McQueen Lusso Copyrighted Images

I wouldn't assume that the key motivation is "greed" in this case. I suspect "control" is the key issue here. I believe Mr. Regalia has the right to restrict the use of his property (in this case, the photographs) from a certain subset of people (e.g., perhaps business competitors or publications that have "done him wrong" in the past). In order to do this, I believe under U.S. law, he must show good faith efforts to notify people that he is the owner of some of those photos and that he is retaining his ownership rights, even if he is okay with posting those pictures in certain venues, for example, this forum.

Mr. Regalia, what text would you like us to add to any forum post that shows one of your Lusso pictures? Is something like the following text acceptable: "Note that the photograph below is owned and copyrighted by Mike Regalia. All rights reserved. Used by permission."

By the way, your restoration on that Lusso was fantastic.

 

Mike
SUE. I fully support you. I am really fed up with all those that think copyrights mean nothing.
I have sued twice recently and have won. Both times. A French one had to pay big time. And for all those who still think it is about greed: Do you really think people (photographers) work for free?
There is just one way: ZERO tolerance.
Marcel Massini

 

Of course he has every right to enforce his personal IP. I am not questioning that. And I guess if that makes him happy then he can do whatever he wants. However I am stunned by his unwillingness to give anything back to an enthusiast community that has given him so much ($2.3M for a Lusso?).

Peter

 

Enthusiast community? Get real. Many of the chatters here are professional car dealers.
Marcel Massini

 

Ok - I'll give you that.

However the term professional might be debated in some cases (MDM Eurotics...).

I would also like to clarify that I appreciate that you do go out of your way to give back to the (enthusiast) community.

Best to you

Peter

 

Marcel,

Your photos have historic significance and they serve to enrich the heritage of the mark and educate. You are just to be possessive of your photos. Mr. Reglia’s photos however served no other purpose but to maximize the dollars that would eventually sink into his wallet and have no historic significance. Trying to enforce copyrighting the handful of pictures of the brown Lusso is laughable at best.

jay

 

Of course the law does not discriminate on the content or the utility of a photo when considering a copyright infringement. It is Mike's right to do as he pleases. If it makes him happy and in his mind it is the right thing to do, then so be it.

Peter

 

Mike, Marcel, in my opinion you are fully in the right to keep control of your copyright. Where did this disrespectful, unearned sense of entitlement to information and property come from within the internet community and the world in general? It started with stealing music. Nowhere in one's participation in a public forum does it mean that you are entitled to someone else's property rights or private information on demand or just for asking. One gets the information only at the grace of the private party willing to share it and be politely thankful for that. No further comment to make, move on.

 

IMO, the best thing to do is simply not post photos that are copyrighted on the internet. Someone is almost certainly going to steal them, and than you will have to go through the expense and BS to sue...and if the person who takes them has no money, or has his assets protected in some legal manner...you are out of luck. Sad, but true

 

Well as I said before you are entitled to do what you would like. That is your right. I simply ask what would FerrariChat be if everybody here were unwilling to share their (certainly no less than your) hardearned knowledge and property?
Enjoy your photos, and you did a great job on the car.

Peter

 

WWES... (What Would Enzo Say?)
I have several points to make here, but first I think everyone needs to COOOL it off with this legal bomb throwing! It sounds so adversarial it is a shame! I truly believe that 99% of us here are trying to obey the rules and the law while having fun learning more about Ferraris, their history and current F-car news! Here's what I think the issues are:

1. The images in question are no doubt "copyright" of the legal owners. BUT and this is a BIG BUT, the US Copyright Law is controlling in the US. It doesn't matter if Mike or anyone else says or thinks or demands or wants anything else. The law is the law.
2. There is something in US Copyright law called "fair use." It has been a key to not only the development of free markets for copyrighted works (think about a movie or a book review where there are qoutes used by the critics or scenes from the movie) or for educational purposes (think about your final english exams where you had to critique a passage from a story).
3. Ferrari owns the copyright to the car in question as the designer and producer of the work. They don't enforce it, nor does any car maker, because each image produced is free advertising and of course generates more business.

I would argue that the owner has an argument if someone is using his photos to make a profit, to generate revenue, such as on a t-shirt or in a poster or a professional car dealer as Marcel rightly points out. Then that user would have to get permision and pay him for the usage.

In this forum, nobody is trying to make a profit from their POSTING of an image and talking about it. The great thing about this forum and this site is the EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES for which it is mostly used. So, unfortunately for those who think that US Copyright law is an absolute mandate to control every usage of your work, it is not. Maybe in France or other countries it is (in reference to Marcel's comments).
As to the Professional Car dealer usage, there is a case if the dealer uses the image to generate busines or for other commercial purposes. But there again, the owner of the work would have to prove economic loss by such use... i.e. are you trying to sell these images to make a profit from the IMAGES themselves Mike?

