Can I use modified version of Apple, Android, Windows, and Blackberry logos in commercial advertising to show compatibility? I am making and commercially reproducing a script that would show textual advertisements based on a user's device. I want to, beside the text, have an icon showing the device in order to show compatibility with the device. However, I looked into the guidelines by each company and it looks like Android is the only one I would be able to do this with. In place I have though of using some modified logos, such as the last icon in this image. http://orig09.deviantart.net/9015/f/2013/158/1/2/boxed_metal_icons_by_martz90-d684ioq.jpg Would this be legal or would that still be copyrighted? EDIT: Here are the guidelines from each website. Apple Guidelines: Apple Logo and Apple-owned Graphic Symbols: You may not use the Apple Logo or any other Apple-owned graphic symbol, logo, or icon on or in connection with web sites, products, packaging, manuals, promotional/advertising materials, or for any other purpose except pursuant to an express written trademark license from Apple, such as a reseller agreement. I think this one is pretty clear. Microsoft Guidelines: Third parties may only use the logo without a license under the following limited circumstances: In advertising, marketing collateral, or a website that references your connection with Microsoft (e.g., the material states that you are an authorized distributor or reseller of Microsoft products) provided that the area in which the Microsoft logo is used includes the corporate logo of at least 1 other company with which you have a similar relationship. In an area of a website, advertising, or marketing collateral exclusively dedicated to the sale of Microsoft products, and in such a manner that associates licensed Microsoft software with the Microsoft logo. In this one, if the user is on a Windows phone there would not be a corporate logo of any other company on the page. Blackberry Guidelines: BlackBerry owns the BlackBerry family of trademarks. To maintain the distinctiveness of BlackBerry trademarks, logos, and imagery, BlackBerry must ensure these terms are used in a manner that does not imply that an app is affiliated or endorsed by BlackBerry, when in fact there is no such relationship. You need to have license from BlackBerry, or express written authorization to use BlackBerry trademarks, logos and imagery by third-parties. I do not have enough reputation to post more than two links so for my second link I will post a pastebin containing sources for the three guidelines.
The word "use", for purposes of trademark law, is a term of art meaning it is used in a way that may be a violation of law if not licensed. Not all uses of trademarks are violations. Similarly, there is a difference between using the name of a company and the brand of products or services sold by that company. In any case, using a trademark or trade name to REFERENCE a company or brand is not a trademark infringement. For instance, I don't need any license to tell you that I own a Dell or HP or Apple product, or that my software will run on a Dell or HP or Apple product. The use of a logo is, however, more sensitive and likely to require detailed legal analysis, if not an actual license.
The question mentions copyright, but corporate logos are more often protected by trademark law. There are significant differences in the protections afforded, and in where actions can be brought. Copyright Simple logos may not be subject to copyright protection at all. Individual words and short phrases, such as business names and slogans, are generally not protected. But let us assume that the logo in question is a graphic design of sufficient complexity and originality to be protected by copyright. Copyright offers essentially international protection, and the Berne Convention and the TRIPS agreement ensure that the rules are in many ways similar in almost all countries. One can sue in the copyright owner's jurisdiction, or in any jurisdiction where infringement occurred. If the defendant has a presence in the selected jurisdiction, collection of any damages will be significantly easier. Scenario from the Question If I have understood the question, the logo was originally created by P (or more likely by a designer hired or contracted by P) and P holds the copyright on the logo. But S has obtained the logo via B, presumably at a lower price than P would charge. Neither B nor S, I assume, has permission from P to use the logo. B's action in selling the logo to S would be copyright infringement (unless B independently created an identical or similar logo). S's action in using the logo without permission from P is also copyright infringement. P could sue S, or B, or both in Spain, or in its home jurisdiction (perhaps the US), or in other jurisdictions where the pirated logo had appeared. Actual damages, however, will be limited to the value of the logo (say what P would have charged) plus profits made from the use of the logo. But since S is not selling the logo, it will be hard to determine what part, if any, of its profits derived from the use of that particular logo. That is, how much smaller would its profits have been if it had used a different, non-infringing logo. In the US statutory damages are available, which can be as high as $150,000 per work infringed, if the infringement is proved to be &quot;wilful&quot;. But that is the upper limit of statutory damages, and the judge has wide discretion to set the amount of the award between the upper and lower limits. (The lower limit is $750.) Modified Scenario Suppose that P had sold an exclusive license to U. U is a US-based firm that is actually using the logo to identify its goods, which are distributed world-wide. The actions of B and S have infringed U's licensed rights in the logo, and U could bring suit for copyright infringement, either in the US or in Spain, or perhaps in other countries. But U would have much the same problem as P, it will be hard to prove sizable damages. Which brings us to trademark issues. Trademark Claims Trademark law is usually used to protect words, symbols, and images used to identify products and services being sold or advertised for sale or rental. Unlike copyright, trademark protection does not expire if the mark remains in use. Also, unlike copyright, single words or simple images can be protected. For example, the &quot;red dot in a circle&quot; logo of the Target stores is too simple for copyright protection. But it has strong protection as a trademark. Trademark protection applies in any case where a reasonable person might be confused as to what the source of