web site. A canny usurper would register his first, and Mischka could hardly change the URL.

[imp]

Did anyone ever find out anything on this?