Also, copyright does not last FOREVER. Everything has a time limit to the rights then it is in public domain.

Not to make this a law school class on Copyright law, but here is my last reference.... the law itself! Read it and you'll see from the black letter of the law that there are legal ways in which any copyrighted material may be used without the permission of or payment to the owner. I'm sure we will now see all kinds of cases and arguments and stories about times when the fair use doctrine has NOT been enforced. And that is fine. The legal system is a balancing mechenism which looks at the facts and the law in any given circumstance. There is no absolute. I, as I asume many here, would hate to see arguments made that ALL POSTS are for commercial purposes and not for education and see people threatened with lawsuits right and left! That it will seriously diminish the purpose of this site... which is the investigation, study and analysis of the historic and contemporary significance of all things Ferrari!

The Constitution:

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power…To promote the Progress of Science
and useful Arts, by securing for limited Tımes to Authors and Inventors
the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.


The Federal Statute as it pertains to Fair Use:

Title 17 § 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or
by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors
to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.

If you have time on your hands and want to research the law, here's the site to use: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/

p.s. this is not intended to be legal advice and is merely opinion for discussion purposes only. if you need legal help, contact an attorney.

 

Bravo!

 

Nice post, Ferraris in NYC, but posting photos on a website for their intrinsic enjoyment is not likely to be a fair use.

 

I'm sure someone will correct me, but isn't his notice here like the letters magazines get when they use the term 'Formica' to indicate a plastic surface? They'll publish a letter in the next issue informing the readers that 'Formica' is a trademarked term. They are protecting their trademark. I realize his notice involves a copyright issue, but I see a similarity.
I think the idea was to let the F-Chat audience know that he holds the copyright on the photos. I believe that part of holding the copyright would involve defending it when it is violated and the holder becomes aware of the infringement. He has done so with his message. He is protecting his property.

 

Maybe, maybe not. One of the only ways to study the restoration of an historically significant car such as the "Steve McQueen" Lusso is to see photos of it, no?
I'm sure these photos can and will be used to study the original design and finish in other restoration works.
In the end, it is an argument that would keep a lawsuit in court for a long (i.e. expensive) time!

 

If I read this thread correctly the pictures have not actually been posted here and this thread is just a warning? Does that mean the naked pictures are still ok to post? Unfortunately for the thread starter the cat is out of the bag and shows no inclination of returning anytime soon.

Yes, it would appear that everyone is in the business of hawking stuff here.

 

How did that flagrant and repeated violation of Rule 2.1 get by the Mods? ;^0

 

Seems like there are influxes of used car dealers, bodyshops and detailers at various times, gotta keep an eye out for them.

 

Pretty sad when people are battling over the ownership, provenance, and originality of PICTURES of Ferraris instead of the cars themselves. What next,...Enzo's bath robe going on a world tour??? Can I get the concession rights???

 

You have walked into the Lion's Den, I'm sorry you have to worry about this mentality here...
This same issue is how we lost Marcel's participation for nearly a year.

Or 14 year old boys dreaming of being so...

 

True, but how many times have you seen hijacked photos on eBay with Ferraris for sale in Indonesia at amazingly low prices - I stopped counting ages ago...Get my point?

 

A poor example. Copyrights to some photos are the least of the problem there.

 

GOTTA HIT THAT "!", then we chase 'em down and delete 'em.

But, we can't catch them all...

I'm going to leave that one for historical reference. (And becuase Mark's post would be extra confusing if I deleted it.) Besides, isn't the written word copyrighted? And technically, isn't it published once it's on here? So, if I delete it, won't I be violating copyright law??? Wait, doesn't Rob retain rights to anything posted here as a part of the TOU, but aviod liability because if internet laws that are in place?

ARRRGGGGHHHHHHH, this is making my head hurt. To quote my personal friend, "Why can't we all just get along?" (copyright 1991 Rodney King)

What I don't understand in this argument is where is the financial loss associated with the publication of these photos here or elsewhere? Is there a plan in the works for a book using them? Or perhaps a pin up style calendar? What is the harm in sharing these particular photos? Although I agree with his assertion that he has every right to do so, I disagree with the reasoning behind it, in this case.

However grating Marcel's posts about his copyrights might be, I understand his asserting them. This is how he makes his living, selling his photos, writing articles, etc. A professional's assertion of copyright is a little different, than me suddenly posting a copyright with every photo I put up here.

If the car is sitting on a field, and I take its picture, do I own the rights to an image of a car I don't own? Can I sell that photo for profit without the permission of the owner?

As to Ferrari, they can get pretty huffy. If you take a picture of a Ferrari, show the logo, sell the picture, do you violate their copyrights as it pertains to their logo? It's there position that you do.

I guess we all need to start to add a copyright to what we do.

(contents of this post copyright 2007 cdm)