Any BCF members in these calendars?

[Guest]

There's a company on Ebay selling British car calendars. Four different popular marques. It looks like the pictures were taken at different car shows. Members may want to check to see if your car has been used without your permission. It's unlikely anyone would do that but who knows.

 

[jdubois]

Even though it's always nice to ask before using pictures of somebody's car, if they're from car shows, the pictures are probably legal to use without permission.

 

[swift6]

There is a big difference in using photos of people or cars in a public place as a "news event" and a commercial venture. If they are using photos without permission for a commercial enterprise then they are being used illegally. It can get really sticky between commercial/news/fine art. The end product can usually determine the intent though. Calendars are a far cry from reporting a news worthy event or fine art.

 

[Basil]

Even though it's always nice to ask before using pictures of somebody's car, if they're from car shows, the pictures are probably legal to use without permission.

I would think so also, but don't know it for a fact if its used for commercial gain?

 

[tomshobby]

No matter who is right, probably the only winners would be the attorneys.

 

[jdubois]

I would think so also, but don't know it for a fact if its used for commercial gain?

Well, certainly IANAL, but what law would you use to protect yourself from someone else using a picture of your car for commercial gain? Copyright? No, that belongs to the photographer. Privacy laws? No, there's no question nobody was intruding on your privacy if you've specifically brought your car to be seen at a car show. Publicity laws? No, I'm pretty sure those only apply to images of people, and only if you can prove your image has general commercial worth (i.e. you're a celebrity).

Scummy, without a doubt, but I don't see how it could be considered illegal.

 

[Brosky]

And don't forget what's in the public domain is just that.

 

[Geo Hahn]

I would think most folks would give their permission for no more than perhaps the promise of a free calendar (I would). With the owners' cooperation they could get much nicer photos -- w/o the placards, backgrounds, etc.

I see they have several versions... got a little confused on the text as they suggest the Triumph pictures would be "a perfect gift for the Sunbeam auto enthusiast".

 

[toysrrus]

Hi There Strikle;

What category are these under?

Thanx, Russ

 

[swift6]

Your car is still privately owned property and still needs a 'property release' for commercial purposes. Even if it is on view in a public park or a public street. Especially if it is identifiable to an individual, say like displaying your license plate. Same as 'model releases' are needed for people. Like I said before, there is a difference between News(Journalism)/Commercial/Fine Art. There is also deemed to be a huge difference between photographing cars in a car show vs photographing them out on the street. Especially if whoever owns the park/location of the show has restrictions on commercial venues in the area at the same time, and yes even public parks often have restrictions on commercial venues within the park. Make no mistake, photographing cars with the intent of producing calendars for retail sale is definitely a commercial venture with the intent of selling a product, in this case, the calendar is the product, the photos of the cars are being used to promote the sale of the calendars. If it were me photographing those cars with the intent of making a calendar I would get property releases to at least cover my but. If it were to go to court though... 50/50 it could actually go either way depending on the state/judge/jury/lawyers etc...

Don't let any of the above discourage you from taking photos at car shows though. Photos for private use or even editorial use would not be restricted at all in the above situation. The only time you need worry other wise is if you are actually on Private property photographing anything without proper permission.

 

[jdubois]

Your car is still privately owned property and still needs a 'property release' for commercial purposes.

I'm not really doubting you swift, sounds like you're a photographer so you're probably the most up on these things. But I just can't bring myself to accept that statement without evidence. What law specifically are you using as the basis for that claim?

Again, I don't see how privacy or publicity laws would apply. I think if you claimed you expected privacy at a car show you'd be laughed out of court. Defamation? How you could be defamed by a picture of your car in a calendar, I'm not sure. I know some people in the past have tried to sue under conversion, which is really the closest to the spirit of the issue, but conversion deals with real property (e.g. you can't charge money to let kiddies sit in somebody else's car at a car show), not images of real property. I don't think anybody has ever successfully made that fly in court.

Now, certainly, getting the owner to sign a property release is a good idea, because the owner can always sue whether they have a valid case or not, and a property release will tend to keep them from doing that. But I would love to see a case where the owner of a piece of property shown in a photograph has won damages *solely* on the fact that the photograph was used commercially without permission. I say solely, because I know people have won where there were obvious defamation or publicity issues, but that's not what we're looking at with these calendars.

(Let me suffix this all with another IANAL, and for all I know swift is right. Please do get property releases, and please don't take my advice as anything but two lips flapping /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif )

 

[swift6]

For the most part, it is generally concerned with trademarks and the like being used without permission. The strongest case example I can think of is if you went to a motorcycle show, photographed a bunch of Harley's and then made a calendar that prominently showed the H-D logo. Harley Davidson has successfully sued photographers for doing just that without permission from Harley Davidson to reproduce their trademarked logo. Crappy but true.

The other aspect of your car being photographed and that image used commercially without your permission would imply your endorsement of a product or your support for the product/person etc...

The real violation of the law can really stem from whether or not commercial photography is allowed during the event by the property owners (land not cars in this case). There are often stipulations that can be applied to protect participants from unwanted/unsolicited commercial practices.

There is always the possibility though that whoever took the photos told the car owners what they wanted to do, promised them a free calendar, got a verbal okay to do so and snapped away. No worries from anyone because no one got their nose bent out of shape.