ADVICE NEEDED legal issue of taking photos at a public car show

[RacePhoto]

If it's news, (free website, blog, story about cars) you can use the image. If you are selling the image or using it for commercial profit, (calendars, books, posters) you need a release.

That's oversimplified, but basically that's it.

I take the plates off of things, just because it seems right. I doubt if there's any legal issue with showing a photo of a car with a license plate.

Public place, free admission, I'd say you are pretty well free to use the car pictures. Custom cars may be copyrighted as art or design, but a spiffed up Alfa is a custom car?

 

[skieur]

If it's news, (free website, blog, story about cars)
Public place, free admission, I'd say you are pretty well free to use the car pictures. Custom cars may be copyrighted as art or design, but a spiffed up Alfa is a custom car?

Objects such as cars cannot be copyrighted period. That is the law anywhere. Design laws protect someone from producing another car with the same design. Photos are not in violation of any design law and that is written into the laws of the US and some other countries.

skieur

 

[skieur]

If it's news, (free website, blog, story about cars) you can use the image. If you are selling the image or using it for commercial profit, (calendars, books, posters) you need a release.

That's oversimplified, but basically that's it.

Not at all. You can use the image for commercial profit but you cannot use it to promote a product such as a car wax etc.

skieur

 

[skieur]

In the U.S. it is simple! If you're using the photos for promotional or advertisement purposes, and it sounds like your are.... you must have a signed release!

Steve

To be very legally precise, you cannot use the photo of a car for example to advertise a car wax or to promote something that is not obvious from the photo such as your paint shop. However, putting the shot in your portfolio, on a car web site, in a photo magazine, on a calendar, etc. for whatever reason does not require a release, for obvious reasons.

Otherwise, carried to the extreme, it would be downright silly...as in imagine if you had to get the permission of the owner of that sailboat off in the distance and the owner of the property you are standing on, to take and use your photo for any purpose. If that were the case, photography would simply NOT exist and neither would freedom of the press. Magazines would also be all text and no photos.

Journalistic and photographic freedoms have some logic to them in a democracy. The paranoia of some photographers does a disservice to the freedom of everyone.

skieur

 

[usayit]

I know he's not in the US.... but some of already commented on US legalities.

What all of you say is true BUT only in a public event. If the show is on private property and not open to the public (private event or ticketable event) then you must have permission or a release.

It is not as simple as use (personal vs. commercial)

 

[skieur]

I know he's not in the US.... but some of already commented on US legalities.

What all of you say is true BUT only in a public event. If the show is on private property and not open to the public (private event or ticketable event) then you must have permission or a release.

It is not as simple as use (personal vs. commercial)

The following is one of the freedoms of the press in Canada, US and elsewhere due to treaties.

Even if you are tresspassing on private property you are not prohibited by law from taking photos and there are few restrictions on the use of those photos namely privacy (but this depends on the nature of the shot) and national security (if top secrets are involved.)

skieur

 

[Steve Wynn]

I would still be very cautious about using any IDENTIFIABLE personal property to promote anything. Your photo work, your webpage or anything that can be promoted. IP attorneys will eat you alive. That's why we pay them so well.

Now, how about this true scenerio. The simple act of failing to credit a photographer for a couple of shots for photos (copyrighted) were used in a slide show cost a DJ $5000.00, in addition to the photographer's IP attorney's fees. I know he wishes he'd credited him. It was settled out of court when the DJ's attorney's told him he better settle before it goes to court.

 

[skieur]

Now, how about this true scenerio. The simple act of failing to credit a photographer for a couple of shots for photos (copyrighted) were used in a slide show cost a DJ $5000.00, in addition to the photographer's IP attorney's fees. I know he wishes he'd credited him. It was settled out of court when the DJ's attorney's told him he better settle before it goes to court.

Well, that was certainly not legally very smart. I have produced slide shows for commercial duplication as well as for presentations that I am paid to do. I always use my own photos and if I need a particular shot of an historical item for example, I may fall back on the work that I have license to use or copyright free work.

skieur

 

[RMThompson]

To be very legally precise, you cannot use the photo of a car for example to advertise a car wax or to promote something that is not obvious from the photo such as your paint shop. However, putting the shot in your portfolio, on a car web site, in a photo magazine, on a calendar, etc. for whatever reason does not require a release, for obvious reasons.

Otherwise, carried to the extreme, it would be downright silly...as in imagine if you had to get the permission of the owner of that sailboat off in the distance and the owner of the property you are standing on, to take and use your photo for any purpose. If that were the case, photography would simply NOT exist and neither would freedom of the press. Magazines would also be all text and no photos.

Journalistic and photographic freedoms have some logic to them in a democracy. The paranoia of some photographers does a disservice to the freedom of everyone.

skieur

skieur youre right. We, as photographers, need to fight FOR our rights or we will just give them up. If everytime someone asks us to leave a public area, we leave, eventually... we wont have any freedoms left.

 

[theusher]

Legally in Canada, US, Britain, or anywhere else that I know of, you do NOT need releases to take photos of objects, property, things etc. If that were the case, there would be very few photos of anything.

A car can certainly NOT be copyrighted and it was in a show accessible to by the general public. If the owner did not want photos taken of his car, he should not have put it in a show in the first place.

Tell him to get stuffed.

skieur

:lmao: Here Here, well put. I love how everyone on the Internet thinks they are a copyright lawyer. A release to take a picture of a car...what will they think of next!

 

[Seefutlung]

I ran into a similar situation with a duet I photographed performing in a public mall. They rudely insisted that I remove their images. I (not as rudely) refused. After a couple of weeks of nasty letters they finally got nice and I finally removed their images ... but I did so on my time not theirs.

Had they been nice in the beginning I would have complied ... but they were jerks. (This is purely a hobby for me ... and, although the images were nice ... I didn't give a rat's behind about the images.)

I'd ask the owners to state/quote law which gives them the right to infringe upon your copyright and freedom of expression.

Gary

 

[Jon, The Elder]

are you the guy who hung out on 'Photo Camel"?

 

[fmw]

I don't know about the law in the U.K. In the U.S., cars can't sign releases and have no rights under the law. People can sign releases and have rights under the law. You can use the images as you please under U.S. law. If there are people in the picture and you use the images to make money or for someone else to make money, then all bets are off. The car owner has no right to tell you what to do with an image of his car - only with an image of himself.

 

[Seefutlung]

I don't know about the law in the U.K. In the U.S., cars can't sign releases and have no rights under the law. People can sign releases and have rights under the law. You can use the images as you please under U.S. law. If there are people in the picture and you use the images to make money or for someone else to make money, then all bets are off. The car owner has no right to tell you what to do with an image of his car - only with an image of himself.

Unless that car has been copyrighted/trademarked

 

[Photogfan]

I think I got the jist of it... What if it's a car show, where you have to buy a ticket, featuring stock models that is, from dealerships??? That means you can do what you want with the image right? (U.S.)