the goods (or services) really is. It also applies when the mark's use falsely gives an impression of approval or sponsorship by the trademark holder. Unauthorized use of a mark to benefit from the goodwill or reputation associated with the original product or its makers is infringement. Trademark protection, however, is national. A mark protected in one country may be totally free for use in another country. It is also usually limited to a particular category of use If, say &quot;Scarlet O'Hara's&quot; is used as a trademark for a restaurant chain, the use of &quot;Scarlet O'Hara's&quot; for an anti-virus program is not likely to constitute infringement. Copyright has no such limitations. In some countries there is no protection for a trademark unless it is registered. In other countries, use alone can establish a trademark. The US allows protection without registration, although registration brings stronger protection. Also, trademarks can only be protected when they are actually being used &quot;in trade&quot;, that is, to identify or advertise goods or services, or for a limited time while a product is being developed and there is a declared intent to use the mark in the near future. Lack of use or cessation of previous use can cause a mark to lose protection. Scenario from the Question P is selling logos, not using them to identify or market products. Thus it is not using the logo in trade, and has no trademark claim. It cannot sue anyone for trademark infringement, because it has no trademark rights. Modified Scenario (see above) U is using the logo as a trademark world-wide. If it has registered the logo in Spain, or taken such other steps as Spanish law requires, it can perhaps sue S for trademark infringement. It has no trademark claim against B, because B did not use the trademark to identify any goods or services. For a successful suit agaisnt S, U would need to show that confusion between U's products and those of S had actually occurred, or was likely. It would need to show that the products where the logo was used were of a sufficiently similar nature. But if it prevailed, damages could be based on the value of the trade identified by the logo. If S did not sell or market its products outside of Spain, it could only be sued for trademark infringement in Spain. If U did not sell in the Spanish market (or perhaps the wider EU market) it would have no trademark claim. If S started importing its products using the logo into the US, U would have a claim under US trademark law. Thus the details of what logo is used, where and how, and on what products would matter to any trademark claim.
The companies really need to speak to an IP lawyer as this question is seeking specific advice which this site is loathe to give out for fear of compouding issues. The answer would depend on the license agreements and enforceability in various jurisdictions. According to https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/0368d7ee-0eb3-4e3e-a143-4410969a15bb/eula-for-vs2010?forum=vssetup Microsoft says you cant rent out the software - but this applies to the "Pro" version - I could not find anything on the "Premium" version - so most likely Microsoft to have some clam. The flipside is how enforceable this EULA is - and this would probably vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It would be a very, very good idea to speak to a lawyer before letting Microsoft come onto the premises - as "inviting them" to do this is almost certainly not going to improve the Asians company's case and will allow Microsoft to go fishing further and make it easier for them to expand on and collect evidence should they decide to pursue the matter.
A name is not protected by copyright. It can be protected as a trademark, but it would almost certainly be allowed as nominative fair use, since the alternative of indirect descriptive reference ("the grocery store founded in 1930 by George W. Jenkins") is not only cumbersome, but it doesn't even answer the question, where only the name can be used. Trademark protection is not absolute ownership of a word, it is the right to a specific use of a word (e.g. to identify a specific brand of computer for commercial purposes). If you use a trademark symbol, you have to be careful to use the right one (it may be illegal to imply registration by using R when the trademark is not registered). As far as I can determine, there is no obligation for a third party to so mark trademark terms, though it is commonly done.
The relevant law is trademark law. The basic question is whether the mark is identical or creates an unreasonable risk of confusion with the protected mark. There is no per se 30%-40% rule. I can imagine cases where changing a single letter in a long phrase turns a trademark violation into a parody or clearly different mark (see the Electric Company TV show). I can also imagine cases where changing a large part of the mark could still be infringing and confusingly similar. A parody is protected on fair use grounds in copyright law (which could conceivably come into play since this is a derivative work but would be protected since it is a parody), but in trademark law the issue is that a parody is unlikely to be confused for the original. Of course, at a fine grained level when one is looking at particular cases rather than general ideas, you would have to know which country's laws were involved, for example, where the goods would be sold.
Generally, it's illegal. You are creating a derivative work and you are not allowed to do that without the permission of the copyright holder. Some jurisdictions may have exceptions, such as fair use under US law. However, this generally protects uses that are intended to comment on or parody the work. It doesn't sound like that is the purpose of your image modification. NOT including: faceswaps, modifications that would shame or affect negatively the reputation of the actors on the image. That doesn't make it legal. I share it in a way that I don't make any economic profit out of it, and clearly stating that it is a modified image (not sure if inside the image, or in the caption under it) and state who is the legal owner of the original image. That doesn't make it legal, either.
There is something called the exhaustion doctrine that says that once the holder of a patent sells a patented device, they have relinquished control over that particular instance of the patent implementation. Anyone who legally purchases this hardware has the right to run whatever software they want on it, as long the software is otherwise legal (software designed to defeat DRM would be an example of software that is is not legal).
