My '64 Cutlass 442 in a poster??? Without my permission!!! - Page 2 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > General Discussion> Hotrodders' Lounge
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2004, 10:02 AM
Im trying to have an idea!
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Abilene Texas
Age: 35
Posts: 382
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Some of those other cars seems familiar. Id atleast email the guy and ask "whatz up wit dat" to see what kinda response you get. But sueing him is kinda drastic, he should have asked some guys for a good pic and put there name somewhere on the poster. Id let him know whats on your mind first.

oldspower for life *chicano voice*

    Advertisement
Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2004, 11:29 AM
crazygutgut's Avatar
I wanted an egg-salad sandwich
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Mateo, Call-e-FORN-yuh!
Age: 46
Posts: 266
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Let me try and explain this for ALL so that everyone in all of the AMERICAS understands..

OLDS took a photo of his car. It is OLDS photo, he owns ALL rights to that photo. Even if OLDS posts his photo on a website he still OWNS that photo. Just because something is on the web does not mean you can take it and reproduce it without permission. When I take peoples photos to "photochop" them, that technically is illegal, but I am doing it for personal use. Even if I alter the photo, it is still not okay, because I never obtained the proper permission. The web is so massive however that prosecuting all offenders is pointless. This is very similar to copying cd's to cassette, that is illegal, the music company owns that music and you dont have permission to copy it. however since that is entirely ridiculious notion to prosecute, they only go after people who make copies and then sell them. Now if you have your own camera, and you photograph OLDs car in some kind of public event or on the street (note that I said public) you own that photo and you can do whatever you want to it, and sell it or whatever. OLDS could possibly sue, because he never gave permission to use his car, but if the car was shot in a public area, he probably would not win. Most photographers when they shoot stuff in public, will get a release from the owner, but it is not required, only a legal move. This is why the papparazi can never be stopped, it is perfectly legal for them to stand around on street corners and snap celebrities on the street and shopping etc..

I posted earlier, that I talked to the guy involved in this, He understands his mistakes now, and will most likely do whatever OLDS wants him to do (take the poster down or give him a free one)


Gluck
Quick reply to this message
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2004, 02:02 PM
Jon's Avatar
Jon Jon is offline
Hotrodders.com Administrator
 
Last wiki edit: Removing stuck fasteners Last photo:
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Colorado
Age: 37
Posts: 3,206
Wiki Edits: 7314

Thanks: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 12 Posts
I'm not a lawyer, but I think crazygutgut just nailed it.

A photograph is like a work of art. If you sit on your roof, and paint your neighborhood, complete with houses and cars, then you own the rights to that painting, not the homeowners or car-owners. If you write an article or book about someone, then you own the rights to that article or book, not that person. In this sense, a camera is considered an artistic tool, just like a paintbrush or a pen.

If he violated other laws to obtain the picture (trespassing, etc.), then it's a whole different story.

The web is a breeding-grounds for this sort of thing, because while the law is clear, the enforcement is impractical. We used to be really careful about this sort of thing, and even got written clearances from companies before posting pics of their products. Turned out to be impractical and time-consuming; now we just clear rights when we think it would be reasonably prudent.

To protect our massive photo album from this sort of thing happening though, we watermark our photos with "Hotrodders.com". It's ugly in some pics, but, in most cases, it does legally prevent something like the above from happening. It also means our members' photos won't show up on another board as some dishonest guy's newest "project".
Quick reply to this message
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2006, 03:11 PM
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 0
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
That the doctor has registered

That the doctor has registered

That the doctor has registered

SPAM................not here you don't

Last edited by poncho62; 08-20-2006 at 04:46 PM. Reason: SPam
Quick reply to this message
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2006, 07:38 PM
grouch's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last wiki edit: How to document your project
Last journal entry: 1949 Olds -- Rotisserie, pt. 9
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 1,143
Wiki Edits: 2

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by poncho62
I don't think that you have much of a case............You posted a picture on the internet..............for anyone to go ahead and download.
Sorry, no, that's not the case here at all. Posting a picture on the Internet does indeed imply permission to download it, because otherwise it could not be viewed. A browser doesn't work on magic; it has to download a copy of text, images, the html that makes up a web page, in order for a person to view that work. That implied permission to make a copy to view does not extend to making additional copies to use elsewhere. It does not imply any permission to publish.

Posting your photos in your journal means you want people to be able to view them. You are publishing them at that point. You are not placing them in the public domain and you are not granting permission for them to be published by others, whether on another website or on tee shirts, posters and bumper stickers. The fact that you published your photos on the Internet does not mean that you have abandoned ownership.

