Quote:
Originally Posted by marcop
Much misinformation and disinformation here... typical for GFY. I've shot probably tens of thousands of images that had trademarks on them with no problems.
|
The lawyer's opinion article says that is what the ruling said -- so it's on his ass citing the Court and not mine;
Quote:
|
is a stark example of the increasing judicial skepticism toward efforts by trademark owners to use the rubric of the Lanham Act and related state laws to exercise control over the appearance of their branded products in expressive visual works such as films, television shows, or video games.
|
However, you could get sued or criminally charged with practicing law without a license -- my partner did 35 years ago in LA
Maybe not -- you just say that you have never been sued LOL
So, you have to CYA and put things in a bulletproof context -- it's a risk assessment -- what is there to gain? The PDF is interesting though. There are a lot of IT questions answered so it was worth the searching -- I saved the PDF as relevant with citations to refer to -- I did get something of value out of this.