|
|
|
Nov 27, 2006 20:34:17 GMT
|
hello guys, i've been speculating/planning/organising selling some of my photos online. However, almost all of my photos from car shows have the registration of the car on them, whats the law say about selling these images? Am I allowed? Do I need permission from the owners? Any ideas - pleaseandthankyou  |
| |
|
|
|
|
Hirst
Posted a lot
This avatar is inaccurate, I've never shaved that closely
Posts: 3,930
|
|
Nov 27, 2006 20:36:57 GMT
|
|
Don't know about the law but they'd probably not appreciate it if their car is just parked up on the street or something. If it's at a show or motorsport or something they kind of leave themselves open to photography I would say.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2006 20:39:40 GMT
|
I vaguely remember this from when I went around this area with my posters......I don't think they have any rights at all - but I still asked politely if I could (if at all possible). I edited the registration plates anyway, on most of them, usually along with the colour of the car  Stand to be corrected tho, that's all I can remember ;D |
| |
Last Edit: Nov 27, 2006 20:41:07 GMT by Lewis
|
|
Odin
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,406
|
|
Nov 27, 2006 20:44:19 GMT
|
It's sketchy - if it's a recognisable piece of property then technically you need a photo release form, just as you would if you'd taken a photo of their face. A registration would allow a car to be recognised, obv. However, it's a) unlikely whoever it is will come across the photo, and b) even if you are in the wrong then they can't do much about it...probably sue you for profits made on the sales of that photo. Since their returns are unlikely to equal court costs, I doubt they would bother. I see it as common courtesy to wipe numberplates generally though - why not Pshop the model name of the car or somesuch on? It wouldn't spoil the photo that much. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2006 21:24:55 GMT
|
|
I know someone who owns a Princess. A photo of it appeared in a curse word Cars calendar with him behind the wheel! They changed one letter of the numberplate. He was pretty cheesed off but I don't think that legally there is anything he could do.
|
| |
1986 Citroen 2CV Dolly Other things. Check out my Blog for the latest! www.hubnut.org |
|
Mr K
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,993
|
|
Nov 27, 2006 21:50:55 GMT
|
|
what about that magazine that took loads of pics of Mr B to goldi locks's audi for a magazine feature when it first came out... can he sue them for all they are worth
|
| |
|
|
Odin
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,406
|
|
Nov 27, 2006 21:57:42 GMT
|
I know someone who owns a Princess. A photo of it appeared in a curse word Cars calendar with him behind the wheel! They changed one letter of the numberplate. He was pretty cheesed off but I don't think that legally there is anything he could do. Could you see/recognise his face? If not, there's nothing he can do, no.  what about that magazine that took loads of pics of Mr B to goldi locks's audi for a magazine feature when it first came out... can he sue them for all they are worth No, because the owner at the time probably signed a release form for the photos. I don't know when the legislation was brought in, so it might not have even existed then.  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2006 22:10:40 GMT
|
|
ill ask my photographer friends about this, wont be til thursday at the least tho,
refer to normal thread lengthening proceedures,
insert sexy j tin here
|
| |
|
|
bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,962
Club RR Member Number: 71
|
|
Nov 27, 2006 23:25:58 GMT
|
|
Wipe the plates - easy with Pshop or even MS paint!!!
Smudge facility
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2006 23:29:02 GMT
|
Wipe the plates - easy with Pshop or even MS paint!!! Smudge facility A huge framed-for-wall print of a classic car would be totally ruined by a smudged-out/obviously messed with plate, for me. Depends on the style of the photo, I guess though... |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legally you're fine. You took the pics. They're your pics. Publish them.
Charlie (media law specialist).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also just think about all the photos you see in the paper, magazines, etc. where they have taken photos in the street - traffic jams, accidents, propsed new housing development. Theres people with faces in them and cars with registrations in them. I bet they never track everyone down and get a release form, what aboput a photo at a footie match where you can see the faces in the crowd? Nah. My picture appeared in the paper once, I provided a quote which they "adapted slightly" and printed under my photo. Randomly this was on the subject of legalisation of canabis. I never signed anything, but I would guess my permission was implicit because I spoke to them and let them take the photo.
|
| |
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The legality on this one is simple. If you press the shutter you own the photo and unless you surrender those rights you can use it however you want. Some people might not like their reg no in a photo but since they show it every time they go on the road it's hardly private so they cant stop you.
