Just to make an example, in Italy where I live, every book shows a writing saying that ANY unauthorized usage of the book is strictly forbidden etc. etc.
Problem is, publishers and authors can write whatever they want on their books (or press releases or whatever) it is the law which dictates what is acceptable use and what is not.
I have recently read an article, wrote by a US lawyer on a US photo web sites (I tried to find it on the internet but I did not manage). It explained what the principles are and how unsubstantiated are metropolitan legends regarding copyright. The picture she was making would be perfectly adequate also in Italy, and I guess a bit everywhere. My University course would be described in the US as "Economics and Law" so I am not totally unaware of the general issues on the table.
The "legends" or let's say the common misconception of the high risks involving having a registered trademark on your pictures are caused by the kind of abovementioned wording in book, press releases etc. which give a very false impression of omnipotence by copyright/trademark owners.
There is a more general problem because juridical language is technical and specialistic, but everybody believes they can understand what they read (it sounds like normal English) and they end up thinking that they cannot say or write "Apple" or "Window" without paying a copyright to somebody. The internet then spread those legends very fast.
Basically, in every jurisdiction, you can go to the judge if you have undergone a damage for which you ask compensation, whether it be for an actual damage of image or for a loss of revenue.
Besides, any firm, just like any citizen, has the right to decide whether (or at which conditions) its image can be used for any commercial purpose.
Some examples: if I publish a picture of a square in Paris and there is a McDonald's restaurant there, the sign will certainly be visible (possibly the only yellow spot of the picture) but that is a picture of that square as it is and the restaurant belongs to the square, just like the fountain and the bench. The picture has a documentary value: Jefferson Square as it was in 2007, or an artistic value, whatever. It is not used in an advertisement.
Similarly if I publish a picture of a table with various food, and a bottle of Coca-Cola, the bottle is visible, recognisable, but it is not the main subject of the picture. It is a picture of a table with plenty food not of a Coke bottle.
Now imagine two advertisements, one is for Alka-Seltzer, it shows a person getting out of a McDonald's, the McDonald's sign is prominent, and the ad says: "Next time you eat things you cannot deal with, get and Alka-Seltzer", then you are obviously making a damage to McDonald's, and you will be sued.
Again, imagine a table with the food and the Coke, and a wine producer consortium quoting Brillat-Savarin's words: "A meal without wine is like a day without sun", and concluded: "Drink wine. Bring the sun to your table".
Well, if you were Coke, you would sue because your brand is used to convey a negative message on the brand. You are the copyright owner of the brand, you don't want it to be used against you.
Now imagine the same ads, but in the first case it is evident that the person is eating in a fast-food, but a not recognisable one, in the second case, there is a "cola" drink on the table, but not a recognisable one. It is debateable where, or whether, McDonald's or Coke could sue (or maybe an association of fast food companies, of soft drink producers, in defense of the industry). That would be grey territory in Italy.
Also you cannot use some other brand to enhance your own brand. You sell Vacheron Constantin watches, and you show an ads with a person driving a Rolls-Royce, entering a luxury house, drinking some Veuve-Clicquot, sitting to see a TV set 4 meters long, and then you say some bullshit like "if you belong to a certain world, you belong to the world of Vacheron Constantin". Rolls-Royce and the other guys would sue you because you made an unauthorised use of their brand (of their property) for your profit. So they rightfully want control over how their brand (and therefore their identity) is used. Just like any person would have this right. They can just prevent you from using it, or ask you money for using it. You cannot use other brands to sell your products just like you cannot use my face (or anybody's, a celebrity face for instance).
The picture with the kid and a Coke is not free ground. In certain Countries like Germany kids under 16 are not allowed to drink coffee, neither Coke, nor alcohol, neither beer (probably also in Italy, but the Germans take those thing seriously). Taking a picture of let's say a 10 years old boy with a Coke might convey a message which Coca-Cola might deem negative for its image, at least in certain Countries, because there would be something "wrong" in a 10 years old kid holding a can of Coke (just like in Canada would maybe "wrong" holding a can of beer). So why would you put a Coke in the hands of a 10 years old boy? What use are you going to do of it? What use other people might do of it?
If you take prepared shots with models, the easy thing is to avoid any trademark, in order to have a broader marketability for your pictures (which otherwise could not be used for commercial purposes, without consent).
If you just go in the road and take pictures, you don't care at all whether there is any sign somewhere (they are everywhere after all).
If I find the article of the US lawyer, I post here the URL.
Cheers
Fabrizio
