Company using pic of my car without permission

Page 1 / 2
tgray, Aug 19, 12:41am
I see today a picture taken of my car (without my knowledge or permission) in a magazine, that is advertising car related services.
I'm not too worried about it, but got me thinking whether this is on or not.
Obviously, people take pictures and put them on Facebook etc - no problem with that, but for a business to use it to sell a service seems a bit cheeky.
What do you think?

gabbysnana, Aug 19, 12:46am
Not on. Is your car identifiable, eg plate?

tgray, Aug 19, 12:48am
It is very identifiable.100% sure it's my car.

richardmayes, Aug 19, 1:02am
Am pretty sure they need to get you to sign a release form if they want to use an image of your property. It's probably up to you to show that your claim (it's an image of your car) is correct though.

Is this the Corvette you were talking about yesterday?

tgray, Aug 19, 1:08am
No, but it is a USA muscle car.
It's a well known company, but don't want to identify them. I have used their services before and I can tell that is where the pic was taken.
You might say, why don't you just call them up?
Again, I don't really care personally, I just wondered what others would think about it and whether it is even legal.

kazbanz, Aug 19, 1:47am
In this case I would say cheeky buggers.
if the picture was selling another "identical" car perhaps in transit from overseas I'd ask the question if uits a true and honest representation of the vehicle in question.

seadubya, Aug 19, 1:50am
Most images used in advertising areof company assets or licensed through places like shutterstock or istockphoto, to use an image without authority can open up a can of worms. I guess it depends on how offended you are and what sort of compensation is reasonable if you want to take it further. It may cost more to change the image than it would have to purchase the rights to an image. Do they provide any services that would make you feel reasonably compensated?

mm12345, Aug 19, 2:44am
Presumably the firm didn't download a photo of the car in their workshop from a stock agency - but took it themselves - or had it taken and own the copyright.
I doubt there's anything the OP could do - even if he wanted to - unless he could prove that the car could be identified as his, that some reasonable expectation for privacy had been breached, and/or that they'd used the image which identified him to make some claim about the OP, endorsement or something not so nice.
Could be all sorts of other things like false advertising - say if they'd touched up a scratch on a bumper, but used a photo of a mint brand new car to claim that the entire paint job was their work.
If it was a photo of their workshop with a few customer's cars up on hoists etc incl. the OP's, you'd probably want the reg plates obscured for privacy reasons, but it would be a pretty reasonable thing to take such a photo and use it for advertising, and pretty damned hard for the OP to claim that he suffered some harm/loss.

munchnz, Aug 19, 2:49am
Might have to go see them about some freebies ;)

mm12345, Aug 19, 2:56am
I wouldn't think so. If it was a "custom paint job" - or similar, then it might actually be the other way round, where copyright for the original work belongs to the creator and not the owner of the car. The owner of the car actually might be able to be sued if they used photos of the car for some commercial purpose outside of "fair use", without having a release from the creator of the works / owner of the copyright. That copyright is automatic - doesn't need to be registered or anything. People probably don't even "own" their tattoo artwork - only the ink.
Yes - this is getting silly. Sorry.

tony9, Aug 19, 4:36am
If it was in a public place then anyone can take a photo and publish it. As long as it does not denigrate the owner or driver in any way.

mrsglaucoma11, Aug 19, 4:50am
My son on their website taken and used without my permission over 6 years ago.
http://www.littlewonderschildcare.co.nz/

socram, Aug 19, 4:52am
I found a photograph I had taken, used on a UK company's website. It seems that if you have published a pic in any way, shape or form, protecting copyright is just about impossible.

If your car is out in public, you can't really stop anyone taking a pic and using it, without your permission.

