payment for use of car image

I agree with you. If they're using the image for commercial purposes then I think you should be compensated. Of course if it's just for personal use that's OK. You could probably find out where you stand legally by consulting an attorney. It might require you having a description of the car on a sign in view with a legal disclaimer on it, "images of the vehicle used for commercial purposes must be authorized by owner." Or, something to that effect. And, people already using the car for commercial purposes could get a letter from your attorney asking them to stop or pay up. Depends on how far you want to take it.

Now, where do I send my bill for the advice?

 

+1

Incidental snapshots are one thing - the car's parked out in public, after all.

But if the car is being staged and properly photographed for a publication or commercial purpose you should at a minimum be acknowledged as the owner (if this is what you want) and probably offered compensation. I would agree with SrfCity that you might want to ask a copyright lawyer.

 

I think you are being petty. I would love it if people took pics of my car and posted it all over. If the car is out in public ie: parked on the street or car show etc, it is fair game. Celebrities arent going to the Enquirer, Star , People magazine etc with there hand out , every time someone snaps a picture of them. If you want to get paid, place an add or get involved with a movie studio-you do live in Hollywood!

 

The hard fact of the matter is that your car is a celebrity. If the celebrity is out in public then, as the law now stands, taking a picture is fair game. If, however, the celebrity is booked by someone who wants to take their picture in private (a closed set) the celebrity gets paid.

Logically if you don’t want your car photographed then one shouldn’t take it out in public, unless disguised in plastic like next year’s factory prototype. Given that it is a car and, twenty feet of driveway apart, it can only be used in public, and that one didn’t buy the machine to cover it in duct tape, then one - sadly - must put up with having it photographed and the pictures used in ways that don’t please you, the owner.

 

I would say that is what makes the difference, bringing your car into public allows anyone--12yo kid or professional photographer--to take pictures.

 

In 2002 I went to the Fox Valley open house with my Lotus. Great time, free food, free beer, great cars. The next year I called them to see about the 2003 open hose and the guy took my info. When I told them I had a 1972 Europa he said, "You were here last year? Your car is on the front of the invitations we sent out. You didn't get one?" I didn't as I never really registered. The guy saved a stack of them for me which I really appreciated. I didn't mind them using it at all and the party was compensation enough. Wonderful time again.

That being said, if my car was being used to sell a product, or in regular advertising, I'd want something for it.

Ken

 

You deserve to have control over "usage". If it's commercial, some kind of "compensation" is in order if you choose. This could be as simple as a credit line on the images or free photos.

A 275 is a genuinely rare and valuable item and as such there will be a demand for photos.

Personal photos in a public venue are one thing, for sale to the public is another.

 

Hopefully an attorney will chime in here, but here is my opinion.......

I think at most shows, just by entering, you agree to waive your rights to photographers. Though, I do think if someone is using your property for financial gain, you should be compensated.

I don't think you are being "petty" as this is a valid question.

Further, if you think celebs don't get compensated by the rag mags, you don't know how the game that is played.

 

At the most recent FOC show I brought my car to, I had to sign a form basically saying this.

The official event photographer offered pics of the event for sale on his website afterward.

 

I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on TV, but I have been photographing cars for (gasp) 30+ years and have been published. If you enter your car in a public car show then any person attending has the right to photograph it unless there are restrictions placed by the event organizer. If I take a photo of your car at a public venue, then I own the photo that I created. That's copyright. There are three basic ways I can use the photo. Personal use, just look at it, show it to friends etc. Next is editorial use, I could write an article on the show and include the photo or sell the use of the photo for a book or magazine article. For editorial use, I only have to give my permission as copyright holder and can be compensated, I don't need your permission. However, since it is being published, slander and libel laws apply. The third type of use is commercial. If someone wanted to use my photo of your car in an advertisement or to promote a product in some way then they would need your permission as well as mine and you could negotiate compensation. Exception, isn't their always one? I, as the photographer and copyright holder can use a photo of your car to promote myself without your permission, but there are some limitations.

Now, having said all that, I think you do have a point. I have frequently given away photos to owners just as a courtesy. After all it takes a lot of work to put a car in show condition and take it to a show. And if guys like you didn't take your cars, then guys like me couldn't photograph them. But that's just me. I look at the whole thing as part of the old car hobby and as a way to meet interesting people. Old cars are supposed to be fun.

Cheers,
Kurt O.

 

Hi Morris......

I think you can only demand $$ if you have a specific contract for performance.

Remember this though......the MORE your rare and beautiful car is photographed, publicized and exposed....the more valuable it becomes if the specific commentary accompanying the photographs is flattering to the car itslf.

They are, in a round about way, paying you via free publicity.

 

You are correct from the pro Photographer point of view. the other point is the validation date of the Copy Right.... for instance my dad was a pro photographer and took pictures of F-1 in the 80's, but all images were the property of F1 Administration. you could not even use them for personal use... but each team also had right to their logos, and shape of the car... Ferrari specifically prohibits the use of its logos, cars etc, for anything more than personal pleasure use.

