Understanding 'copyrighted material'

posted by soultga, Aug 9, 2006 10:15 AM — 1 comments

This is fair enough, as my interpretation of the rules was that the pictures might fall foul of this - both feature the Tesco sign very prominently, though this does make for a striking image; outside the UK, the stores' logo often seems to be used as a key architectural feature of the building - planning rules wouldn't allow that over here, as I'm sure there's some limit on how large and prominent a sign in the UK can be.

What confuses me, however, is why a Tesco logo is copyrighted material, but a Next logo is seemingly acceptable - http://www.sxc.hu/photo/183701. Indeed, seeing the Next photo was what prompted me to try uploading the Tesco one in the first place. Equally, if you search SXC using the term 'logo', it brings up all manner of company logos, including Apple, Renault, Audi and Dell. Are these not copyrighted material too?

I'm not questioning SXC's policy, as it's obviously there for a purpose. However, I am trying to get my head around what's allowed and what isn't. As someone who photographs a lot of urban landscapes, I think it's a bit of a grey area given that company fascias and identities can often be turned into architectural features that become integral parts of a street scene. By this definition, would it be unacceptable to upload a photograph of a busy high street if logos were visible and identifiable?

I've e-mailed SXC to try and get some clarity on this issue, but would appreciate people's thoughts and advice!