Copyright law appears to be quite complex and is one reason why many people refuse to publish their work, as being ripped off is all too easy these days. The music industry is pretty good at keeping on top of things, but sorry, pics of cars, not a chance - unless of course they claim to have restored, modified, painted or built the car and are telling porkies.

tweake, Aug 19, 4:56am
nah its more about if the use the image to make $$$.
if its been used in an advert then they need to have a signed release form and pay you for it.
this hit the headlines some years back with a pro photographer short changed a couple to use their photo in a nationwide ad campaign.

theres nothing stopping anyone taking a pic of you being a dumb arse in a public area and publishing it, provided they don't get paid for it.

neville48, Aug 19, 6:49am
Has happened to me a few times with my car but I guess if you are out there with it and magazines cover where you are. ##it happens.

dinx, Aug 19, 11:45am
DP works in the photographic industry and has done papers on copyright law. Its not clear and would need legal advice.

The owner didn't commission the photos and doesn't own copyright on any images. But not saying there might not be some kind of issues with other laws such as privacy if he plate is visible especially? Google hide licence plates for a reason etc. Overseas law is simply not relevant, don't even waste time looking up any of that on overseas websites, it just doesn't apply here and we have unusual laws for copyright compared to others overseas anyhow. Its certainly off that permission wasn't obtained but may not be technically illegal. Most of the laws relate to people and not objects. Don't know if any advertising standards might be a factor, you would need to look into that.

dinx, Aug 19, 11:49am
Examples of peoples images being uses are also not relevant, its not a person, public place or not doesn't matter as they had the property owners permission to be there, model releases don't extend to belongings.

Could be an angle to investigate that the business could be in breech of their contract with you to do the job they were hired for and nothing else, they have used your property entrusted to them for financial advantage. Dig up any invoices and check for fineprint on the back etc. Complicated legally to say the least.

tub4, Aug 19, 6:03pm
I would think if a car is out in a public place anyone could take a photo of it.
Those photos could then be sold and used so if you really don't want this to happen don't take the car out.
I've had photos of my motorcycles used in news papers and magazines for some years now and alway thought "wow thats mine, cool"

whqqsh, Aug 19, 6:31pm
Ive had a company use my old Goliath in their website & Facebook page making them out to be the best thing ever & even slight references to 'the owner' being a holdup where in actual fact it was the other way around. Parts they said they could get I had to source after months of no progress, took ivar a year to get back, car came back with scratches in the new paint & overall cost was twice their quote (that they then said was an estimate) even though I'd supplied many of the parts as mentioned, they hadn't used the running in oil Id supplied & old parts were put in the back (s/wagon-kombi) in cardboard boxes leaking oil all over the wooden floor causing permanent stains

crosis_nz, Aug 23, 12:33am
Try using a Getty Images photo without consent and they get lawyers to send you an invoice for up to 250 times the value of its use legally. They have massive servers matching images to look for culprits. Use of the image without consent is definitely a wrong thing to do.

That said, compromise is always easier than confrontation. I would point it out to them and say you expect a really good discount next time you use their services.

mals69, Aug 23, 1:19am
It is cheeky and should of asked, maybe they thought they were complimenting you by featuring it - some guys would get a kick
out of it. As said breach the subject and see what you can get
from them.

pico42, Aug 23, 1:31am
But that is with regards to the image only, not what the image is of which is a different matter.

cjdnzl, Aug 23, 3:11am
They can't use it to make money from, though. Have a look at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/156m-award-for-coffee-mug/

henreitta, Aug 23, 6:50am
Go see the company, ask for a share of their profits.

dinx, Aug 23, 6:59am
Again TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
#1, we don't live in the US and US law does not apply here.
#2. the photographer in the USA owns the copyright, not the person who owns the object being photographed. Under NZ law the copyright belongs to the person who contracts (and pays) the photographer to do the job but it is industry practice when taking a job to make the client sign a contract stating the photographer retains copyright as a condition of the contract.

The car owner did not contract the photographer, nor did they take the photo themselves, they have no copyright over the image. The only option where this could be debatable is if the paintwork is a unique design (imagery) that is owned by the car owner, not designed by the business in question. Example would be if you painted minions on your car, you would be doing this in breach of the copyright belonging to the copyright owner, which would be a movie studio who paid the artist to design them and owns all rights to use that image.
#3, Model releases relate to using the image of a person with permission, not objects.

The photo was taken on property the photographer had business owners permission to be at, so also no law broken there.