copyright intellectual-property trademark is-x-legal
Commissioned a logo that contains a stock image, can I still trademark it?
<p>I have a question similar to this one <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/37839/copyright-law-for-logo-design-that-incorporates-a-royalty-free-vector-design">here</a> but with circumstances that are a bit different.</p>
<p>I purchased a logo from a seller online through Fiverr a few months ago. Since then I have incorporated this logo in various areas and have spent a lot of money on it. Unbeknownst to me, a large part of it includes a stock graph they found online. I found this out after doing a reverse image search of the graphic online. I traced that stock image to multiple stock photo websites and a lot of them mention that their content can't be used for logos or trademarks, which was my whole intent when purchasing a logo.</p>
<p>Could I still use the logo I bought and trademark it in the US granted that the seller had made some revisions to the stock photo he found?</p>
<p>Here's all of the relevant info I have:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The seller had changed up some parts of the stock image, this includes color scheme, orientation, and made the picture look a little low poly.</p>
</li>
<li><p>The original artist of the stock photo is based in Russia and as far as I can see there is no registered copyright on it and don't think they could apply for US copyright anyway.</p>
</li>
<li><p>While I'm not sure where the seller (located in Pakistan) officially downloaded the logo, I had nothing to do with the final design of it or downloaded anything from a stock photo website myself, so I'm not sure if I'd be bound by any terms of the stock photo website</p>
</li>
<li><p>The stock image is very niche and a bit random. Across all the websites the artist has published it on, it has about 5 or 6 downloads altogether.</p>
</li>
<li><p>As far the copyright of the seller's work goes, the Fiverr terms state that buyers have all the copyright, though I don't know if this is nullified by the use of the stock image.</p>
</li>
</ul>

<h2>Not only can’t you trademark it, you can’t use it</h2>
<p>The original logo is covered by copyright which belongs, prima facie, to the original artist. It doesn’t matter that they are based in Russia; Russia and the US are both signatories to the <a href="https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/" rel="noreferrer">Berne Convention</a> which means they protect each other’s copyright. That means you can only use it if it is fair use (it isn’t) or if you have the copyright owner’s permission (you don’t).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Could I still use the logo I bought and trademark it in the US granted that the seller had made some revisions to the stock photo he found?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not if the seller didn’t have permission to make those changes. Creation of a derivative work is one of the exclusive rights copyright gives.</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>The seller had changed up some parts of the stock image, this includes color scheme, orientation, and made the picture look a little low poly.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>See above.</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>The original artist of the stock photo is based in Russia and as far as I can see there is no registered copyright on it and don't think they could apply for US copyright anyway.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>They already have copyright. They would need to register it in the US before they could sue but there is no impediment to them doing so.</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>While I'm not sure where the seller (located in Pakistan) officially downloaded the logo, I had nothing to do with the final design of it or downloaded anything from a stock photo website myself, so I'm not sure if I'd be bounded by any terms of the stock photo website</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Makes no difference. Just because you didn’t steal the car, that doesn’t make it ok for you to drive it.</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>The stock image is very niche and a bit random. Across all the websites the artist has published it on, it has about 5 or 6 downloads altogether.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Not relevant at all.</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>As far the copyright of the seller's work goes, the Fiverr terms state that buyers have all the copyright, though I don't know if this is nullified by the use of the stock image.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>You can’t sell something you don’t own. If the seller had no right to upload the photo (as it seems they didn’t), the terms of the website don’t matter.</p>
<p>The true owner never agreed to those terms and isn’t bound by them.</p>
