| Author | Message | ||
| Michael C. James (Mjames)
Junior Member Username: Mjames Post Number: 97 Registered: 6-2003 |
No offense, Ill, but that is a TERRIBLE idea. | ||
| Il Commenadatore (Ilcommenadatore)
New member Username: Ilcommenadatore Post Number: 28 Registered: 8-2003 |
Why don't we just disallow posting pictures or linking to pictures altogether? | ||
| Rick (Bromers)
New member Username: Bromers Post Number: 9 Registered: 6-2003 |
One of the reason for 'blanking' out the registration plate is to stop people from identifying your car as being on a track (or equivalent). | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 1905 Registered: 10-2002 |
Rob, I would think you can legally sell your own pictures from those races. After all at any GP there are booths with guys selling such pictures. Whether anybody wants to buy them is another matter. Jeff, good point. I had that question myself many times. Often I'd like to post a picture from a F book, but knowing, that I don't have the permission to 'reprint' I normally don't do it. Case in point: We had the discussion over the movie 'Grand Prix' where Glickenhaus' P4 is visible in one scene. Well, I managed to snatch a still out of the movie, but then decided not to post it. Obviously there is no money involved and it would suit the discussion here, but I also know how anal the movie industry can be when it comes to copyright protection. | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Junior Member Username: Beast Post Number: 202 Registered: 5-2003 |
Jeff; In this case i think you have to use a credit similar to this "Reprinted with permission of Ferrari SPA" or something similar to that. The catch is do you have permission to post it then??? I honestly would like to know what some of my rights are concerning pictures i had taken at races back in the 80's. wether i can reproduce them and sell them as memorabilia in the future?? Rob | ||
| Jeff B. (Miltonian)
Member Username: Miltonian Post Number: 532 Registered: 12-2002 |
What about posting a picture from a book, a magazine, a shop manual, brochure, etc.? It never occured to me that Rob could face a problem because someone like me tried to share information with someone who did not have access to that material. Should credit be given to the source? Don't do it any more? What? No money is involved. | ||
| Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Member Username: Future328driver Post Number: 539 Registered: 12-2001 |
Listen to Bill on the copyright issues....he is the Wile E. Coyote of copyright - super genius  | ||
| Jason W (Pristines4)
Member Username: Pristines4 Post Number: 605 Registered: 12-2002 |
Well, regardless of the legal issues, I've learned a lesson. :-/ | ||
| Mark (Study)
Member Username: Study Post Number: 694 Registered: 10-2001 |
Funny ass thing at Lamborghini web sites. I never went back to the Lamborghini web sites because some jerk that ran this one site, was taking every Lambo photo on the web and copy writing it, and then going to all other Lambo web sites and asking them to take down their photos because he had copy writed all imagies of Lamorghini's. This guy was a first class jerk wad. I'm sure he is still busy trying to corner the market for his web site about Lamborghini's. Single biggest reason to ignore that brand of cars ( has nothing to do with the gold chains, that's only the second reason). | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 1901 Registered: 10-2002 |
Bill kinda confirmed, what I always thought was the case and what is basically written in the link Tillman provided. Rob, I disagree with your first conclusion. To give you an example: When there is a FCA party at somebody's home, we take pictures and normally publish them here. That's an event on private propoerty and the pictures were not taken from a public location. That is OK as long as the owner of the property is fine with it. | ||
| Kevin Marcus (Rumordude)
Junior Member Username: Rumordude Post Number: 188 Registered: 9-2001 |
1) i am no lawyer. With respect to license plates, and VIN's for that matter, you "don't have to blank them out" as far as i know. However, the DPPA (drivers privacy protection act) does provide for protection against the use of DMV related items. In particular, DMV data (vehicle license registration, and drivers license data) have various protections, although they vary from state to state. The DPPA protects against the general distribution of two types of data: "personal information" and "highly restricted personal information" unless there is some special case (for example, law enformcement purposes). "personal information" is the info that contains DMV data with any of the photograph, SSN, driver ID number, name/address (excludes zip code), phone number, medical and/or disability. It excludes information on vehicular accidents, driving violations and drivers status (i.e. suspended for dui or whatever). "highly restricted personal information" is the drivers photo/image, ssn, medical and/or disability info. Additionally, insurance and license private investigative firms also qualify for access to this data, but only if they have a permissible use, (as above), but also including vehicle recalls, market research (hence leaving out the zip code), legal matters (civil, criminal, administrative, arbitral with state/federal/local court and/or agency, including before those events have occured (for example, you could check to see if vin/tag is owned by person xyz without havign to go to court first if you are conducting an investigation in a hit and run accident and the idiots license plate fell off) Other states have other rules. IA is mean. CA is mean. Keep in mind that part of the reason the DPPA was passed was because someone in AZ had a PI look up some celebrity and then went and murdered them (I forget the names of these people, it weas a long time ago). There is a class action lawsuit in FL regarding use of DMV data. --------------------------- | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member Username: Whart Post Number: 1591 Registered: 12-2001 |