So if you were to charge for somone using a picture of your car, you would have to get Ferrari's permission also. They have sued and won in court against Straman that was making Daytona replicas.... what they won was that the unique image and shape of the Ferrari was unique to their design... and that Straman was guilty of copyright infringment along with other charges.... same applys with photography. I have a letter from Franco Gozzi specifically prohibiting the use of any of our Ferrari pictures for commercial use....

good luck

 

O.K. I have and still am involved with all aspects of automotive photography motion/film. still/print, commercial and editorial forever and ever, which is kind of a long time. Before I go any further, ALWAYS consult an attorney on copyright issues as each case may vary. With that said here is my advice, if you show your car in public, whether it be parked on the street or at a car show you are in the public domain. The photographer that takes the picture holds the copyright to that photo. If the photo is used in an editorial manner to be part of a story for instance or as reference material, you get zip, nada , 'O'. you may get a cut line but don't count on it. If your car appears in a coffee table book about Ferraris and it was shot in a public venue at a car show, the same applies. On the other hand if the shot is used say for instance for a car wax label which is totally a commercial venture that is subject to further discussion, negotiation and possible litigation if intent is proven., no slam dunk there either.If you knowingly give your car to a photographer to shoot for commercial purposes you may get a mutually agreeable fee or not, it all depends on your negotiations. In this case ALWAYS get a contract/agreement in writing and signed by all parties involved stating intent, usage in what media and usage for what period of time and a certificate of insurance to cover anything that may happen to your vehicle while being shot, i.e.. a 'C' stand or light stand that may fall or scratch your vehicle. You will also be asked by any professional photographer to sign a release,read it carefully as to your rights."Too Tall" in a previous post had some great advice.
There is tons of information on this subject on the web , just go to Google and type in 'Copyright'.
Good luck.

 

I expect that your father was shooting under contract to F1 or some other entity whereas he was their employee and anything he produced was their property. Much like anything I produce in the course of my regular job is the property of my employer and not my personal property. I also shot F1 in the 80's, specifically at Long Beach, and I sold rights for publication of some of my images, including a Ferrari. This was for editorial use and I neither sought nor received permission from F1, the FIA, LBGP or Ferrari for this use because it was strictly editorial. Now commercial use of an image is a completely different story and yes, Ferrari, as are most other automakers, are very strict in the control of their name and trademark.

I disagree, your car is your property. You do not have to seek Ferraris permission to do anything with it. I doubt the guy who made the movie "Redline" asked Ferraris permission to use his personal Enzo in the film.

I thought Ferrari sued McBurnie for making the Daytona replicas on Corvette chassis? Did they sue Straman Also? But that is a completely different issue. Use of an image of an actual Ferrari has nothing to do with making actual replicas.

Cheers,
Kurt O.

 

I'd be a smidge miffed if it was used as the "before" pix by a detailing shop.

(Not really -- a dirty Ferrari is an enjoyed one.)

 

I understand this a bit, but it get worse sometimes. Im a sportsman and my photo gets posted all the times in different places. I cant take the picture I see on the web(a picture of me) and use it for myself, while its a picture of me! I must pay for it.

Some things are just unfair!

 

Exactly. Not to be a smart @ss but maybe it's time for you to walk the talk. How 'bout subscribing?

 

Sticky point

I am a pro, a journalist as well, it really depends on the reason for the shoot. I have a "General Property Release" that I get the owner to sign depending on what the usage is. When I am shooting people are well aware that I am shooting for profit. Now I also share (some) of the photos on this site but make my living from the images I create.

If it is a car at a show stuff I generally don't make any money off them as the backgrounds are usually awful etc. Now if i arrange to shoot it separate that is another story.

 

>I disagree, your car is your property. You do not have to seek Ferraris >permission to do anything with it. I doubt the guy who made the movie >"Redline" asked Ferraris permission to use his personal Enzo in the film.

_A_ car is your property but the model is not.

So it depends on the context.
A car manufacturer can sue if a film etc
depicts its model in an unfavorable manner.
For example Kiezlowski obtained Alfa Romeo's
permission to a depict an Alfa whose brakes failed,
and displayed this permission clearly.

When purchasing a car one is in essence issued a license
to use that specific incarnation of a particular model.
It is similar to software licensing, and it is why the
cost of a car varies with the number of cars manufactured.

So, one may for example own a Ferrari 308.
One owns _a_ particular 308, not _the_ model.

However, an incarnation of a 308
can transcend this limitation when
a particular car is used to represent/advertise the 308 model.

Hence Ferrari could sue for Daytona replica's etc.

In any case, in this case compensation depends
on the context. If the photos depict an event
and one's car happens to be there, the owner
is not specifically entitled to compensation.
An owner may feel that his car looks like _the_ 308,
and it certainly does, but the owner
only owns the rights to _a_ 308.

Ironically, if the owner took it
upon himself, without permission, to employ the photographer's work
in order to increase the value of his car (for example when
showing it or advertising it), he would infringe the photographer's
IP rights.

Most of these issues are very easily resolved by
asking permission when uncertain. Everyone benefits
when all parties involved are happy.


This thread raises a very valid issue and I am
glad to see that this discussion has not spiralled into
nonsensical, empty rhetoric and base name calling
unlike the other copyright infringement thread:
"GT4 study & database... the finish!"

 

I missed out on a $2,000 photoshoot with one of my Porsche's because the interior and dash were taken apart for a rebuild.

A gent was making an anniversary book for Porsche and saw my car online, called and as it turned out the car just wasn't able to get back together on time before the deadline. I forwarded a few names to him and whamo another car filled his book.

I would have loved to see one of my cars in a book.

 

Maybe instead of cold hard cash, you can have a catalog made for your car. Very detailed, large photos in a beautiful area is something I do for most of my cars.

 

What about the case where the car is not "one of a kind"? A 275 really isn't a rare or unique car by Ferrari standards. This is not to poo-poo such a great car, I'm merely suggesting that it would be difficult for a third party to identify the 275 in the painting as being a specific serial # without additional information.

Just my opinion, but I think the owner of the 275 should not be entitled to anything, under these circumstances. If, however, he is given a nice photo as a gesture of thanks for showing his car, all the better.