Suppose I want to publish a book, with a picture of Hello Kitty on the cover. Do I need some sort of license from Sanrio?
Would it matter if the cover is a photo of a street scene in Taiwan, and the Hello Kitty is on a tee-shirt, billboad ad, etc.?
What if the focus of the cover were smack dab centered on the Hello Kitty? Would that change anything?
Thank you!
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Suppose I want to publish a book, with a picture of Hello Kitty on the cover. Do I need some sort of license from Sanrio?
Would it matter if the cover is a photo of a street scene in Taiwan, and the Hello Kitty is on a tee-shirt, billboad ad, etc.?
What if the focus of the cover were smack dab centered on the Hello Kitty? Would that change anything?
Thank you![/quote]
This is Taiwan; since when do copyrights matter?
I’ve always had this question in the back of my head when I see Sesame Street Kindergarten every week >.>’’
My laoban puts massive posters of me up ouside my school without asking me. Can I sue him? And it’s even advertising for a kindy (which I am not allowed to teach at).
Depends.
On what?
Why not have him take the posters down? Risky business pal.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Suppose I want to publish a book, with a picture of Hello Kitty on the cover. Do I need some sort of license from Sanrio?[/quote]Yes.
[quote]Would it matter if the cover is a photo of a street scene in Taiwan, and the Hello Kitty is on a tee-shirt, billboad ad, etc.?[/quote]No.
[quote]What if the focus of the cover were smack dab centered on the Hello Kitty? Would that change anything?[/quote]If you are making money from Hello Kitty, they would get a bit miffed. If they got a free mention, they should be well chuffed. Which one do you want to do? Common sense really.
Maybe. Or not 
[quote]Thank you![/quote]You’re welcome.
Suppose a photo of a street scene includes a McDonalds, a Starbucks, and a Hello Kitty store. Surely I should not have to ask permission of all three in order to use the photo…? Same for a crowd of people wearing the same labels as tee-shirts.
(On the other hand, some buildings have been trademarked. And I believe there was a U.S. court case over whether a non-Disney guidebook to Disneyland could use the image of a mouse-ears-shaped building on the cover.)
Let us assume a situation in which Sanrio would not likely approve of the “product placement.”
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Suppose a photo of a street scene includes a McDonalds, a Starbucks, and a Hello Kitty store. Surely I should not have to ask permission of all three in order to use the photo…? Same for a crowd of people wearing the same labels as tee-shirts.
(On the other hand, some buildings have been trademarked. And I believe there was a U.S. court case over whether a non-Disney guidebook to Disneyland could use the image of a mouse-ears-shaped building on the cover.)
Let us assume a situation in which Sanrio would not likely approve of the “product placement.”[/quote]
First, the obligatory notice: [color=#FF0000]PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.[/color]
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) has a little treatise entitled, “Legal Pitfalls in Taking or Using Photographs of Copyright Material, Trademarks and People.” It’s located here.
In pertinent part, the treatise states that “trademark law as such does not restrict the use of a trademark in a photograph,” but forbids “using a trademark in a way that can cause confusion regarding the affiliation of the trademark owner to the image.” It adds that “[i]f consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that a photograph was sponsored by the trademark owner, then there may be trademark infringement.”
Wish I could help, but I really know next to nothing about trademark law.
Hello Kitty must be resisted at all costs…
From what I gather, there is no more fiercely protected intellectual property in the whole of Asia than Hello Kitty. Sanrio demands that every product bearing the Hello Kitty name and/or image also include a prominent license number that lets the company and its agents quickly identify infringements and take legal action.
Sanrio is also notoriously uncooperative in granting the media the right to use Hello Kitty images for news stories or anything else that doesn’t directly benefit the company’s bottom line.
[quote=“monkey”]From what I gather, there is no more fiercely protected intellectual property in the whole of Asia than Hello Kitty. Sanrio demands that every product bearing the Hello Kitty name and/or image also include a prominent license number that lets the company and its agents quickly identify infringements and take legal action.
Sanrio is also notoriously uncooperative in granting the media the right to use Hello Kitty images for news stories or anything else that doesn’t directly benefit the company’s bottom line.[/quote]
You bet.
The legal clout on the Sanrio payroll enforcing ALL their copyrights, HKitty especially, puts Microsoft to shame.
Remember that the more lawyers and chop-covered documents you bring to the show, the better the chances are that the government will back them up.
Racks of GUEES!! t-shirts at the day market notwithstanding, the higher the profile of your infringement, the bigger a target you are.
Yes, there’s a chance that the neighborhood kindy on that back lane in Long Tan is getting away with plastering HKitty’s mouthless mug on their front window, it’s only because they’re so backwater (with commensurate limitation of revenue) that they’re getting away with it.
Also note that, under current practice in N America, and coming soon to a street corner near you, are recent adoptions of zero-tolerance practice in TM infringement.
That means that if you’re standing on the corner hawking Louvis Vittorn bags out the back of your Freeca, the cop coming up won’t be ticketing you, he’ll be
-confiscating ALL your stock
-impounding your vehicle
AND
-taking you onto custody, probably to hold you until you give up your supplier.
Honeymoon’s over…
Depends on the usage. If you wanted to use the photo for advertising something (anything), you’d need property releases from McDs, Starbucks, Sanrio and any other building in the scene. Even a regular building like an apartment block or something would technically need a release.
You’d also need a model release from every single person in the scene, particularly if they were recognizable.
For editorial use, it’d be different. To illustrate a magazine/newspaper story, or text book, or something, then you wouldn’t need the releases, although it’s always handy to get them when possible.
[quote](On the other hand, some buildings have been trademarked. And I believe there was a U.S. court case over whether a non-Disney guidebook to Disneyland could use the image of a mouse-ears-shaped building on the cover.)
Let us assume a situation in which Sanrio would not likely approve of the “product placement.”[/quote]
Taipei 101 is a trademarked building. It can only be used if it appears in a general city scene - if 101 is the major focus of the photo, it can’t be used, except as editorial use, as mentioned above.
Govt and public buildings (libraries, toilet blocks, govt offices etc) tend not to need releases, however there are certain restrictions on sensitive buildings for security reasons.
What about the cover of a novel? Would that be considered an advertisement (intending to sell the novel), or more of a documentary?
How am I to determine whether something is the “focus” of a photo? Is there some rule of thumb? For example, suppose I have a Hello Kitty tattoo on my backside. Can I show dorsal nudity on the cover? How close would I be allowed to zoom in and/or center on the Kitty?
Thanks to all for your responses! They’re very helpful and detailed. I’m thinking now that I should be doing this real “underground”…
Who has the avatars of Hello Kitty being burned at the stake and one of a vulture eating her?
One of my students (in the USA) loves her and I told her I’d show her a couple of cool pictures. 
Well here’s something related you may enjoy.
hello-cthulhu.com/?date=2003-11-30
God knows how this guy avoided Sanrio’s lawyers. My favorite from the series: