Fair Use in regards to Toy Photography

When you photograph someone else’s intellectual property, and by this I’m referring to licensed toys, the issue of fair use is not an abstract concept. As Paul pointed out yesterday,  we toy photographers work within an admittedly grey area. It’s hard to know where the line is drawn between the artist and Big Inc. when it comes to the idea of ‘fair use’.

If you’re one of the many toy photographers who would like to be able to pursue some monetary gain from you’re amazing photos, this issue will eventually become problematic for you. I think most of us are pretty realistic that selling toy photography is not some get rich quick scheme, so the idea that we have to fight over a few dollars, pounds, or euros with Big Inc. is discouraging. But even knowing that this is the case, the idea of making a little extra money on the side to help offset the inevitable toy purchases we’re always making is appealing.

I’ve seen many toy photographers list their work on Redbubble, Deviant Art and Society6 as an easy way to make their images available for sale. While this is admittedly a convenient way to sell your work because all you do is upload your photos, set your prices and sit back and watch the money flow in (OK maybe it’s only a trickle), yet it also makes you an easy target for the intellectual property lawyers and the bots who work for them. I only have to look to my friend Paul (aka Bricksailboat) and his multiple take down notices, to see how there is no rhyme or reason to who’s images are removed from these third party marketplaces and who’s aren’t.

Normally I would say, “Gee you asked for it. You’re knowingly playing  with someone else’s intellectual property. Of course you’re putting your self in the cross hairs of the corporate law team.” But what happens when the majority of your favorite toy line (I’m looking at you LEGO) is made up of sets based on the intellectual property from other corporations (i.e. Star Wars, Disney Princess, TMNT, Back to the Future, DC Super Heroes, Scooby Doo, The Simpsons, Ferrari, etc…) or they’ve licensed their own original property to another corporate entity; for example, Ninjago licensed to Warner Brothers. It doesn’t seem like there is much left that doesn’t come under some lawyers watchful eye.

Who can fight a ‘take down’ letter from a corporate entity delivered by another corporate entity? The layer of lawyers, who are ‘simply doing their job’, is so thick it’s impenetrable, overwhelming and far too costly to fight for the independent artist. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s what they’re counting on.

As in independent artist, I’m nearly powerless because I’m working alone. And whats worse, I’m not even a part of the conversation for artistic rights.

But life gets even more twisted for toy photographers when the toy companies reach out to us and use us to sell their products. If you’ve been paying attention, I’m sure you’ve seen Hasbro utilize a few prominent toy photographers to promote their toys. ThreeA is another toy company that has often used great toy photography created by independent artists in their social media campaigns. Maybe these artists are well compensated, but my instincts tell me they probably aren’t; flattery and a few free toys will get a corporate marketing team father than you can imagine.

I certainly don’t begrudge any artist the opportunities afforded them working with a large corporation, we certainly jumped at the chance when it was offered to us to align ourselves with The LEGO Group. What I object to is that Big Inc holds all the cards in the current paradigm. How is each individual artist going to be able to afford a lawyer to tell Big Inc, that they can stuff it when he next take down notice arrives in your e-mail in-box?

Much of the Fair Play and ownership rights issue revolves around whether the artistic work is Transformative. I do believe that in many cases that as artist we do take those little bits of plastic made in China  and create transformative work; and by doing so we own it.

I’m pretty sure lego never intended their mini figures to be liberated from their plastic universe like they are in my world. Or that Ninjas would take over a sailboat and then travel by camel across the United States like they did in the world created by Bricksailboat.  Are Storm Troopers’ wearing Barbie style clothes and kayaking in Scotland what George Lucas envisioned when he created them in 1977?  If we have to create work that is artistically transformative to own it, where is that line? How much transformation is enough? Of course if you’re recreating each Star Wars movie frame by frame using LEGO, I think we can all agree that would not be considered transformative.

Right now we’re independent artists, individually going up against Big Inc, or more likely being steam rolled by an army of anonymous corporate lawyers. But what if we banded together? What if we created or own sales platform that featured the best of the best in toy photography? Would a group of like minded photographers selling their work on their own independent platform be small enough to fly under the radar, but big enough to be noticed?

