| Author | Message | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
|
P.S. There's no money in them knocking off FerrariChat. They like money, no money here means no problem. We're talking about multi billion dollar corporations. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
|
Matt brings up a great point, if you get it off a site or if it's just really easy to contact that person, ask them for permission. I've had people ask me about stuff and I never had a problem with them using it. Now for this discussion, Alright let's put this into proportion. No one is gonna come in and try and close FerrariChat. CNN doesn't care who we are, they would laugh at you if you asked permission. They just don't want ABC, CBS, etc taking their stuff. I think if we were to post an entire online manual that we ripped off of Ferrari they might get a little annoyed, but even then I don't think they would really care about a 308 manual on here. Granted if we put every manual from the 125 to the 360 on here, then they might get pissed. Most of the things posted here would probably make the other people happy that they're getting advertising. People have copyright laws so that the competition doesn't start knocking them off, not so that a couple hundred car nuts don't touch anything of theirs. Can you honestly think that CNN, ABC, FNA, and assorted other huge corporations care enough about FC. It's not like we're in some sort of market grudge here with United Steel or Texaco, we're .0000001 of the population (I just did the calculation), they don't care about us. Theoretically speaking, when FerrariChat goes to take over the Ferrari market in North America, FNA might come back and get us with some of these posts, but I like to live life on the edge anyways. | ||
| William_Huber (Solipsist)
|
Is it legal? YES/NO Not such a simple answer is it. Well I do remember on a Ferrari chat thread SOMEONE posted photos of the WTC attack from CNN. I wonder if that person got CNN's permission to post on Rob's web site? NAhhh, That would never happen. It's only CNN, what can they do? Let me put it this way. No more Ferrari site. Be careful what you post. This site is to good to lose. | ||
| Matthew Jenson (Moab355)
|
As someone who regularly has his photos taken and posted all over the internet without permission. I can tell you that from my point of view I do everything in my power to have those pics removed from that web-site. but when people take the time to e-mail me and ask before they use them I have almost always let them. There have been cases where I did not like the content of the web-page and just explained to them that I did not want my link to appear with the photos. I just think that if you want to use a photo you should do what you can to ask the owners permission. Matthew | ||
| Allyn (Allyn)
|
I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV. You can post any picture you want on a message board as long as the picture itself is not illegal (like child pornography) and no one will come after you as long as you're not using it to sell something. There are no damages so no lawsuit. They *could* ask it be removed (like some song lyric sites) but that's about it. Maybe the real lawyers here can confirm this is the reality of our copyrighted universe. Any reproduction of this post must have the written permission of me. | ||
| '75 308 GT4 (Peter)
|
I don't mean to insult, but I also don't want to consult a lawyer every time I would want to post something. This is just a message board where a bunch of guys yap about their cars, now what? Yes I understand, its not legal to post something other than mine, plain and simple. | ||
| Paul Sloan (Sloan83qv)
|
Peter, It seems that you are bothered by the common sense that some of us have posted when it comes to getting legal advice, the thread started out with the question "Is it Legal" and the responses seem to inform one that there is a legal copyright issue that should be looked into before proceeding. Your statement that these responses are "scare mogering" is somewhat insulting, as you stated "ignorance is bliss" but as I stated "it is no excuse for the law". I believe that my earlier response along with others that counsel should be involved is the best advice to a Qustion that starts out "is it legal"!! Regards, Paul | ||
| Jorma Johansson (Jjfinland)
|
Peter, I feel the same way, and it is a pitty. The reason I started this lead was the question about an ASA 1000. I knew I had material he was asking but was not sure if I was alloud to put in here to everybody to learn, so I e-mailed him directly. I am not a risk taker, if you leave loaded guns allover, sooner or later somebody shoots you. I am sure nobody is picking us up about small things, but it is better to know there is limits. Rob has been out of this conversation.?? Sorry my english, it seems I have moore to say than words  | ||
| '75 308 GT4 (Peter)
|
