Protouring cars in print

[Bill Howell]

http://www.qbookshop.com/products/149718/9780760339077/Street-Machines.html

I hear we may know a car or two in this new book. I think I need a new coffee table book....

[coolwelder62]

Thank's I just ordered mine.

[cmraman]

http://www.qbookshop.com/products/149718/9780760339077/Street-Machines.html

I hear we may know a car or two in this new book. I think I need a new coffee table book....

Looked at the preview. I certainly recognize many pics that were used without my permission.

[Steve1968LS2]

I helped with some images for this book, so I HAVE to get one.. not sure how many she used, but I got a "thank you" email today.

[Steve1968LS2]

Looked at the preview. I certainly recognize many pics that were used without my permission.

Well, she gives sources of where each photo came from.. if someone had your image and gave it to her then it's more their fault than hers since she had no idea it wasn't thier photo. Don't you miss the days of negatives :)

[andrewb70]

.... if someone had your image and gave it to her then it's more their fault than hers since she had no idea it wasn't thier photo. .....

Ignorance is no excuse for stealing someone's livelyhood.

Andrew

[DarkBuddha]

IIRC, copyright laws say that anyone who contributed to the infringement of those copyright laws is at fault, whether it's the publisher, author, distribution company, or whoever. Also, images of vehicles used without permission of the owner of the vehicle might mean the vehicle owner may have recourse under rights of publicity. But you magazine and media types should know more than me. Don't you guys require owners of the vehicles that appear in the magazine sign a release? What is the release for? Isn't there compensation involved?

[Scott Parkhurst]

When magazine guys shoot them, the photos belong to the mag.

When freelance guys (like Robert) shoot them, the pics belong to him and he sells usage rights to the magazine (either 1-time or whatever they agree to).

It seems Robert was nice enough to share images with some of the car owners, and those owners gave permission for the photos to be used. Too bad the car owners don't own the photos.

It's up to Robert to decide what he wants to do, but he's got a legit gripe.

Those of us who like working with him make sure to pay him for his work. It's only right.

[Rhino]

IIRC, copyright laws say that anyone who contributed to the infringement of those copyright laws is at fault, whether it's the publisher, author, distribution company, or whoever. Also, images of vehicles used without permission of the owner of the vehicle might mean the vehicle owner may have recourse under rights of publicity. But you magazine and media types should know more than me. Don't you guys require owners of the vehicles that appear in the magazine sign a release? What is the release for? Isn't there compensation involved?

If the car is photographed from plain public view I don't see how the owner would have any recourse. It wasn't their "work" that was reproduced and I don't believe the right of publicity would extend to possessions. As far as I know, that right is only for an individuals name and likeness. I believe Ford unsuccessfully tried to claim they should hold the copyright for pictures taken of a mustang, but I'm not sure of any details.

It's nothing but a guess, but I would imagine the release states that the mag/photographer holds the copyright for any stories/pictures in addition to an indemnity clause for any damages not directly related to photographing the car.

[Steve1968LS2]

Ignorance is no excuse for stealing someone's livelyhood.

Andrew

Stealing? Really?

So the author asks the owner of a car for an image.. the owner sends the author and image and somehow (by rubbing the magic unicorn) the author is supposed to know who shot the image and if the owner of the car has the right to disiminate the photo.. how the hell is that supposed to work?

I could be a technical copyright infringement, but in practical terms I couldn't call the author a thief since that would imply malice.

[Steve1968LS2]

It's up to Robert to decide what he wants to do, but he's got a legit gripe.

Those of us who like working with him make sure to pay him for his work. It's only right.

Yep.. we pay freelancers for the "right" to use thier images.. each contract details what those right are (internet, specials, repeats, re-use, etc)

I'm not saying that Robert doesn't deserve payment for his work. Just that today, in the age of no negatives, I can't blame the author for using pictures that were given to her since it's impossible for her to know who they belong to.

As I recall she had me send her a release for the images I gave her. I imagine she did that in every case.

[Steve1968LS2]

Also, images of vehicles used without permission of the owner of the vehicle might mean the vehicle owner may have recourse under rights of publicity.

No, there is no right of privacy for an image of anything taken in a public place. Could you imagine the chaos if we had to get permission of every car owner in the shot when we cover something like Columbus Goodguys.. lol

[DarkBuddha]

Stealing? Really?