It is just plain dumb for anyone to attempt any commercial operation based on assumptions about rights and permissions regarding images, sounds or text. For some reason, the links given resulted in a '404' for me, so I haven't seen the car or the poster. If the photo is that easily recognized in the poster, it is highly unlikely that it would be considered a transformative work. That places it squarely in the cross-hairs of what international copyright law seeks to prevent, which is the unauthorized commercial exploitation of copyright owners.

For a similar case, see " Creative Commons Licenses Enforced in Dutch Court" at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5823
Quick reply to this message
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2006, 07:57 PM
grouch's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last wiki edit: How to document your project
Last journal entry: 1949 Olds -- Rotisserie, pt. 9
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 1,143
Wiki Edits: 2

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazygutgut
<SNIPPED>
When I take peoples photos to "photochop" them, that technically is illegal, but I am doing it for personal use. Even if I alter the photo, it is still not okay, because I never obtained the proper permission.
I snipped out the good summary of what the complaint is, in order to take a stab at your self-recrimination.

When people request that you "photochop" their photos, you certainly are not infringing. When you base a new work on someone else's work, you might be infringing or you might be creating a transformative work. That's where things can get sticky.

For instance, Google was cleared of an accusation of infringement stemming from their cached copies of pages. The court ruled that those cached copies were clearly labelled, had a prominent link to the original work, and changed the original work by way of the highlighted search terms. The court ruled that these copies would not deter people from visiting the original, would not be confused with the original, and would not damage the market value of the original.

Another court case decided that making thumbnails of images with links back to the original is a transformative work and therefore fair use. Again it considered the effects such as confusing people about the original and damaging the market value of the original.

When you "photochop", you create a new image. If that new image is unlikely to be confused with the original, is not used for commercial purposes (having even a text advertisement on the same page might be considered enough commercialization to tip that scale), and does not lessen the market value of the original, the new work is unlikely to be infringement.

Disclaimer:
I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I refuse to run to one to ask permission to type, talk, paint or blow my nose.
Quick reply to this message
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2006, 09:15 PM
66ImpSS396's Avatar
It's been fun
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Rossvagas Ga
Posts: 56
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mystery of the 404

Grouch, you know why your getting a 404. Look at the date of this thread Jon's response was 10-19-2004, 12:02 PM
It popped up in the todays because DoctorKyo attached Spam
that was cleaned up by poncho62 : Today at 05:46 PM (and Thank you poncho62 for your hard work at keeping that out of here!)
Quick reply to this message
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 08-20-2006, 10:32 PM
grouch's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last wiki edit: How to document your project
Last journal entry: 1949 Olds -- Rotisserie, pt. 9
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 1,143
Wiki Edits: 2

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66ImpSS396
Grouch, you know why your getting a 404. Look at the date of this thread Jon's response was 10-19-2004, 12:02 PM
It popped up in the todays because DoctorKyo attached Spam
that was cleaned up by poncho62 : Today at 05:46 PM (and Thank you poncho62 for your hard work at keeping that out of here!)
D'OH! Talk about not being late for the party! Thanks 66ImpSS396. I'll add my thanks to Poncho62 for such cleanup work, too.

Somebody recommended that spammers be jailed with a bunch of their victims who have used lots of "natural male enhancement" and bought lots of Viagra substitutes. That's probably too good for them, though.
Quick reply to this message
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2006, 08:05 AM
66ImpSS396's Avatar
It's been fun
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Rossvagas Ga
Posts: 56
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Jail is to easy

I think we need to bring back the Guillotine for Spammers and Telemarketers.

BTW it took me a while to figure out why I couldn't open the web pages either.

Behead all spammers and telemarketers!

The Gene Pool Needs More Chlorine
Quick reply to this message
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 08-21-2006, 09:03 AM
MARTINSR's Avatar
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San francisco bay area
Age: 56
Posts: 13,435
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1,570
Thanked 1,325 Times in 1,149 Posts
Listen, first off, this guy is going to make exactly $18.26 off selling the ten posters he sells. You want your portion, heres your $1.45. This guy isn't going to get rich off it, get over that part of it.

Secondly, as far as I understand YOU do not own that photo anymore, the web site where you posted it does! You "gave" it to them when you posted it.

Thirdly, when you put your car in a shop like Goodguys (I don't know if this is the case being I can't open the link to the poster) you sign a form that releases all rights to photos of your car.

I understand your being upset I have a few guys who put some articles of mine on their sites without my name on them and act like they are their own. It burns me a little, but I GAVE them to the public when I posted them. And are they making money of them, sort of, but they are not getting rich.

Brian
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread

Recent Hotrodders' Lounge posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.