Rob: Your Terms of Use should provide that users must not violate the rights of others. I don't think you should be in the position of deciding where to draw the line for users. Nor are you in a position to constantly police users. I can help you draft some terms which are typical, including the right to remove material, to cancel accounts and to seek indemnification if it comes to that. But, i'm reluctant to have you making the decisions about what a user can and cannot do, since it will be invariably misinterpreted in a way which can bite you in the ass. | ||
| P. Thomas (Ferrari_fanatic)
Member Username: Ferrari_fanatic Post Number: 584 Registered: 4-2003 |
In other words it has to be appearant that you are taking the picture in a public domain. In another case a "gentleman" had a tiny camera on his shoe. He was photographing women's underwear. Again, it is HOW he obtained the pictures which carries the ramifications. | ||
| Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator Username: Rob328gts Post Number: 5971 Registered: 12-2000 |
Thanks Bill and everyone else for your advice. Bill, I know my legal bill with you is enormous right now. OK, so I think here's my conclusion... 1) Users can post pictures they took in public. Including pictures of private property, but shot from a public area. 2) A business can possibly come after a user if they didn't give permission to take photos from on the property. 3) Users may get in trouble if they use the photos of private property for commercial means. | ||
| P. Thomas (Ferrari_fanatic)
Member Username: Ferrari_fanatic Post Number: 583 Registered: 4-2003 |
Not so fast Rob. It also relates to HOW you took those pictures. Recently a man had a small camera in the Men's locker room at a gym. He took pictures of men without their knowledge or consent. At this juncture he does not have a right to post those Pics. Your blanket statement certainley would not be applicable. | ||
| rob ferretti (Robiferretti)
Member Username: Robiferretti Post Number: 331 Registered: 4-2002 |
any picture or video you take is your property... Look at REAL TV....the authors of those videos make $ off those videos so do the show producers and so on up the food chain... do you think joe blow wants to be on national TV having a rhino sticking its horn up his ass? Tough luck...your photo's and video are your own...if someone steals your pictures and sells them thats a crime, if you steal someone else's and sell them its a crime, if you sell your own...your fine | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member Username: Whart Post Number: 1590 Registered: 12-2001 |
I will answer here the questions relating to the posting of photos, but not the issue of revealing or concealing license plate numbers (simply because i don't know the law in that area). The photos are protected by copyright.Automatically. Regardless whether they are registered for copyright or bear a copyright notice (the"c" in the circle). If you are not the photographer, or did not get a grant of rights from him, making a copy of the photo is copyright infringement. Posting a photo without permission is also copyright infringement (its both an unauthorized copy, as well as a public display). A entirely separate is whether the infringement may be excused under the fair use doctrine, because it is commentary, or parody, to cite but two examples. Thus, Mark's chopshop photos, done in a humorous vein, for noncommercial purposes, could be viewed as fair use. Mr. T, on the other hand, may complain that that his photo (if he holds the copyright) is being exploited and that creating bastardized images of him with AllanLambo has irreparably injured his reputation. I doubt Mr. T would win that one, but, as stated below, the internet intermediary, like Rob, is not supposed to get caught in the middle. If you took the photo, but did not have permission from the subject to photograph him/her/it, there are issues that can be raised by the subject, depending on usage. First, if the photo is in a public place, there is not a whole lot that the subject can do. A few examples will illustrate. A celebrity, walking down the street, has no right to prevent someone from taking her picture and selling it to a tabloid, or posting it on the internet. But, if that same picture is used for some commercial activity, the celebrity will have claims for violation of the right of publicity and Lanham Act violations akin to false endorsement. The papparazzi cases usually involve a stalking or intrusion that goes beyond what is acceptable in a public place. Ron Gallala (sp) was enjoined from annoying Jackie Onnasis because of this, not because she had a right to prevent her photo from being