Today I received a call asking me to remove a photo I was selling in my own web and also at Shutterstock. The photo was from a logo of a national company. They told me that I doesn't have any right to do that and I replied that it was under "editorial" use so it could be use in news, articles, etc.

He answered that they have many lawyers wanting to sue because they go to comission  So I've removed the picture.

My question is, is this true? What about the other photos where I have logos? Here it's my url:

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3216251p1.html

I asked Shutterstock but as their replies are slow, I appreciate any comments about that.

To clarify: I don't have any releases for the photos I have under "editorial". If I have it, it doesn't go under that tag. I just walk for the street and make the photo.

Thank you.

I wouldn't risk it. Sadly the way the legal system is set up even if you are right it's going to cost you a fortune in time and money to prove it in court and for the returns from a single image it just isn't worth it.

^^ i agree

Just not worth it. Remove it and foggetabout

yes, you can sell photos of logos.

logos are trademarks, and trademarks do not receive any copyright protection.

Andy Warhol famously sold paintings which contained logos such as Coca Cola, Campbell's Soup, etc, and he did so legally.

University of Alabama vs Daniel Moore upheld that photographers can sell photos which contain logos.

In fact, as a freelance photographer, you have the legal right to sell any photo that you take.

That may be true but I wouldn't want the expense of testing it court any stock site also has the legal right to decide what it sells. I think you are oversimplifying a complex issue I suspect if Andy Warhol had painted a McDonalds Burger and Logo along side a grossly obese person he would have found himself in court.

Good luck with that theory.

Let's not confuse the stock photo business with photography in general or art. Thank you very much.

Had Andy Warhol painted a picture of a fat guy with a McDonald's burger, McDonalds could do nothing about it. It's called freedom of expression. They would have the right to sue of course but they would lose. It's not slander, libel or even mean. It's social commentary and falls under artistic freedom.

This PC misinformation trend that has people believing that anything that might be seen as offensive to someone, somewhere at some point in time, will get you sued, or arrested, grates on my nerves. Maybe some day that will be the case but not yet.

Warhol could not try to sell such a painting as stock obviously.

As for logos, if you take a photo of a logo for artistic purposes you will probably be fine but you can't sell it as stock for the same reason you can't sell photos of people without a model release. Stock photography is commercial photography. You can't sell a photo for commercial use, where someone will profit from it's use, when it contains obvious elements that are someone else's strict property, like a brand or a face. Unless you have their permission in the form of a property or model release.

Freedom of expression does not extend to stock photography because stock is not art.

Editorial use is a grey area and while the OP may have every right to sell the image for news related purposes, the company in question also has the right to sue him for it. Whether they would win or lose is irrelevant since the legal battle might bankrupt him and that intimidation is what they are counting on.

i think memakephoto explained it very well.

a logo is intellectual property and you or i have no permission to merely take a shot of it and use it as a stock photo for others to publish.

if the logo is incidental, in that , it is not in your face , but merely part of the scene eg. downtown manhattan with logos of everything but the kitchen sink. it is not a focus on a logo, but a focus on the downtown scene, that is entirely different, and you can may be able use that as an editorial.

you still can't use it as a commercial shot.

the thing with IT and permission of people,(Model Release) is really depending on what the image does . if you have a bunch of people watching football or jumping up and down in the street at a parade, you may get away without a model release because it is about the parade.
but say, if you happen to have a shot of someone playing pokemon in the street on someone's garden, or some guy playing pinball next day to where he works, and it happens to have a time that he should be in fact working ,
that could be in for a lot of problem. .. for you, for him.

much like say an editorial of a couple who was rescued from a Mini by the firemen who has to saw the car apart because they were doing some "amore"-gymnastics in the back of the Cooper.
the man was not her boyfriend or husband, but someone elses who was supposed to be abroad studying at the University.  (for example)...

even if that was in fact an editorial, and the papers printed it. it still could open up a new can of worms.

back to the logo, who is going to be using that logo anyway? the company has its own press,
and so, it would be deemed that any other usage would be more or less to be used as a counterfeit purposes.  that is probably why we can't sell logos.
eg. it is not uncommon for bandit music stores to sell fake Fender Strat or Telecaster of the collector market, so they get the Fender logos of such collector guitars to put on their counterfeit.
one example why IT owners are truly out to get anyone selling their likeness.

hope it helps. just my take in answering your question.