So the author asks the owner of a car for an image.. the owner sends the author and image and somehow (by rubbing the magic unicorn) the author is supposed to know who shot the image and if the owner of the car has the right to disiminate the photo.. how the hell is that supposed to work?

I could be a technical copyright infringement, but in practical terms I couldn't call the author a thief since that would imply malice.
I agree the wording might be a little harsh, but your reasoning seems wrong. How is the author supposed to know? The author, editor, fact checker, publisher, etc. is supposed to ask. That is both prudent and professional. In academic circles, if you present something without citation or due credit to those that contributed to your research or work, that is a serious offense and issue and it will have serious effect on your professional reputation and possibly the loss of your job. I don't see why, when the Almighty Dollar is at stake and there is profit being made, it should be done to any less of a standard. It's very simply professional integrity.



No, there is no right of privacy for an image of anything taken in a public place. Could you imagine the chaos if we had to get permission of every car owner in the shot when we cover something like Columbus Goodguys.. lol
I kinda figured, but I was thinking more of situations of private photo shoots than pics shot at a public event or gathering. But really, my thought was that the capture and printing of the likeness is less consequential than the actual use of that likeness for profit based endeavors like magazines sales, advertisement and catalogs, television and movies, etc. This may not currently be the case, but I can imagine, given the culture and hysteria that seems to develop around iconic cars, that there may be a point at which it does become applicable. Or perhaps it falls under copyright laws, like any other creatively produced property (music, art, photograph, etc.).

In any case, I don't think anyone is seeking to demonize the author or publisher, and I hope a satisfactory settlement can be made.

[Torquedork]

When magazine guys shoot them, the photos belong to the mag.

When freelance guys (like Robert) shoot them, the pics belong to him and he sells usage rights to the magazine (either 1-time or whatever they agree to).

It seems Robert was nice enough to share images with some of the car owners, and those owners gave permission for the photos to be used. Too bad the car owners don't own the photos.

It's up to Robert to decide what he wants to do, but he's got a legit gripe.

Those of us who like working with him make sure to pay him for his work. It's only right.

I agree. As a Freelancer and former Magazine Feature Editor, when we photograph a car for a feature, we own the rights and it should be made clear to the owner of the car in the release to that fact. Freelancers generally get one time rights to the images with regard to the magazine. After that, it's still the freelancers image.

Just make sure it is stated in the release for the car owner who owns the rights to the images.

[Steve1968LS2]

I agree the wording might be a little harsh, but your reasoning seems wrong. How is the author supposed to know? The author, editor, fact checker, publisher, etc. is supposed to ask. That is both prudent and professional.

Maybe you missed where I said she sent me a release for my photos which I signed and faxed back.. If someone gives her such a release how is she supposed to know if they truly have ownership of the images or not? Tarot cards? :) - She also asked me if they were my photos. From this I assume they asked everyone sourced in the book. But that's an assumption.


In academic circles, if you present something without citation or due credit to those that contributed to your research or work, that is a serious offense and issue and it will have serious effect on your professional reputation and possibly the loss of your job. I don't see why, when the Almighty Dollar is at stake and there is profit being made, it should be done to any less of a standard. It's very simply professional integrity.

That's great in theory, but in the real world it's not very practical. If I have a digital image that you want then how do you KNOW it's mine? Because I have the negative? Oh wait.. nevermind.. you ask me and if I say it's mine then you have me sign a release for your use. Aside from that what else should one do?

It's like saying that if I give you a dollar for you b-day and that dollar was stolen by me the day before you're somehow a thief because you didn't establish that I was the true owner of the gifted dollar.

What would be nice is if digital photos could be electronically copyrighted or otherwise marked in terms or rights.

No worries, I could care less about the publisher.. just having a "what if" discussion. I find my photos popping up in everything from ads to business cards. The difference is that I'm salary and Robert makes a living off every photo, so it hurts him more.

So in closing it's not right, but it is complicated in this digital age. :)

[YancyJohns]

Any time Pro-Touring community gets more attention, I think it's Great!! Let's quit taking two steps back to go one step forward!!

[ProBell]

I do not know the laws, But I think most of us would be honored to have are cars used in any type of published book , mag. or what ever. Their is a lot of awesome cars around and it is awesome when someone thinks enough of your project to publish it. ( Just a dumb electricians opinion) Randy

[DarkBuddha]

What would be nice is if digital photos could be electronically copyrighted or otherwise marked in terms or rights.