taken, as such, in a public place. Obviously, the use of telephoto lenses, concealed cameras in areas with an expectation of privacy, etc. raise issue similar to trepass, and may implicate so-called privacy rights, but i'm not sure that's the question here. As to inanimate objects, like cars, there should be no problem taking a pic of a car in a public place. If you trespass to get the pic, there is an issue. Likewise, if you are at an event which imposes limits on the taking or use of pics, also an issue. In view of the above, posting by the photographer of car pics that are taken in a public place, without trespass or violation of event restrictions should not a violate the law. If the pics are used to promote a product or service, the issue becomes one of false endorsement, and there have been cases (An Eddie Moshenbacker one, if any of you remember him), involving an unauthorized image of his racing car used in a tobacco ad. This claim is no different than one involving use of a celebrity image or someone else's trademark without permission in a commercial context; you can't do it. For the same reason, Ferrari could ••••• if you used an image of the 360 to promote your auto-detailing business. But all of that seems pretty far removed from the posting of car pics on the site by users. If the user doesn't have the right to post, Rob can't really know or police that. As a result, there is a provision in the law (sec. 512 of the Copyright Act) which says that an internet intermediary, if qualified, has general immunity from damages claims for copyright infringement if its system is used to post infringing matter, and upon a written notice of the type specified in the statute, promptly removes the infringing material. The statute is quite detailed and i can furnish a link for all of you to read it. The main requirement, apart from being an innocent intermediary, is to register as a qualifying ISP at the US Copyright Office. The basic premise of these procedures is to strike a balance between the needs of the copyright owner, who wants to quickly remove infringing matter from the Net, and the ISP, who generally has no knowledge of what, in particular, may or may not be infringing on a day to day basis. If an ISP is "dirty" or a known hotbed for infringing matter ( such as certain pirate movie and mp3 sites) the ISP will be disqualified from the safe harbor provisions of the statute and will be treated like any other defendant in the chain of infringing distribution. I think that's a fair start toward answering these questions.... | ||
| P. Thomas (Ferrari_fanatic)
Member Username: Ferrari_fanatic Post Number: 581 Registered: 4-2003 |
Here is another twist. The person who originally took the picture may have copyright protection (they own the picture). Take as an example a portrait that a photographer put his name on, he owns the negatives and the rights to that photograph. Bring that Pic down to your local Kinkos and watch the look on their face if you ask them top copy the picture. | ||
| Eric Brigham (Ebrigham)
New member Username: Ebrigham Post Number: 40 Registered: 4-2003 |
Ken - I hear Odyssies have pretty good resale! MarkPDX � Oy! No Jiffy Lube for me! Horsefly � My thoughts exactly. Why tempt fate? And why not brush up on PhotoShop skills? | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1427 Registered: 5-2002 |
Eric, I agree with you. Several months ago, I posted similar concerns about posting license plate numbers. Most other posters thought that I was paranoid. But I still don't think it's a good idea to be plastering somebody's license plate number across the net. A hundred dollar bill placed into the hands of a crooked DMV employee would probably get a car thief anything he wanted. | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 287 Registered: 4-2003 |
It doesn�t take any special connections to gather info from just a license number. For example your local XXXX Oil/Lube is connected to a database and if you "ask nicely" they can get significant amount of info including address and ph# on any car has ever been to a XXXX Oil/Lube store. Obviously it's not a surefire method since every one doesn't go to one of the national chains but it is very easy. | ||
| Ken (Allyn)
Intermediate Member Username: Allyn Post Number: 1128 Registered: 10-2001 |
Eric, I would wipe my plate off a pic too just to be safe if my Lotus wasn't worth less than my Odyssey! | ||
| V.Z. (Ama328)
Junior Member Username: Ama328 Post Number: 241 Registered: 11-2002 |
i believe Rob's questions are governed under the same set of laws that apply to celebrity pics in public, via the paparazzi buzzards. If the viewer/photographer is in a public place, and the object/person/Fcar is viewable from that public place, then pics are ok... We're gonna see way more of this kinda crap in the not-so-distant future with the advent of cheap camera technology, all in the name of 'TERRORISM', as a way for big brother(and the Bush/Ashcroft clan) to spy on people in public venues. Of course, they'll say that the pics will only be used in 'criminal' situations...that is, until the first rich dude/babe sues for the video to prove their spouse was makin' time with someone else, and they need the pics for the divorce court... In London(UK), supposedly just about every square inch of public road/walkway is under 24x7 video monitoring, including a high tech system that reads the license plates on EVERY car entering the city of London. This is matched up realtime with a database of known 'suspects'...of course, how one defines 'suspects' is rather arbitrary, isn't it ? | ||
