Anybody has an idea about world wide laws about using a trademarked product (real 3d object including logo as reference for 3d modeling and texturing) inside a video tutorial production?
I assume because the video will not be free that one cannot use a registered product even when you only make a movie about how to rebuild it in 3D and use the real object only as a reference and recreate the mode and texture all on your own.
Can changing the identity be enough to be safe?
I love this one:
It depends on the form of the trademark really.
There are not only name trademarks, at least in most parts of europe.
There are also, I forgot the name, but for instance you might know “Milka Schokolade”. You are not allowed to make chocholate in purple.
As for starbucks it might be prohibited to use the green, or the round logo with the stars. On top of that it depends on the copyright and trademark laws of each individual country. I think it´s something you got to take to a commercial lawyer or an attourney of economic affairs.
On the other hand, if the company approves of what you´re going to do with their name you often get the OK from them as well. Doing a video tutorial showing how to do starbuck cups… great, free ad for starbucks. Actually they should pay you for product placement.
If you use the starbucklogo on sacks of coffee in an animation where grunts held like slaves work on the fields and carry them (almost like in real life… shh. who said that? what?) they´ll surely offer to sue you if you make it public.
I think that´s a too touchy topic, especially as you´re in the US of A to approach without a lawyer.
I am tasked with doing a product rendering film and those tutorials I think
work very well when a known objects is being observed, and reproduced.
You can easily get those on your own and use them as a reference.
I could write to the company in case I might use their packaging / shape / logo
but what ensures that when I get a reply that this is also legally valid?!
I used the starbucks image more as a jokeing reference where the original logo
is so different but everybody knows what it should resemble.
What about just using reference images from wikipedia? That’s what I usually do, though I don’t know if that is 100% perfect and legal. But I think if it is already in the wiki commons, it should be ok?
I assumed as much and I don´t want to paint it black, I am just cautious. Often enough companies already feel offended with the follwing urge to sue if their brand is used jokingly and even if their goal is just to stop you not to pluck you, once the lawyers are active you´re stuck with the fees.
If I was to use pack/shape/logo of a company, I would most likely write their PR department to ask for a signed permission to use the stuff, or, contact my lawyer to check if what I am about to do is legal. I´d prefer prior one though, because latter. Well a companies legal council most likely will make a knot in our average personal lawyer and if they want to sue, they sue. They got the longer breath.
OT: I think it´s one of the most basic tasks in CG and think it´ll be a good tutorial. If one can´t understand the geometrical properties of an object, understand its spatiality and reproduce it, CG isn´t for him - (or her. Even more off topic, what´s the proper english use if you talk about an arbitrary person?)
I don’t create tutorials commercially, but I usually don’t bother with this kind of stuff. Companies have better things to do than hunt down people who are giving them free publicity. I don’t think google will mind if I advertise Chrome for them.
Well that´s a pretty simple-hearted view. And it´s not really about what you think, but what the law says if it´s coming down to it. For free use it´s often tolerated on a “fair-use” basis, for commercial use the situation tightens.
And actually yeh, companies have whole departments of web-scouts designated to hunting down those people. Walt Disney is the most famous for doing so I guess, followed by Nintendo.
They search for the use of their trademarked and copyrighted stuff and then evaluate if it´s to their liking or not and often enough they blindly raged through fanprojects and other stuff although there was neither commercial intent nor malignancy.
The proper way for you for instance would have been to read up on the permissions guidlines:
http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html
Then find out that you´re pretty much good you only might want to mention that you´re not affiliated with google nor present them and in case of ANY doubt you simply fill out this form and apply for the legal usage:
http://www.google.com/support/contact/bin/request.py?contact_type=permissions_app
As for Claas who has commercial intend there is no way around applying for the usage IF he wanted to use any google brand features:
http://www.google.com/support/contact/bin/request.py?contact_type=film_app
And as you see in the google guidelines also deriving, altering or tinkering would be probibited. So it´s better to clearify that stuff upfront. Else not only your revenue goes to the holder of the trademark, also the court costs and the penalty.
It has become a cruel world with patents and trademarks, and ignorance of the law still is no excuse, neither is to think to mean well.
Arexma
you speak a lot of truth and OL77 think about music and youtube were kids made youtube movies for fun and using a song and they got sued big times. Those situations can be a lot more dangerous than you might think, specifically costly.
I am all for going after pirated and illegal movie services - but in Germany a new law industry emerged to hunt down those innocent people who made simple mistakes without any intent of monetary gain.
A warning would really be enough.
Safest to create your own branding… make it not so clearcut!
if you do reference other stuff or pastiche it, never ever admit it… don’t keep reference objects of it on your pc… make sure you have some original pencil sketches of your design. stick to the “any similarity to people or brands living or dead is entirely coincidental” type of line.
Then the worst that could happen should be that you’re asked politely to take stuff down in the case that a brandholder thinks you’re too close to their brand, and even then you could seek legal advice at that time and fight your case.
Even car manufacturers are aggressively pursuing “fan” models and films these days.