I will note from the outset that journal editors might require things from you that go beyond what is legally necessary. A typical case is that they will require one to obtain permission before reusing a figure from another article/journal/author (even though in the vast majority of cases no such permission would be needed). The legal answer might allow you to push back on the editor’s demands, but they still have the last word. There are two kinds of intellectual property to consider. Unless otherwise noted, this answer is valid for france and united-states. Trademark is almost certainly not an issue Trademark is a right to branding. A trademark holder can prevent others from using certain elements to promote their own products. The elements need not be complex, they just need to be recognizable by the public as related to the brand in question. For instance, &quot;Tesla&quot; is the name of an 19th century Serbian-American inventor known among other things for discoveries related to radio transmission. You would probably be able to market a radio transmitter under a &quot;Tesla&quot; brand (assuming there are no existing trademarks, which I have not checked). If you try the same thing with electrical vehicles, you will get sued. For a research paper, as long as you do not imply that Visa or MasterCard support your research or its results in any way, that should not be an issue. I assume, but cannot guarantee, that the above applies to most Western jurisdictions. Copyright Copyright is a protection or creative elements. Whoever authors a creative work can forbid others from distributing it under certain conditions. Are the Visa and MasterCard logos copyrighted? The first question is whether the elements at hand are protected under copyright. In the case of the Visa and MasterCard logos, this might depend on the jurisdiction. The criterion for &quot;creativity&quot; varies a lot. Some jurisdiction have adopted (some version of) the sweat of the brow doctrine, according to which work suffices to produce a &quot;creative element&quot; with copyright protection. The typical example are databases of facts where each individual entry is unoriginal but the collection might take some time to collect, curate and maintain (such as a phone book). In the united-states, the Supreme Court rejected the sweat of the brow doctrine in 1991. Accordingly, a work needs to reach the threshold of originality. Determining whether the threshold is met for a given work is done on a case-by-case basis at trial. However, it seems very likely that both logos are not protected by copyright in the United States. The Visa logo is a simple font with no significant creative elements; the MasterCard logo contains two overlapping circles. I note that Wikimedia Commons hosts both logos on their website and claims they are public-domain under that rationale (Visa, MasterCard). Wikimedia Commons usually follows copyright fairly closely, and they are a high-profile website hence a prime target for takedown requests by IP lawyers at Visa or MasterCard, so that is weak evidence that their claim is correct. But there is always the possibility that Visa / MasterCard just have not decided to sue yet. In france, the statute makes no explicit reference any threshold of originality: (article L-112-1 of the code of intellectual property) Les dispositions du présent code protègent les droits des auteurs sur toutes les oeuvres de l'esprit, quels qu'en soient le genre, la forme d'expression, le mérite ou la destination. The present code [containing all copyright statutes] protect copyrights for any works of mind, whatever their style, form of expression, artistic worth, or intended use. However, various court cases have tended to require &quot;works of mind&quot; to exhibit some amount of intellectual originality. For instance, Civ. 1ère 22 janv. 2009, n°08-11404 held that a perfume cannot be copyrighted because la fragrance d'un parfum, qui procède de la simple mise en oeuvre d'un savoir-faire, ne constitue pas la création d'une forme d'expression pouvant bénéficier de la protection des oeuvres de l'esprit par le droit d'auteur the smell of a perfume comes from the simple application of a know-how and does not constitute the creation of a form of expression subject to the protection of works of mind by copyright After a fifteen-minute look at various cases, I still do not have any strong idea of whether the Visa or MasterCard logo would be copyrighted in France. Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that they are. &quot;Fair use&quot; Even copyrighted works can be used without the copyright holder’s agreement under certain exceptions. Here again, any precise answer is jurisdiction-specific. &quot;Fair use&quot; is a US-specific doctrine, resulting from a string of court cases eventually codified into law (Wikipedia has a decent history). It is a rather general doctrine (any use case can be analyzed under the four balancing factors) and results can be hard to predict. I believe research articles usually fall on the right side, but because the logos under discussion are not under copyright in the US (see above), I will not attempt to make any in-depth analysis. Pedantic note: it is sloppy wording to use the term &quot;fair use&quot; for similar clauses in other jurisdictions. &quot;Fair use&quot; is a US doctrine. In france, the corresponding doctrine is given by a rather strict but precise statute at article L122-5 of the code of intellectual property: Lorsque l'oeuvre a été divulguée, l'auteur ne peut interdire : (...) 3° Sous réserve que soient indiqués clairement le nom de l'auteur et la source : a) Les analyses et courtes citations justifiées par le caractère critique, polémique, pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information de l'oeuvre à laquelle elles sont incorporées ; When the work has been published, the author cannot forbid: (...) 3° As long as the name of the author and the source are clearly mentioned: a) Analysis and short citations justified by the inclusion in a work with an aim of criticism, debate, pedagogy, science or information A research article is the typical case of a &quot;work of science&quot; (science means here &quot;scholarly research&quot;, not STEM). I have little doubt that it would be a covered use, especially if the paper discusses the reason behind the choice of those logos (easily recognizable by test subjects? simple shapes? etc.).