I would really like to ask the opinion about posting photos that have an emblem or well known word on automobiles or motorcycles, even trains etc. When a person takes a photo of a classic car of some sort, often the camera zeros in on things such as a hood ornament, or the name of the car, such as Cadillac or Corvette, or on a cycle maybe the name of Harley Davidson might stand out. Even things such as beautiful chrome showing a name on the rear end, maybe on a tire mounted by the trunk. I would like to know what you all think of this. Would it be wrong somehow to post these? What could be wrong with a beautiful item like that? An
emblem or hood ornament etc. Please lets toss this around a bit.
I don't wish to cause a problem, but I would truly like to hear peoples opinion on this.

It's not so much about the whether it's beautiful or not..
I would say it's about the copyright of the word or emblem

Under the current policy pretty much anything containing a copyrighted logo will be rejected.

An emblem is a copyrighted logo? Then why have I seen on here some Harleys, and some classic cars showing these things? There are cameras and books shown also. And why can these types of photos be shown at art shows? Please explain, as I do want to understand. thank you so much.

'K ... Verena ... could you post some links or URLs of the images you are referring to then?

That would aid in furthering this discussion.

That aside ... there are a couple of factors to consider on the site here, regarding images or depictions of trademarked logos.

Speaking generally here:

The prominence of the logo within the image itself plays a big role. If too dominant ... the image stands a good chance of being not deemed acceptable.

The visibility of the logo within the context of an image as well, is another factor.

Taking a shot of your Cougar's hood ornament? Hmm ... well, based on what I just said ... does any of that ring a bell with you?

All corporate identities are usually protected by copyright and trademark laws. This usually includes forbidding the reproduction or re transmission in any form. Occasionally images are allowed through here if the logo is a minor incidental element in the bigger picture for want of a better term. If it is the primary focus of the image then, clearly, it would be in violation of the sites code of conduct relating to reproducing copyrighted material or logos.

Alright, I do understand now. What you said, Phil, explains it very well. And Phil? I appreciate what you said,but I don't think I needed the last line of your comment.
I thank everyone for their help. I'll do my best to "tone down" my Cougar...(smile)...No further comments are necessary. Over and out....heehee...V

P.S. Here are the names and numbers of some of the photos I have seen with logos or emblems or names...thanx..
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Drew277-1114057385(Jaguar hood ornament)
mercury cougar 1a
Gothic-1124386337
andy721-1160817071 (1934 Mercedes front end)
andy721-1160900130(close up of Mercedes front end)
mrosin-1093376204(Inside ChevyBelAir showing logo)

Hope that clarifies what I was talking about. Thanx again. V

as I replied to your identical PM - 2 of these don't appear to exist anymore whilst the remainder represent what we would refer to as an incidental inclusion of a logo.

Here is one more

Paul _Gerritsen-1152045656(Studebaker Front end w/hood emblem)

Phil, I was just doing waht I could to help clarify things. IF we can't use them, thats ok. Thanx again. V

again - only a minor part of the overall image which is allowable.

As but one example:

Re: Coca Cola.

Quoted from this article found here.

Copyright

Copyright is the right to reproduce a work. The owner of the copyright in an original work, performance, or recording has the exclusive right to copy it, to decide how it will be published and distributed, to keep it from being modified against his or her wishes, and to profit from it. The copyright holder also has the right to give others a licence to use the work in specific and limited ways.

Coca-Cola owns copyright in the design of its bottles, the design of its logos, its advertising, and generally anything it creates that can be considered an original work requiring creative effort. For example, the famous Coca-Cola logo and script design is an original artistic creation that is protected by copyright law. In other words, the right to copy the logos and script design is limited by copyright law.

Defences to copyright infringement in Canada include fair dealing, which is an exception in Canada’s Copyright Act, allowing a work to be copied for the purposes of private research or news reporting. If a newspaper is doing a story on Coca-Cola, it is allowed to display the Coca-Cola logo if it is part of the story.

Canadian law does not, as yet, extend the fair dealing exception to copying for artistic or parodic purposes. So whereas in the United States, Andy Warhol was able to use the Coca-Cola logo in a work of art under that country’s “fair use” rules, a Canadian Warhol would likely have to get special permission from the company in order to display its copyrighted work.

Gotcha..thanx...V