No worries, I could care less about the publisher.. just having a "what if" discussion. I find my photos popping up in everything from ads to business cards. The difference is that I'm salary and Robert makes a living off every photo, so it hurts him more.

So in closing it's not right, but it is complicated in this digital age. :)
Good points Steve, and you're right that most of this is a "what if" discussion, but it does have real impact to someone like Robert. And it certainly is complicated, but not so different than what the music industry has faced and dealt with in the last decade. In fact, based on the innovations of the music industry, I'd be surprised to find that there aren't electronic copyright protection methods for digital images, either in the file data encoding itself, through digital watermark, or other cryptography. If it isn't here yet, I'm sure it will be soon, as well it should be.

One issue that this brings up is the value of commissioning, producing, and using original works (photographic and otherwise) and those that create them, rather than relying on stock photos or reusing previously published images. It is in this situation that the value of creative arts and artists should be given more attention and recognized for the value they have, beyond the idea of it being either a commodity to be sold and bought, or as some esoteric, museum/theater/concert hall housed, hobby of the rich and intellectual. Art has real value and real impact in the more common every day sense than we often recognize.

[cmraman]

Good points Steve, and you're right that most of this is a "what if" discussion, but it does have real impact to someone like Robert. And it certainly is complicated, but not so different than what the music industry has faced and dealt with in the last decade. In fact, based on the innovations of the music industry, I'd be surprised to find that there aren't electronic copyright protection methods for digital images, either in the file data encoding itself, through digital watermark, or other cryptography. If it isn't here yet, I'm sure it will be soon, as well it should be.

One issue that this brings up is the value of commissioning, producing, and using original works (photographic and otherwise) and those that create them, rather than relying on stock photos or reusing previously published images. It is in this situation that the value of creative arts and artists should be given more attention and recognized for the value they have, beyond the idea of it being either a commodity to be sold and bought, or as some esoteric, museum/theater/concert hall housed, hobby of the rich and intellectual. Art has real value and real impact in the more common every day sense than we often recognize.

Copyright laws protect all creative material. Digital or analog. The problem is the ease of which people get the images, and those who don't understand the impact this has on the working stiff. Thanks for all your support, unfortunately, I don't have much recourse at this point. I'm just getting sick of my images used and get nothing in return.

[SRT-68]

I know of several photographers that shoot cars and then watermark the images. This feels like a good idea to me.

[DarkBuddha]

Thanks for all your support, unfortunately, I don't have much recourse at this point. I'm just getting sick of my images used and get nothing in return.
As a composer, I'm sympathetic, if not empathetic. I doubt anyone would find much use for my stuff out of context, much less worth stealing... one of the advantages of being avant-garde I suppose.

[cmraman]

I know of several photographers that shoot cars and then watermark the images. This feels like a good idea to me.

I always have it in the metadata, but I have found that there are some who know how to change it or delete it all together. It's just futile to keep up on it anymore. It's just as bad with music. The digital age has destroyed any chance of making a decent living anymore.

[andrewb70]

.....It's just as bad with music. The digital age has destroyed any chance of making a decent living anymore.

I think the digital age has changed how artists have to conduct their business. If I was shooting a car for a magazine, I would not give the car owner high resolution images. If he wanted shots to email to his friends then 800x533 72dpi pixels are fine for that. If the owner wanted actual photos, I would make a book for them. I know you used to do this. I think a car owner would easily pay 150-200 dollars for a coffee table book that featured his pride and joy. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Andrew

[TonyHuntimer]

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/12/Beating_a_dead_horse-1.jpg

Hey Robert,

Before handing over photos to the owners of features you shoot, maybe give them a quick verbal message of not distributing them without checking with you first. Instead of puting your data in the properties where nobody can see them once printed, can you put your own watermark on the front like this?
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/12/autoshowphotosaspimageId101554galleryId1-1.jpg

Some people get crazy with the watermark:
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/12/watermark-1.png

The small watermark in the corner can sometimes be cropped or photoshopped, so that's why some photog's put the large one on the image. You can also send low-res images to the car owners. If they see one or two they want to blow up, they can contact you for high-res versions. Doing your awesome book and not supplying digital images is probably the best way to protect yourself in the future.

...but compared to you I'm relatively new to the game, so I'm probably not telling you anything new.

Tony Huntimer
RaceHome.com