London London - what exactly are we allowed to do?

It's up to Getty and any other stock agency to set their own terms. The point is that if there is no association, there is no infringement. A picture including a trademarked logo, device or even building does not in itself infringe on a trademark.

The other link I posted (by Dan Heller) is a very good. Whilst it is written from an American perspective, it is one of the best guides to copyright and trademark infringement I have seen.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
City of Westminster are fine with what they term simple filming. However, be aware that they don't own Parliament square.
 
Steve Smith said:
It's up to Getty and any other stock agency to set their own terms. The point is that if there is no association, there is no infringement. A picture including a trademarked logo, device or even building does not in itself infringe on a trademark.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, which was why I was careful to state that no legal precedent had been set by the fragrant tree case.

The practical effect for photographers selling stock photos of the trees is very nearly identical to a legal bar, though. I doubt other stock agencies will wish to attempt a defence in court when Getty have thrown in the towel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top