My personal  dream is to make this happen so that when the lawyers come calling (and I have no doubt that they will come calling ) I can say, “Hello, so nice to hear from you, let me introduce you to my own lawyer.”

Up to now I’ve made a conscious decision to only sell my work through the Bryan Ohno Gallery. I may be missing out on some amazing pay out by not going the mass produced route, but this way I control the conversation and more importantly I control the money. I also know that if the lawyers come calling, Bryan has my back: you can’t pay for that type of security in a world owned by Big Inc. This security is important to me and I think as artists we need to stand up for ourselves and demand this on all platforms. We also need to stop giving away our creativity for the occasional cash payout and a few shiny pieces of plastic.

I have no idea how to force this conversation and ultimately its clarification. Since our relationship with our own corporate overlord is in its infancy, by pushing this issue I certainly run the risk of a prematurely ending of our partnership. But if we do push a few buttons, at  least we would have an answer to the million dollar question of what constitutes fair use in the world of toy photography. Personally, I think we need to be asking this questions as loud as we can, because I’m afraid that if we don’t stand up for ourselves Big Inc is going to own everything, including us.

~ Shelly

Comments, opinions, shared experiences, criticisms welcome.

Even Boba can't outrun the corporate intellectual property lawyers.
Even Boba can’t outrun the corporate intellectual property lawyers.

19
Leave a Reply

avatar
8 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
Mark CrummettShellyAndrew SaadaReiterliedStefan (@herrsm) Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jeremy Hindbo
Guest
Jeremy Hindbo

What great timing for this.Just today I received an email telling me my image of a Lego stormtrooper was removed. Sigh …there are still thousands of images tagged with Lego and hundreds tagged stormtrooper. I totally agree that artists need to unite.

Jon Aiken
Guest

I’ve struggled with this topic quite a bit. “Transformative” is a term that needs detailed definition in the area of creative license before I feel like exposing myself to take down notifications and even potential litigation. I was developing a book of my writing and dinosaur photographs for a while, but ran into roadblocks when a brand I was talking with lost interest and backed out. Thinking that my work wasn’t “transformative” enough from a legal perspective, I closed the project down for the time being until I can partner with a brand or alter the toys enough to feel… Read more »

Chris Rose
Member

Having sold the odd print or two at local galleries I too am scared you what might happen next. Most of the money I’ve made is spent on buying Lego and other toys or to just fund my hobby. Some sort of clarification would surely help to put many a mind at rest.

fubiken/Stefan.K
Member

Never been thinking about selling but this sounds scary, and where will it end? Just hoping we won’t be stoped from posting images. This is just me overthinking. But i would be great to hear the outcome of this.

Chris McVeigh
Member

The problem with posing a question like this is that you may not get the answer you want. :)

HerrSM
Member

A most interesting topic brought up here. Even though I´m not intending on selling any prints at all I´m really interested in these questions and where it´s all going. A tighter group could indeed be very interesting when it comes down to possible obscurities.
Am absolutely following this conversation…

Reiterlied
Guest

Because both photography and toys can be expensive hobbies, I’ve recently been thinking myself how I could try to make a little bit of money out of it. While I have doubt whether there is anyone who would want to buy my photos, and while I think selling pictures isn’t really the way to make photography a living anymore, I think it could be worth the try. Still these fair use issues are one of the reasons for holding me back. While I doubt that the problem can be solved at the level of toy photography, I think that being… Read more »

Mark Crummett
Guest

This is one reason I stay away from well known, iconic figures. They have too high a profile. Disney characters? Of course, their legal hell hounds are watching! The main problem for me, however, is that these figures come with their own stories. And it’s very hard to separate the character from their story. Indeed, that’s one reason we buy them in the first place, to remind us of their story. But their inherent story makes them very hard to decontextualize. It’s very difficult to make a new transformative story of your own when the character’s story dominates the image.… Read more »