Image IP is something people in my industry have to know about, you have nothing to worry about.
|
| |
"Jeremy Clarkson, a man we motor enthusiasts need on our side like Lewis Hamilton's F1 car needs a towing ball and a Sprite Musketeer" My motor |
|
Odin
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,406
|
|
Nov 28, 2006 14:50:21 GMT
|
Apologies for keeping this OT thread alive, chaps, but I'm genuinely interested in this one. Since there are some experts on this thread it would be a good time to ask a question. I had to go on a course about this legislation at the start of the year - it had a bit of a US bias to it, though. Do we not have the 'recognisable property' release legislation over here? alistairk - the way I understand it, editorial is fair game and doesn't need releases. It's when you get to promo/commercial material where you need the consent. As consolation, here's some tidy VIP J:  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2006 15:05:50 GMT
|
|
I know that a few years ago a lass I know tried to stop a magazine printing photos of her taken in a nightclub which were used alongside an article about sex in club toilets and the like. It was about sex starved sluts banging multiple partners in the cubiles or something. The clear implication of the use of the photo and some of the comments in the article made it appear that the author had indeed had sex with her in the club toilets, as well as other men having done the same. It was all very lurid. She was understandably very upset when she saw this but had no redress against them. The effects were to actually turn her reclusive. Not only not going clubbing but hardly going out at all. No concent, no waiver, no release forms or anything. They took the photo, they thought it illusatrated their story well and so they ran it. They had not specifically identified her by name so "no harm done". The fact that it reffered to a slim oriental girl in a long gold dress organising a queue of willing sex slaves to fill her craven desires" (or words to that effect) and then had a photo of her fitting that physical / visual description along side the article means nothing...
|
| |
Last Edit: Nov 28, 2006 15:06:42 GMT by akku
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2006 16:11:31 GMT
|
|
Actually a photo is a very strong form of identification, and if she could prove that her reputation had been damaged (very easy if the article is as you say) then she has strong grounds for a case.
On the other hand she'll probably only get an apology as a legal case costs a fortune to bring.
I'm surprised that the magazine didn't pixelate her face. Very poor behaviour.
Anyway, we're waaaay off topic here so I'll shut up.
Charlie
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2006 16:16:47 GMT
|
Yeah I think when it gets like teh toilet girl, its serious - i'd try sue. However an innocent picture of a blurry guy in a princess should not upset anyone, unless maybe if it was used as a brand logo etc for big company and lots of money made. most people would just love the attention, the company'd probably p shop it to death anyway! thats my guesses anyways. watching and learning, I often wonder about loads of stuff like this... Some people get funny about pictures and pointing cameras, most people love it! |
| |
 it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts  |
|
Shortcut
Posted a lot
I won't be there when you cross the road, so always use the Green Cross Code.
Posts: 3,037
|
|
Nov 28, 2006 17:39:55 GMT
|
|
Taking a photo of you steals your soul anyway so that's not good. I don't know if photographing your car only steals some of your soul or what.
Anyway if in doubt you can always eat thephotographer to get your soul back.
...I think
|
| |
This space available to rent. Reach literally dozens of people. Cheap rates!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2006 18:04:02 GMT
|
|
Cheers guys.
I know if I'd taken my car to a show and someone had photographed it and then the photo appeared on a website for sale I'd be honoured that someone had seen some potential in it, but you never know.
In future though, I will try and ask the owner of the vehicle if it's ok.
|
| |
|
|
Mr K
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,993
|
|
Nov 28, 2006 18:23:07 GMT
|
I know if I'd taken my car to a show and it appeared on a website for sale i dout i would be honoured, i would probably be abit angry that somone was selling my car without asking me!! |
| |
|
|
|
|