OFC. It´s a double win - for them. You got to license the cars for a game/video and they get free ad´s. Basically you pay them to sound the drum for them. As return service they make sure you made no mistake modelling their cars lol.
But who do I tell… IIRC you worked as art director at Criterion? Or didn´t you use “real cars” in Burnout?
At the end of the day the courts decide. The “big” players have money they can spend on lawyers fees etc and the smaller players can’t really put a stand against this. I often read in the papers about these kinds of stories.
Once however, I saw a T-shirt photo of walt-disney with a small store stand in the background, which the small operator challenged. I mean you can’t use walt-disney characters in a small town wall without walt-disney approval, and walt-disney used the small store stand without permission. Not sure of the outcome, but it made pleasant reading.
It really depends on how the owner has set up there copyrighting, and your usage.
I know that some copyrighted items can be used under the fair use clause. For instance if you leaned out of your window and took a photograph of your neighborhood with the intent of writing a modeling tutorial, it would be difficult to pursue legal action if you included a copyrighted billboard in the tutorial.
One thing is absolutely certain though, where money is involved there are no boundaries, especially in this bad economy. What you risk is losing all of your assets and or having your wages garnished for the rest of your life. This example stands out in my mind.
In many cases the company in question would be more than happy to have there logo be the subject of a tutorial. It would be worth it to give them a call and get there opinion.
Ha ha, no real cars in Burnout! we had to make sure that all features were “generic signifiers” of a class rather than specific to any manufacturer… with a legal adviser that got paid in power lunches!
Last year I worked on Need for speed Hot Pursuit… different story there: I had to avoid showing certain manufacturers and models in all the trailers because even though they were in the game they were notorious for wanting sign off and approval on everything and we’d never have released anything…
Once the game was released the net got flooded with captures of those models, so it makes no real sense!
Oh, and I was once on a team management course and we got barred from starbucks for taking a photo of my team drinking their coffee… the manager rushed over yelling “no cameras, no cameras!” so i went out in the street and took the photo through the window… They don’t own the street, but still they argued that we couldn’t point a camera at the front of their shop!
Be very careful of using anything that can be construed as a parody of the Starbucks logo. A guy was sued (unsuccessfully) for making a parody of their logo.
Michael W
your idea of making up your own of course makes perfectly sense however I would like in a photo studio to take
pictures of the objects as a reference. That is the crux. I would have to build all the packagings on my own which
is quite difficult.
I might simplify the whole and use geometric basic objects for the light studies while I think from advertisement
users know objects and thus seeing the reference image and rebuilding it would reinforce the concepts better.
Often I found students struggling with rendering because they did not know what to do - no reference and hand to study.
Not really. Assuming the shape is not trademarked (happens too 
) you just get a can of white matt finish paint and spray it. Takes 5 minutes to spray, 10 minutes to be dry enough not to have glossy highlights taking the picture. This “chrismtas snow in a can” also works nice, it´s a bit rough but it covers everything.
Maybe you should go for gray, this way the reference looks like the default cube lol 
If you need a texture on the reference, scan or photo, obfuscate image, print, glue on it again.
Arexma,
I might not have been clear, what I wanted to say is, when I use for example a boxed wine package
you can nicely study the amount of mirror reflectivity on the glossy packaging material.
This might be tough to rebuild on your own. I might find something glossy - but I hardly can find 100%
the same material.
I could go through paper stores and try to find something similar or use different spray paints etc.
but this would require quite some extra time to do as you can see.
Oh boy I wish the law would not be so restrictive here.
I am not a lawyer, but I have dealt with legal issues like these many times. I am 99% certain that what you are wanting to do constitues as fair use.
If you were using a wine bottle package, and creating a tutorial on how to reproduce the packaging in the real world, then I would be concerned. If you were copying another packages design and using it to sell your wine bottles, another red flag. The best way to explain fair use (imo), is to ask yourself if you are competing in any way with the copyright holder. The second question is whether the your product will impact the copyright holder financially in any way. The third question is whether you intend to present this product in a libelous or slanderous manner. (Think Logorama, how did they get away with that!)
Mainly I think that, as others have said, if you present said product in a respectful manner, maybe even explain that you selected this due to it’s “brilliant design”, then who is going to get mad? Of course I would stay away from Mcdonalds, Coke, Starbucks, Macy’s or any other marketing giant just out of respect and fear of both their legal power and stupidity. But do I think the Ferrero company would waste their time suing you over modeling a box of their candy in an educational seminar? Definitely not. Do I think it would hurt sending them a letter describing your intentions? No, but it would help your case, whether or not you got a reply.
Oh. My bad. I thought it´s “just” about feeling the spatial properties of objects, model them and give 'em a random texture, not about comprehending them as one whole.
The problem is the law is neither restrictive enough, nor international…The problem is the randomness to which “fair-use” it is executed.
StarBucks might sue you because you shoot a memento, while another company might even ask to use your work lateron.
One company might notice you used their wine packaging in a class as example for a design masterpiece, asking you to write a paid testimonial to use it, while the next company might sue you because the color you used is off by 1° and they see it as mockery of their brand.
3dmentia said it well 
“Fear the stupidity of marketing giants…”