I should've been specific when I made that statement. All of the photographs that I've posted here are mine and I'll continue to do so in the future. What I was refering to is the posting of "official" diagrams/photos, like my fuel-line example for Rick Kestner's '85 Mondial. Looks like I won't post that or others here (and its a shame, because there are alot of good diagrams of the injection/ignition/emission systems in this book. No matter how good one has a grasp of the english language to describe something, a picture says it all). | ||
| david schirmer (David)
|
Peter keep posting your pictures. I assume that you are the one taking them and they are really fine quality. Your engine rebuild was incredibly informative for everyone. I think that copyright enforcement comes about when money is to be made. And I don't believe that posting your own excellent pictures is going to get you in any trouble. Now if they are somebody else's, let's hope they don't read Ferrarichat! | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
|
Yeah I feel the same way Peter. | ||
| '75 308 GT4 (Peter)
|
This scare-mongering has put a sour taste in my mouth for posting pictures here again... Before this topic, ignorance was bliss... | ||
| Dave Wapinski (Davewapinski)
|
The advantages of a copywrite is noone can legally reproduce it in ANY FORM without permission. If one shows a group of people the book, it is not reproducing it. The key is reproducing it. Posting it on a list is reproducing it. One might be able to get away with it. However, the rewards vs the risk does not seem to make sense. There is enough risk in normal life without creating more of it, IMHO. As I see it there are two conflicting sides. One side says that all information should be free. They have some good points. However, if someone spends much time, energy, and money to make something, should they be rewarded? If not rewarded, why should one continue? There are some good points here also. It is hard to resolve these two viewpoints. So far, the laws seem to favor the later and I cannot see it changing anytime in the near future, right or wrong. If in doubt, I would get the proper legal advice from a legal expert. I agree, it is cheaper than getting sued. Dave Wapinski | ||
| Paul Sloan (Sloan83qv)
|
The bottom line here is we are talking about copyright law and none of us are lawyers. The best advise I can give is to FIRST open up the yellow pages and find a good copyright lawyer, it will be cheaper then having to hire once when you get sued! I don't think the "But I was told on Ferrari Chat" will be a good defense. | ||
| david schirmer (David)
|
And now the digital imaging question comes into play. I think that is a very interesting and valid point Peter. I sure don't know the answer. Back to Dave W. ? | ||
| '75 308 GT4 (Peter)
|
What happened if we all met in person and I pulled out one of my books to show a picture of a 1982 Mondial Fuel line system. Would I need permission then? No! What's the difference posting something here? Its used to show somebody something, not selling it as my own, I'm giving credit to where it came from, etc... | ||
| Paul Sloan (Sloan83qv)
|
I know a profesional and every photo he prints (proofs too) he stamps a copyright on the back, this way if any photo he takes shows up anywhere he is going to collect a fee. If you use a photo that you did not take yourself no mater how you came upon it you better have a release from the photographer (even if it's your mother). remember the old saying "Ingnorance is no excuse for the law". | ||
| Michael (Mtabije)
|
Will simply crediting the source (if possible)when you post a picture give you some leverage against some of the nitpickers? Not that any of you guys are...=) | ||
| Dave Wapinski (Davewapinski)
|
If you photograph something for commercial use, you need a property release. For editorial/news can use however you want as long as it is truthful and done in a public place. Own property, however you want. Any doubts, clear with an attorney. | ||
| Jorma Johansson (Jjfinland)
|
Next question, to take a picture of somebodys Ferrari on town, so reg plates could be seen, and to put in here for all the world to see? This happends all the time. I am really happy I can take pictures of my own cars and put them where ever I want . People pay attension to this, its not nonsence. | ||
| Dave Wapinski (Davewapinski)
|
If you do decide to do a public photo forum (legally), let me know. We might be willing to host your site for free. | ||
| Dave Wapinski (Davewapinski)
|
