Can he sue or rather, will he win anything
#1
OK here's the deal. Some guy is selling photos of cars that were in a parade.

So one of the car owners who was in the parade says he will sue. I wonder if he can win anything? Wouldn't he have to show some kind of damages? and if he is not currently selling pictures of his car then how is he out any money?
Or does he just want to rain on the photographers paradeRazz









guy who say's he'll sue...

re: Grants Pass Cruz Night "50s" (Grants Pass) (a court of law)
I'll be calling my attorney if you're selling photos of my car.







picture seller.....

I have over a hundreds of photos of Saturday Night of Grants Pass Cruz Night for sale...
5x7 $12.00 Matted $20.00
8X10 $20.00 Matted $30.00
DISCOUNT ON MULTIPLE PURCHASES
BUY 2 GET 10% OFF
BUY 3 GET 20% OFF
Call to make an appointment
Photos by Randy
208 NW 6th St
Grants Pass, Or.97526
541-301-8675

208 NW 6th St. at 7th St. (google map) (yahoo map)

Location: Grants Pass
Reply
#2
I know you're supposed to get a signed model release for photos of people showing identifiable features, and a signed property release for photos of recognizable buildings.

Haven't heard about cars before.




EDIT: Google to the rescue!
http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Kno...e/View/196

Quote:A model release is a legal release signed by the subject of a photograph or video granting permission to use or publish the photograph or video in one form or another. You can read a full description of what a model release is at Wikipedia.

If you are including in your item the face or identifiable features of any person on video, photograph, or a traced illustration, you will need a signed model release from that person.

A property release is a legal release signed by the owner of property used in a photograph or video granting permission to use or publish the photograph or video in one form or another.

If you are including the depiction of recognizable private property on video on video, photograph, or a traced illustration, you will need a signed location release from the property owner.

Authors do not need one for public property, such as government buildings (although you may run into problems just from photographing/videoing them, for security reasons!). But for images of private property — and particularly of objects that are closely identified with specific people — photographers are urged to get a release.

Most animals in zoos are the property of the zoo and usually cannot be used for commercial purposes without the consent of the zoo.
Reply
#3
On the other hand, it was at a public event. I seem to recall some exceptions to needing releases for public event at which one may reasonably assume you could be photographed at.

But not sure about selling said photos as opposed to using them for news or editorial content.
Reply
#4
I'd tell him come pick out a photo of his car and I'll give you a good deal. Sue me and that's a verb.
Reply
#5
All right. Further research has suggested that taking photos that contain identifiable people and/or private property during the course of a public event in which one may reasonably be expected to have photographs taken is perfectly fine.

Using those photos for news or personal portfolios is also perfectly fine, via the First Amendment.

Possibly even selling the photos to a news company for the purpose of news or editorial content is also perfectly fine, via the First Amendment.

But selling the photos as stock images, prints, on t-shirts or other products... that's not fine.




That's the general consensus, including as a reference at least one photographer who was supposedly explaining what his lawyer told him on the matter.



EDIT: More materials here: http://bit.ly/17coFSg
Reply
#6
(07-29-2013, 04:42 PM)csrowan Wrote: All right. Further research has suggested that taking photos that contain identifiable people and/or private property during the course of a public event in which one may reasonably be expected to have photographs taken is perfectly fine.

Using those photos for news or personal portfolios is also perfectly fine, via the First Amendment.

Possibly even selling the photos to a news company for the purpose of news or editorial content is also perfectly fine, via the First Amendment.

But selling the photos as stock images, prints, on t-shirts or other products... that's not fine.




That's the general consensus, including as a reference at least one photographer who was supposedly explaining what his lawyer told him on the matter.



EDIT: More materials here: http://bit.ly/17coFSg

OK so if you are right and the guy sues what will he get other than stopping photographer dude from making money.
Reply
#7
Nothing.
If the seller obscures the license plate he has nothing and I doubt that matters. Hey we use pictures we lift all day long and post them right here. FB allows you to tag people for the whole world to see. Yes they are not being sold but who owns an image? Maybe he should copyright his car's look..Wink

I'd be surprised if an attorney takes his money. Now as a guy with very old cars I've had more pictures taken and video than ever before. People that own them know it is that way. So what if someone takes a picture and sells them. If done well I'd buy one of my own car. It's flattering if he'd think about it.

OTOH I'd comply with the guy wanting to sue me and simply give pictures of his car away and tell him they are not salable.
Reply
#8
Compensation. Part of a model release or property release is the compensation agreement... What the model or owner will be compensated with in exchange for the specified permitted uses of the photo.

Without an agreement before the sale of the photos, the photographer is basically at the property owner's mercy. So unless they settle out of court, it will be up to the law to decide what the compensation should be.

The guy doesn't say he IS suing. Only that he will IF the photographer is selling photos of the guy's car.
Reply
#9
(07-29-2013, 06:04 PM)csrowan Wrote: Compensation. Part of a model release or property release is the compensation agreement... What the model or owner will be compensated with in exchange for the specified permitted uses of the photo.

