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



## phil-ray (Jun 10, 2007)

hi people

i hope this is the right section

can i have a little advice please

im a photographer for a car site www.jon44w.com and attended a car show at the weekend.

baiscly i thought and presume that if u have a car at a show show on a stand u dont need to have the owner of the car to sign anything for me to take the picture and put it up in one of our gallerys.

a guy has now pmed me saying this



> You have some photos of my pale blue Alfa 145 on the site from yesterdays Italian Motor Club gathering.
> 
> I have not signed any releases authorising you to use these pictures and am therefore requesting removal of them from the site and your portfolio with immediate effect.



i have taken down the photos in question, just for the pure thing of less hassle, but im just wondering where do i legaly stand on this if i didnt wnat to take the photo down?

im in n ireland so english law would be what im under

thanks


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 10, 2007)

in America, you need releases.


----------



## killcrazy (Jun 10, 2007)

Sw1tchFX said:


> in America, you need releases.


But UK law isnt US law is it..... 



http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

This may help shed a little light on the subject. might not like, i havent looked into your query specifically. but this has helped me in the past. 

Hope it helps you out.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jun 10, 2007)

ugh!  I don't know how ot help you I don't know the answer but what a dork!


----------



## skieur (Jun 10, 2007)

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


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 11, 2007)

killcrazy said:


> http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
> 
> This may help shed a little light on the subject. might not like, i havent looked into your query specifically. but this has helped me in the past.


Looks like if you weren't trespassing at the event, or if the event was on public property, you can do with the images as you please.

If you were at the event without invitiation, or were trespassing in any way, or if the Alfa owner owns the event location as well, then you are limited in what you can do.


----------



## phil-ray (Jun 11, 2007)

the event was gheld at a local museaum but was accesable to the public free of charge, I was not tress passing and the club owners and museaum people knew i was there taking photos for the site i work for.

as i said i pulled the pics down to keep the guy happy but im good to here where i stand on things like this, its actualy the first time someones told me to pull pictures.

thanks guys


----------



## tempra (Jun 11, 2007)

I'd put them back up, with an Alfa he'll be back under the bonnet trying to fix it rather than surfing the web very soon.

Explain to him that the copyright is in fact yours, and he has no right to use these pictures in any way without having a signed release form from yourself - that should keep him busy in between fixing electrical faults and rust!


----------



## Stretch Armstrong (Jun 11, 2007)

skieur said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



God, I like your spice! I was thinking the same thing except it wasn't stuffed, I was thinking.:thumbup:


----------



## killcrazy (Jun 11, 2007)

phil-ray said:


> the event was gheld at a local museaum but was accesable to the public free of charge, I was not tress passing and the club owners and museaum people knew i was there taking photos for the site i work for.
> 
> as i said i pulled the pics down to keep the guy happy but im good to here where i stand on things like this, its actualy the first time someones told me to pull pictures.
> 
> thanks guys



Yeah, i would put them back up to, and if he complains again then explain to him that you hold the copywrite etc. 
But if i were you, if the registration plate is showing then i would blank it out. As if it were me, that would be the only thing that id be annoyed about.


----------



## ADELICATEIMAGE (Jul 12, 2007)

I Could Have Not Said It Better



skieur said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve Wynn (Jul 17, 2007)

*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! *

This is covered frequently in The Professional Photographers of America forum www.ourppa.com 

You have to be a member to benefit from the members only forums on copyright and legal etc.

Steve


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 18, 2007)

Steve,

Your wrong. He is NOT using them for promotional purposes, he runs a website that shows pictures of cars. Now if he created banner logos with said car in question, and had them distributed around the internet, or put a picture on the front page that said "The owner of this car loves my website" then he could be some trouble.

Did you see his website? www.jon44w.com ? It shows pictures of cars. 

Again:

*If you are not using the picture to ADVERTISE anything, or making false claims about the owner of said car, than you have every right to publish, and even sell, the pictures you took.* 

If you want my personal advice? I would email him back, and offer him the photos of his beautiful car, with your permission to use them as well, but remind him that you own the copyright on these photos and you will use them to your liking.


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 18, 2007)

Not that any of that matters since he is not the US, and I am speaking of US laws here.... but Steve, I am trying to stop the spread of false information.


----------



## ferny (Jul 18, 2007)

I personally remove the number plates of cars I photograph. Just because I feel happier that they can't complain about it to me. But also because I don't want my cars number plate plastered around. Not that it makes much difference seeing as someone posted a video from a 1989 car show I shouted out loudly "ooo, that's my car". :mrgreen:

I take the plate out of the image and put it back, just like others have said. If you're profiting from his car then he has grounds for complaints.


----------



## RacePhoto (Jul 18, 2007)

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 (Jul 19, 2007)

RacePhoto said:


> 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 (Jul 19, 2007)

RacePhoto said:


> 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 (Jul 19, 2007)

Steve Wynn said:


> *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 (Jul 19, 2007)

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 (Jul 19, 2007)

usayit said:


> 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 (Jul 19, 2007)

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 (Jul 20, 2007)

Steve Wynn said:


> 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 (Jul 20, 2007)

skieur said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Jul 20, 2007)

skieur said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



: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 (Jul 20, 2007)

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 (Jul 20, 2007)

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


----------



## fmw (Jul 21, 2007)

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 (Jul 21, 2007)

fmw said:


> 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 (Jul 22, 2007)

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.)


----------



## jon_k (Jul 22, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> Unless that car has been copyrighted/trademarked



Copyright may subsist in a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms or "works". These include poems, theses, plays, and other literary works, movies, choreographic works (dances, ballets, etc.), musical compositions, audio recordings, paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, software, radio and television broadcasts of live and other performances, and, in some jurisdictions, industrial designs.

Can't copyright a car really. Although the photographer / original poster CAN copyright the image he took of this guys car. Strange irony huh?

A trademark or trade mark[1] is a distinctive sign or indicator of some kind which is used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to uniquely identify the source of its products and/or services to consumers, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.

Doesn't seem like trademarked either. Unless he took a photo of his car and had it registered by his government as a trademark. Then, taking another picture with similar likeness /might/ cause some trouble I'd imagine. I highly doubt the jerk in question has registered a photo of his ride as a TM though.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jul 22, 2007)

simplest answer yet on this thread- Sure, you can most likely use the photos for whatever you want and the owner cant stop you


----------



## skieur (Jul 22, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> Unless that car has been copyrighted/trademarked


 
You cannot copyright a car and trademark law does NOT apply.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jul 22, 2007)

jon_k said:


> Copyright may subsist in a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms or "works". These include poems, theses, plays, and other literary works, movies, choreographic works (dances, ballets, etc.), musical compositions, audio recordings, paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, software, radio and television broadcasts of live and other performances, and, in some jurisdictions, industrial designs.
> 
> Can't copyright a car really. Although the photographer / original poster CAN copyright the image he took of this guys car. Strange irony huh?
> 
> ...


 
Simply put, trademark law does NOT apply. "passing off" is a requirement for the violation of trademark law. What that means for example is passing off a brown drink as Coca Cola by copying the original red and white trademark onto the bottle with the brown drink and then selling it as Coca Cola

skieur


----------