Interesting points. Yes, one can get in deep trouble doing the Ferrari community a favor. So far, digital imaging has had little effect on the copywrite issues and I doubt it will have many effects in the future. It might affect ease of copying, but it has no effect on getting sued. The people I know who are doing on line stock sales are using low res images with an inbeded copywrite notice. Copying an image does not make it one's own. Copying one image to put on a discussion board saying something like I like these wheels, what does the list think, where can I find them is illegal, but I have never known anyone to get bend out of shape because of something like it. However, in today's world, one can never tell. Unless you want to give away much money, avoid wholesale copying at all costs. I believe the latest settlement with Napstar was $5 million and that was only one settlement. However, there still might be a solution. If one was doing a book review, could one use the photo in the review? I do not know - never have been involved in this area. A good attorney would be the best answer. However, you might be able to get some advice from your local paper - they have faced that issue. There also might be an even better way: people like the free publicity of reviews. Contact who ever has the copywrite, tell them you want to do an online review, ask for a good copy of the photo you are interested in, ask for permission to use the photo (for free), and explain why it will benifit them to grant your request. Whenever a newspaper has wanted to do an article on me, I have always supplied them high quality photos of my work and written permission. I do not know of anyone who has denied such a request, but I am sure someone has. This would make it legal and would build up your collection of Ferrari photos. The tradeoff would be time and effort. Hope this helps. Dave Wapinski | ||
| William_Huber (Solipsist)
|
Dave, Thanks for the information. I didn't realize that my future public photo forum could be could be so costly. It's like I could get punished just by doing the Ferrari community a favor. | ||
| Jorma Johansson (Jjfinland)
|
David, that is exatly what I ment, Ferrari owners are commonly known to be deep pockets. So, I would be very cearfully in this chatroom. All the pictures I have sent are taken by me, but there is so many nice and interesting pictures in books. It is shame we cant use them, or is a picture taken of a page in a book " my own picture" ? To publish one picture of a new Ferrari book would certainly bring them moore buyers, but to put all the pictures, who would buy the book? | ||
| david schirmer (David)
|
Ahh, my favorite subject. It will be interesting to see how the ease of re-use with digital media affects copyright law in the future. Will it become impossible to enforce copyright? Will only the deep pocket cases be prosecuted? Stay tuned... | ||
| Dave Wapinski (Davewapinski)
|
If in doubt or in a gray area, I would schedule a half hour or several hours with an attorney who has experience in these areas. He/she will probably charge more than the average attorney, but it might save you. If for commercial use, need to have a release from the photo owner, release from any recognizable people, and release from the owners of any property. Other laws could affect it also. For example, if you take a photo of a woman and put a caption under it saying "The Facts of Prostution", you might have just commited slander. You could do something similar with vehicles by accident. If in doubt, I would talk to an attorney. It will probably be worth it. | ||
| William_Huber (Solipsist)
|
I have been thinking about starting a website of wrecked Ferrari photos. This is to let buyers know that I have some VIN# of certain cars. I just wanted to do this as a public service to let owners & buyers know of the cars previous condition. I stress that this project is not for profit. I'm just right clicking, save as... Even if I have the Photographer's permission, can I get sued by Ferrari? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
|
Whiile personal use of the photos may be ok, and even if the copying is only for personal use, in California (and a good many other States) have laws regarding the use of a name or likeness in commercial settings. California Civil Code, Section 3244 provides that any profits attributable to the unlawful use belong to the owner of the name or likeness. Given that Ferraris are unique, and the photographs are unique given the achievements, before any such pictures were copied, I would make that none of the useage had any connection to a commercial use, that would include the use of a copied photograph in a business card, christmas card used for commercial purposes, etc. As you can see the commercial use is a very broad area and could subject you to liability where ever the cards, etc. might be published (mailed to, etc). The above quoted Civil Code Section provides for a minimum award of $750.00 per publication and attorney's fees. Not something that you would want to triffle with. Hope this provides some insight into this area. | ||
| Dave Wapinski (Davewapinski)
|
