Can Polaroid force me to remove my app from the store? A few years ago, I create a simple app that allowed the user to create fake instant camera photos on their smartphone. A few month ago, I received an email from Polaroid stating that my app had to be removed from the store, because they own a trademarks for the "Polaroid Classic Border Logo". To avoid having problems, I removed the app from the store, but now I'm wondering: is this normal?
If there is a trade mark and if Polaroid owns it and if you infringed it then yes they can force you to remove it. In addition, they could sue you for either damages (i.e. what they lost because of your infringement) or an account of profits (i.e. what you made because of your infringement). That is what trade mark law is for! If the trade mark is registered then this is trivially easy for them to demonstrate. If it is unregistered then it becomes a question of if the mark is clearly recognisable as Polaroid's; IMO they could probably show that it is - those particular border dimensions were distinctive of Polaroid instant cameras for many years. If you want to republish the app, you could probably avoid trade mark issues by allowing users to set the dimensions of the photograph and border, the colour of the border and the location of the caption.
If the typography is a significant aspect of the overall art of a song title - wherever the song title may be reproduced, i.e. poster, CD cover, etc. - than I'd say that's part of the copyright of the artwork as a whole and not simply the title, and is under copyright. Further, individual type faces can be under copyright themselves. And band names can be trademarked; you will need permission to use the name for products and advertising, since using the name will imply an endorsement from that band.
From the perspective of US law: Scenario 1: Removing the watermark is perfectly legal, obviously. You own the copyright. Scenario 2: Abandonware is not really a thing in the US when it comes to copyright (and the Wikipedia article you linked says this.) Even if the company went out of business, the copyright almost certainly went to somebody - the former owners, the creditors, etc. As far as the Internet Archive goes, they are taking advantage of an exemption in the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, along with the copyright exemption found in 17 USC § 108. But both of these exemptions require you to be a "library or archive" to take advantage of them, and you are not a library or archive, so you cannot take advantage of either. As a practical matter, if the software is really abandoned it's unlikely that anyone will actually come after you for infringement, but that's not quite the same as it being legal - you could be on the hook for up to $150,000 in statutory damages per work infringed, if the owner does sue you. You could attempt to claim fair use, of course. If the image is abandoned you might get a favorable result on factor 4 of the fair use test (the effect on the market for the original) since there's no market if nobody can find the owner. But it would depend on the other factors; that alone wouldn't get you fair use. Scenario 3: I'm not sure where you get the idea that downloading a copyrighted image to your desktop is somehow protected. It isn't automatically legal to save a copy of something just because it's on the Internet. And the existence of a watermark may indicate that someone wanted to prevent the file from being copied. The website containing the image will likely have terms of use, which may indicate whether or not you're allowed to make a copy. For example, Stack Exchange's TOS says in part: Subscriber may download or copy the Content, and other items displayed on the Network for download, for personal use, provided that Subscriber maintains all copyright and other notices contained in such Content.
This sounds like legal nominative use to me. The issue is trademark. Trademark law isn't a monopoly on using the trademark, it is a prohibition on using the trademark in a way that misleads a customer about who is selling something or what is being sold. You cannot sell goods in a manner that implies inaccurately an affiliation or endorsement of a trademark owner, causing confusion in the mind of a reasonable consumer. But, it sounds like your disclosure makes a factually accurate statement without implying or stating that the goods are sold with the affiliation or endorsement of Kodak, only that you used their goods as parts in your product. To be safe, in order to be completely clear and avoid all doubt, you might want to say, in addition, &quot;This produce is not licensed or authorized by Kodak.&quot; The First Sale rule expressly protects your right to resell physical good protected by trademark or copyright to someone else, so the sale itself is not illegal, it is just a question of whether you have abridged its trademark. Conceptually, what you are doing isn't that different from stating that the used car you are selling had all replacement parts obtained to maintain and repair it done with dealer approved parts, rather than third-party knock offs, which would likewise be legal. Similarly, you could sell a house with a listing that identifies the brand of every building material used. For example, &quot;this house was constructed using Pella Windows.&quot;
The image is almost surely protected by copyright. The model used in the game would probably be a derivative work of the original image. As such, permission from the copyright holder on the original image would be required. In the absence of such permission, the copyright holder could sue for infringement, and have a reasonable chance of winning. Whether such a holder would choose to sue cannot be predicted. It would depend on whether the holder ever learned of the infringement in the first place, whether it could be proven, and the degree of damages that might plausibly be claimed. It would also depend on the holder's attitude toward such circumstances. In addition, the gun makers might claim trademark infringement. This would depend on how recognizable the guns are, and what trademarks the makers have secured protection on. If a logo is visible and recognizable, that would strengthen a claim by the maker. On the conditions described in the question, trademark infringement seems a bit unlikely, but exact details will matter in such a case, so one cannot be confident in any generic answer on that point.
Rather than saying "for Project®" which might fairly be interpreted to indicate an affiliation with Microsoft, you ought to say something like "intended to be compatible with Project® (not affiliated with or endorsed by Microsoft)." can you imagine a worse scenario than Microsoft sending a Cease and Desist notice? In that case, I can imagine re-branding to "MYBRAND for E-Mail" as the logo/name and a textual reference to "The [MyBrand for E-Mail] Add-In for Microsoft® Outlook®.". What is the worst case scenario? You could be sued by Microsoft for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and if you lost, forced to change your product name and to destroy all existing inventory, forced to disgorge all profits you have ever made from selling your product ever, forced to pay their attorneys' fees and costs (which won't be cheap) in addition to your own legal team, have your products seized and destroyed when imported by customs agents follow an ex parte court hearing (i.e. one you had no notice of) secretly brought by Microsoft, and forced to pay punitive damages equal to double the profits you made in addition to the profits themselves. You might not even be able to discharge the judgment against you by going bankrupt and the punitive damages would probably not be tax deductible. Microsoft has every right to do this even if you fully comply with their cease and desist letter. A criminal trademark prosecution would be unlikely in this fact pattern.
You can’t use pictures You can’t use any of these, nor can you make your own art that is derived from these. That’s copyright infringement and there is no fair use defence because you are specifically trying to do something Nintendo already does. You can reproduce that stats of the Pokémon because stats are facts (even if they are facts about fictional things) and facts are not protected by copyright.
Fair use is always a fact-driven issue, and the details matter. That said, copying a single ad in order to criticism the ad, or comment on it, is very likely to be found to be fair use. If only a section of the ad were shown, to illuminate the point being made, that would make a fair use holding more likely. Or if the entire ad was shown in low resolution's for context, and a detail shown in higher resolution, that would also help. Such an ad is largely factual, not creative in the way that a work of fiction or fine art is, which leans toward fair use. Such a reproduction of the ad will not serve as a replacement, nor harm the market for the ad, which leans toward fair use. The use seems to be transformative, which leans significantly toward fair use. If the whole ad is shown that leans somewhat against fair use, but that does not prevent the use being held to be fair use. As for trademark protection, that is not likely to be an issue. Trademarks are protected against being used in trade (also known as &quot;in commerce&quot;) without permission. This means using the mark to label, identify, or advertise a product or service of the same general type as the product the mark is properly associated with. Using the mark, or a similar mark, in such a way that people are likely to be confused into thinking that a product or service came from the same source as the mark, or approved, endorsed or sponsored by the mark owner, is usually infringement. Using the mark to discuss the product or service, and in particular using it as the name of the product or service, is nominative use. Nominative use is not infringement. Using an ad that includes trademarks to discuss the associated product is a form of nominative use.