| Eric Brigham (Ebrigham)
New member Username: Ebrigham Post Number: 39 Registered: 4-2003 |
Hey Ken. Not sure if your 1st post was directed at mine. But in case there is any misunderstanding my comments are not related to a web site�s liability, just my analysis of why people �wipe off� license plates from pics. As far as liability is concerned, I am with you. | ||
| Ken (Allyn)
Intermediate Member Username: Allyn Post Number: 1127 Registered: 10-2001 |
I had a Fiero in the 80's and my IL registration came back "Ferrari". I tried to correct it once but it still came back "Ferrari" so I ignored it. By the late 80's I had people calling me to buy my car. I got a personal invitation to drive the new Lotus Esprit at a local exotic dealer. They wanted my Ferrari in trade even up. I drove the Esprit; my first experience with an exotic, but they were sure bummed I wouldn't trade my "308" for it, which was "in the shop" at the time. So IL DMV certainly was selling my name and info. | ||
| Ken (Allyn)
Intermediate Member Username: Allyn Post Number: 1126 Registered: 10-2001 |
Say you see a Ferrari on the street, post a pic with the license plate visable and the car gets stolen from the owner's garage. The thief says he traced it from the on line photo. Are you an accessory to grand theft auto? No. The car was in public anyway. Unless you had a site titled "Cars To Be Stolen".... | ||
| Eric Brigham (Ebrigham)
New member Username: Ebrigham Post Number: 38 Registered: 4-2003 |
Horsefly, you are 100% correct, it is not publicly available. I do not mean to slight anyone in the law enforcement community, but you cannot rule out the possibility that the information can indeed be sourced from someone within the police department. We obviously don�t have to worry about the opportunistic amateur car-jacker, but when it comes to $100+ k exotics, the crooks can be much more sophisticated (including organized crime). While the chance is remote and the opportunity to get caught is high, there have been worse cases of corruption than this scenario. Needless to say, the chance of this happening is pretty damn slim, hence my paranoia comment. | ||
| Michael C. James (Mjames)
Junior Member Username: Mjames Post Number: 90 Registered: 6-2003 |
This looks to be a bit unnerving.... http://www.abika.com/Reports/VehicleDrivingRecords.htm | ||
| Kelly Hayes (Khayes)
New member Username: Khayes Post Number: 40 Registered: 4-2003 |
If you don't want pictures of yourself or your Ferrari on the Internet you may not want to drive through Texas. Tx DOT has dozens of video cameras all over town and they all stream live video to the Internet and to local news channels. If you've been here you've been on the Internet. Smile and say cheese! Here is a link for Live Texas Traffic Cams; http://texas.trafficlook.com/ | ||
| ELI (Titanium360)
Member Username: Titanium360 Post Number: 573 Registered: 4-2002 |
Michael, there is a company on the internet that if you provide them with the license plate they will give the registered name and address of the owner. there are few states that they are forbiden to do the search though. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1426 Registered: 5-2002 |
As I've posted before, one can no longer obtain license plate information from your state's DMV unless you are with law enforcement, etc. All DMV records USE to be publicly accessable information. That all changed when actress Rebecca Schaeffer(sp) was murdered in California by a wacko stalker who obtained her address from a private detective who obtained the info through the DMV. Because of the uproar surrounding her death, (and because California constantly attempts to enforce its will upon every other state), Congress passed the Driver Protection Safety Act around 1997. This prevents anybody except the "authorities" from getting license plate info. I use to go to the local DMV and track down old Corvettes and other collectable cars. But the ride is over now. ONE crazed WACKO causes a problem and California and Congress decides to throw the baby out with the bath water for every law abiding person in the country who desires to track down some history on old collectable cars. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 1898 Registered: 10-2002 |
Eric, good point I'll make that a habit going forward. Dom, I think you're out of luck: Ferrari owns the right to the looks of your car. We had this question before. It is similar like owning a Van Gogh: You can't just sell posters off of it, even if you own it. | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 983 Registered: 4-2002 |
Basically: as long as you don't TRY to make any money off of them, the original owner cannot do much more than get you to take the picture off this site. However, if you get a request to remove a picture, you will be better of by removing the picture than going to court...... | ||
| Eric Brigham (Ebrigham)
New member Username: Ebrigham Post Number: 37 Registered: 4-2003 |