It is perfectly legal to clip a magazine photo and put it in one's locker. It is not legal to copy or reproduce that photo. Normally for personal, private use no one really cares. For stuff that goes before the public and for commercial use, it is a different matter. Reproducing a routine photograph for a discussion group, although illegal, I have never known anyone to care. However, I am sure the racing world is small. If it is something like a famous driver crossing the finish line, I am sure that whoever owns the photo will probably learn of the use. To me the risk of attorney's fees, settlements, and other fees is not worth it. How many weeks of attornies' time at $150 to $250 an hour do you want to pay? Do you want to lose your Ferrari over something like this? Dave Wapinski | ||
| Jorma Johansson (Jjfinland)
|
Ferrari owners usually are not kids. Perhaps FNA is just waiting us to do such a thing and then suing us for big money Anyhow it feels to be a risky thing to do. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
|
It should be fine. If you were to really listen to all their laws then like every kid in the US with magazine pictures in their school locker would have to be busted by the FBI. I could just see it now, the FBI crackin skulls down at GW Middle School. | ||
| Dave Wapinski (Davewapinski)
|
Let me clarify more on my previous posting: Thinking back, I believe the new Copywrite laws were passed in 1976, not 1978. My background to be able to comment: For many years, I was an active member of the American Society of Magazine Photographers (now Media Photographers). ASMP got involved in many of these court cases. There is a field of photography and movie making called stock photography. Say a magazine in Sweeden wants a photo of a Utah skyline for their Olymic coverage. It is expensive to send a photo team here and the weather might not be good. So why not buy one time reproduction righs from someone who already has such a photo. Same holds true for photos of business meetings, photos of Africa, etc. It is not unusual for a good, generic stock photo to generate over $100,000 profit in its life. So rights to a photo is serious business. One person I know took a good shot of a figure ice scater. A magazine in South America thought that noone in the US would know or care if they reprinted it without permission. WRONG. It cost them dearly. Another person took a great Western shot. Marborlo bought one time rights to use it as a backdrop for an ad. They used it a second time without permission. Steve bought a new car with the settlement. One magazine decided to use pieces of several photos without permission to make one new photo. Noone would notice or could prove it. WRONG. cost them dearly. If it is a shot of a famous driver crossing the finish line, then I would stay way away. If it is a generic shot and one wants to post it asking what do you think of this paint job or hub caps, then one is probably safe. If one wants to do a web site about Ferrari history and wants to use a shot of a particular car or race, I would get written permission. One note: the copywrite notice has to be displayed each time it is used - can be in the front of a magazine. If it is printed or displayed to the public just once without the copywrite notice, then the copywrite is void and the photo is considered in public domain. Hope this helps! dave wapinski | ||
| Dave Wapinski (Davewapinski)
|
I am not a lawyer, but I do know something about this area. The US Copywrite Laws (similar laws in most countries) ammended in (I believe) 1978 makes it illegal. However, the copywrite holders are interested in their work being used for commercial purposes, ie being reprinted in another magazine, used on a billboard, used as a backdrop in an ad, etc. If you look at the small print in almost every magazine it says copywrite, and no use except with written permission. Although technically illegal, I know of no case where anyone was concerned with posting on a discussion board for educational purposes. If posted on a web site about something like Ferrari history, there probably would be problems. Dave Wapinski | ||
| Kenny Herman (Kennyh)
|
If you aren't making money, don't worry about it. (I am not a lawyer) | ||
| Chuck Rine (Chuck348ts)
|
It's not like we're making any money by posting copyrighted pics and talking about them. I don't see how it could be illegal. Even copies of most magazine articles are allowable for personal use. Who is a magazine or publisher going to sue if they see a pic that's theirs? First, their web police would have to go through a trillion web pages to find a suspect picture and then they would have to verify that it's theirs. So many pics look alike but come from completely different sources. | ||
| Jorma Johansson (Jjfinland)
|
Hello all Ferrarichat lawers. Is it legal to put out pictures scanned from magasines and books? There is lots of interesting material in magasines and books ( Ferrari books ) to start conversations about but is it ok to show them here. Please answer only if you know. |