simple question.. not so simple answer it seems

[captain-spanky]

situation:
a photographer visits a car show.
said photographer takes an image of a car at the show.
photgrapher then starts selling prints of the image.
owner of the car, sees the pictures and gets a bee in the bonnet.
car owner demands monitary recompense for the 'usage' of the afformentioned vehicle in the images.

where do the photgrapher and car owner stand in a situation like this?
am i correct in assuming that since the car was at a public show, the owner has no legal right to any proceeds for the sale of the artwork?

 

[etaf]

I'm no expert, but this comes to mind
its possible the show may not be considered a public place - what were the terms and conditions on entry and what terms did the exhibitor agrre to with the organisers. Also the rules change country to country, I think in france you cannot take photos of people in public places whereas in the UK you can

I used to be a member of http://63.84.172.37/frames.html
Bureau of Freelance Photographers and they help me resolve an issue like this.

 

[Ant]

Provided that you were on public property then you can do what you like with the photograph, it's your property, and the car owner has no say in this whatsoever.

The only exception would be if the car owner had some sort of copywrite or trademark on the car or it's paintwork, you'd then be in a bit of a tricky legal situation. So unless the car owner can show copywrite tell him to get lost

 

[etaf]

Ant , i agree with your comment

Provided that you were on public property

but in this example the photographer was not on public property but at a car show

a photographer visits a car show.

hence my question regards T&C of entry

 

[captain-spanky]

well there was no photography related terms upon entry - for the photographer OR the car owner... only the usual 'motorsport is dangerous' type stuff...

 

[Ant]

If there was no photographic restrictions upon entry then you should be OK. As far as I'm aware they can't suddenly enforce restrictions retrospectively.

I say just ignore thae car owner as you seem to be on pretty safe ground.

One other exception. You haven't got the number plate of the car visible have you? this would contravene privacy laws, hence the reason why they're always blurred out on TV images etc.

 

[captain-spanky]

no numberplates featured.
Are you the vz ant btw?

 

[Ant]

Are you the vz ant btw?

I have no idea what you're talking about, so probably not

 

[captain-spanky]

vz as in Volks Zone - t'other forum i go on...

 

[ksmattfish]

You probably need to talk to a lawyer, because I think the car owner is holding the ball here.

I doubt the car show was on public property, and you need a property release from the car owner to distribute photos of his car for profit. I really wouldn't ignore the car owner. An apology might keep him from legal action. Maybe you can work something out now, but of course the best time to make deals is before the photo is taken.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Good luck there.

It wasn't public.
There probably was some customization/bodywork/painting on the car. It'd be considered artwork and the owner holds the copyright.
Property photographs need releases too.
You still paid for entrance and access to the car...

Very complex stuff. I don't know if I can sell some tiger shots from the zoo either.

 

[Ant]

I disagree that the car owner is holding the ball. We have pretty lax photography laws here in the UK and I believe they may differ a little from those in the US.

There are only three situations in which the car owner has a legitimate grievance here. The first one is copywrite/trademark on the vehicle or some part of it. Worth looking into.

The second one is invasion of privacy. As the number plate isn't visible and the car owner was showing the car at a public event then this doesn't apply.

The third situation is the T&Cs regarding access to the car show. It's worth finding out if the property owner of the venue has any kind of agreement on entry to the show, or if the car owners have any agreement with the venue hosts. If there is no photographic agreement then the car owner has no rights at all.

I think that bp22hot's suggestion is a good one, but for me it would depend upon the initial attitude of the car owner. If he's being reasonable about it then fair enough but if he's being all p1$$y then tell him to take a running jump. He really hasn't got any legal standing unless there's a photography agreement with the venue, or copywrite on the car design.

 

[Jeff Canes]

In the US, artwork cannot be copy and reproduced with out the permission of the original copyright holder. Is a car artwork IMO yes. Also a live events & performances are copyrighted to control redistribution and protect the organizers assets.

 

[kelox]

I say just ignore thae car owner as you seem to be on pretty safe ground.

I wouldn't say ignore him. Think of the future. You most likely will attend more car shows, with the intent of taking pics. This person could make it hard for you to do that. I agree, try a peace offering, the amount/percentage is up to you. If you make the situation agreeable to both, then you may find yourself in a better position to take more later. He/she will tell his/her friends, what story do you want to get out about you; one where you "ripped him off and screwed him when he approached you" or one where you "treated him fairly and justly compensated him". Which would his/her friends react to better, the rip off artist, or the guy who takes care of you when he photographs your car? I am no legal expert, or even great photographer, just a guy who loves taking pictures-but I do know how I'd like to be treated.

 

[rangefinder]

Someone's advice was to see you lawyer. Very good advice.

In the U.S. you can shoot that picture and probably get away with publishing it in a periodical or newspaper. But to sell the photos you would need a "Property Release" which is the property version of a model release.

And as kelox mentioned you may want to go to another car show...