Compensation for what??




Quote:Without an agreement before the sale of the photos, the photographer is basically at the property owner's mercy. So unless they settle out of court, it will be up to the law to decide what the compensation should be.

Maybe but I doubt it. How do assign a compensation figure when there was nothing to compensate? The car owner didn't lose anything to be compensated for.
Reply
#10
(07-29-2013, 06:01 PM)Willie Krash Wrote: Nothing.
If the seller obscures the license plate he has nothing and I doubt that matters. Hey we use pictures we lift all day long and post them right here. FB allows you to tag people for the whole world to see. Yes they are not being sold but who owns an image? Maybe he should copyright his car's look..Wink

I'd be surprised if an attorney takes his money. Now as a guy with very old cars I've had more pictures taken and video than ever before. People that own them know it is that way. So what if someone takes a picture and sells them. If done well I'd buy one of my own car. It's flattering if he'd think about it.

OTOH I'd comply with the guy wanting to sue me and simply give pictures of his car away and tell him they are not salable.

I'm with you on this oneSmiling
Reply
#11
The law says otherwise.


EDIT: the law does not necessarily say otherwise, but the recommendation is not to risk it.
http://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html
Reply
#12
(07-29-2013, 06:43 PM)csrowan Wrote: The law says otherwise.

People go to school for years to learn the law. Don't you think there's a chance you misinterpreted what was written? I'm just not sure the answer is so black and white.

Plus I asked you, "compensated" for what? I don't know crap about the legalities or fine print but in small claim courts they always ask for proof of damages or they won't award you jack.

In defamation cases they always ask for damages, proof that the fact that you were defamed and that somehow cost you SOMETHING.
Reply
#13
See my edited post and click the link.
Reply
#14
There used to be someone that took pictures of rafters floating down the Rogue, then sold those pictures to rafters when they pulled out at Valley of the Rogue Park. I don't think anyone would pay for the pictures except the rafters themselves, and presumably some of them liked having the opportunity of buying a picture taken of themselves while they were having fun on one of the rapids.

I'm just not seeing the harm here if you offer someone an opportunity to buy a picture taken of their own cars.
Reply
#15
(07-29-2013, 07:54 PM)PonderThis Wrote: There used to be someone that took pictures of rafters floating down the Rogue, then sold those pictures to rafters when they pulled out at Valley of the Rogue Park. I don't think anyone would pay for the pictures except the rafters themselves, and presumably some of them liked having the opportunity of buying a picture taken of themselves while they were having fun on one of the rapids.

I'm just not seeing the harm here if you offer someone an opportunity to buy a picture taken of their own cars.

Good idea. Set up a digital camera that takes pictures of anything that floats by.

At the rafters disembarking point you Install a machine that allows anyone to scroll through the photos. When they find what they want they put in two dollars and it prints and spits out a picture. OR they enter their email addy and you send them the image for one dollar.
Piece of cake. Thanks I'm gonna be a meelyunairBig Grin
Reply
#16
Selling someone a picture you took of them or their property implies consent for the sale. Selling a picture of someone or their property to someone else without a model or property release doesn't imply consent, and you are profiting from your use of someone else's property without their permission.
Reply
#17
(07-29-2013, 06:52 PM)csrowan Wrote: See my edited post and click the link.

YeahI did, it pretty much tells me the guy who says he will sue hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
Reply
#18
I see. Now, in addition to a psychic who can tell who did what without any evidence, you're also a practicing lawyer with expertise in property law.
Reply
#19
(07-29-2013, 08:05 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(07-29-2013, 07:54 PM)PonderThis Wrote: There used to be someone that took pictures of rafters floating down the Rogue, then sold those pictures to rafters when they pulled out at Valley of the Rogue Park. I don't think anyone would pay for the pictures except the rafters themselves, and presumably some of them liked having the opportunity of buying a picture taken of themselves while they were having fun on one of the rapids.

I'm just not seeing the harm here if you offer someone an opportunity to buy a picture taken of their own cars.

Good idea. Set up a digital camera that takes pictures of anything that floats by.

At the rafters disembarking point you Install a machine that allows anyone to scroll through the photos. When they find what they want they put in two dollars and it prints and spits out a picture. OR they enter their email addy and you send them the image for one dollar.
Piece of cake. Thanks I'm gonna be a meelyunairBig Grin

I think it helps to have a sexy babe in a bikini in on the operation, too.
Reply
#20
(07-29-2013, 08:10 PM)csrowan Wrote: I see. Now, in addition to a psychic who can tell who did what without any evidence, you're also a practicing lawyer with expertise in property law.

You are the one who went straight to the books. The you asked me to read your link.

I did and it pretty much said that there hasn't been anyone EVER winning a case like the dude on CL wants to sue for.

Are you on some medication or what?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)