As far as blurring the license plate is concerned. I don't know the legalities. But someone with nefarious connections (i.e. car thief or home burglar) could conceivably use the license plate number to track down the home address of the person it�s registered to. The car, and possibly the home itself could be a target. While this information is certainly not publicly available (and very hard to come by), I would not underestimate the resourcefulness of today�s cyber cross-over crooks. I suspect a well-placed contact at the DMV and/or police department could get this information, albeit at high risk. And placing a static image displaying the license plate number provides infinite more opportunity for this to happen versus just driving around. Considering how easy it is to blur part of picture, I don�t see any downside in spending 60 seconds to protect against this. While a lot of the motivation is a bit of paranoia, sometimes, people ARE out to get you. Or at least your stuff� | ||
| Dom Vitarella (Dom)
Member Username: Dom Post Number: 402 Registered: 11-2002 |
I also wonder about photochops. I took some photos of my car (including the logo), made a nice montage. Even posted it here. I've had lots of friends, familty suggest that I sell them. But I wonder about the copyright laws. Dom | ||
| Mike Charness (Mcharness)
Member Username: Mcharness Post Number: 915 Registered: 8-2002 |
Actually, you can go to your local Dept of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and get the address of the car's registered owner if you have the license plate (and this is all going on in the same state). In most states the fee for this service is nominal. Of course, it's been a few years ago since I did this, so the laws may have changed. | ||
| Michael C. James (Mjames)
Junior Member Username: Mjames Post Number: 88 Registered: 6-2003 |
It's my understanding that matching license plates with physical addresses/vehicle registration can only be accomplished by Law Enforcement and is covered by the Privacy Act as legally-protected information - misuse of DMV info is a Federal Felony. Would anyone confirm? | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 286 Registered: 4-2003 |
Should I be concerned about making photochops like the DES spotting thread and all that other stuff I throw together? | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 1897 Registered: 10-2002 |
Another good question by Michael. I can understand this in Europe where you can get a book to look somebody's address up based on the license plate (and thereby open the door for a car thief). However I don't think that you have that 'option' in the States. So why bother? Tillman, thanks for that link. Sounds good and confirms my belief re: the public domain. It does however not address the issue of posting these pictures on the Internet. | ||
| Michael C. James (Mjames)
Junior Member Username: Mjames Post Number: 84 Registered: 6-2003 |
Can someone explain what's the deal with regard to License Plates? Since they are required by law to be displayed, why are they 'blanked out' from pics being posted? Where's the rationale for this? | ||
| Tillman Strahan (Tillman)
Member Username: Tillman Post Number: 879 Registered: 11-2001 |
See http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf Basically, if the scene in question is a public place and the poster took the picture, yes. If the owner of a location tells you to not take photos, you cannot take photos within that property, though you can take photos of the property from another location. Photos of people are special cases, in that commercial use of photos of people require a release. That's why you see that kind of verbage on the back of tickets to sporting events. Noncommercial use of scenes photographed in public are usually permissable. Disclaimer -- I'm not a lawyer, but we did have to learn this in my film classes in college. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 1896 Registered: 10-2002 |
Very interesting questions. Not being a lawyer I can only throw in my opinion: I think if you take the pictures in the public domain, they're fair game as long as you don't make a buck off of them (which we don't do here really). Personally I'm hesitant of posting pictures showing people unless I know from them, that they know me and are ok with this. Not sure about the cars, but my take is, that if you're parking it in say a Concours, you implicitly agree to its picture being exposed. Probably ok as long as it is not for money. Dealership is probably different. Normally I ask the dealers whether I can take the pictures or not. Some times I have taken pictures without their knowledge (and probably without their approval). Those pictures I wouldn't dare posting. Taking pictures of an accident is bad taste. Wouldn't do that anyway. So much from the common man. Now let's hear the experts (I bet I won't like it). | ||
| Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator Username: Rob328gts Post Number: 5966 Registered: 12-2000 |
With the growth of FerrariChat.com I've also started getting more complaints and threats of law suits for pictures posted on the site. Bill and anyone else, I would like to know from a users perspective of posting pictures and my perspective the legal implications of hosting pictures. Here are some of the common situations... 1) Can you post a picture that you took of someone else's car without permission? 2) Can you post a picture that you took on the grounds of a business without permission? 3) Can you take pictures of, for example, a wrecked Ferrari on the interstate and then post it on the internet? |