Over the weekend, I was asked to be part of a photo shoot for a political candidate. I was wearing a t-shirt that featured a Star Wars character and the photographer stated that he wanted to position me in a fashion so it wasn't visible to avoid a, 'copyright issue'. (For those who are curious, the request was made last minute and I wasn't advised on clothing restrictions)

After a certain point, it was determined that the ideal angle still was showing the Star Wars character, so they gave me a t-shirt featuring logos and imagery associated with a Major League Baseball (MLB) team.

I'm trying to figure out why the MLB shirt wouldn't create a copyright issue for the photographer, while the Star Wars character would. Is it relating to the litigious nature of Disney (I really doubt this MLB team would sue) or is there something about MLB logos that are inherently fair use?


----------
Regarding this potential [duplicate][1] which questions whether a trademark can be used by a political campaign without permission and the most upvoted answer is of course, "it depends," but for the equivalent scenario in my question it seems like it would not be allowed because of the logo's prominence in the photo. Thus it begs the question why is this copyrightable material acceptable and this one is not?

To clarify the issue, the MLB logo in particular is for the Philadelphia Phillies. As a team, they've had a variety of logos over the years and based on the answers provided thus far, it seems some may be subject to copyright and others would be subject to trademark depending upon the complexity of the art. In this specific case, it's this version of their logo:

[![enter image description here][2]][2]

As this is more than just stylized lettering, it seems this would presumably be subject to copyright.

  [1]: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/56173/11906
  [2]: https://i.sstatic.net/4zhH5.png