Ripped off?

[RB30-ZED]

WOW looks like I opened a can of worms with this thread, id just like to make the point that I don't mind people copying my photos at all,,, but I just thought that if other people start making comment about a photo I have taken of my own car, that the pic should have a credit to the cars owner or he guy who took the picture.

It just rubs me the wrong way to see some one else getting praise for two years of my work.

Plus it just fills the Gallery with copies of the same photo.

Steven

[panchovisa]

WWEEELLLL NNNNNOOOOWWWWWWW.

Why hasn't anyone noticed that RB30-ZED and Moyest haven't posted. Could it be they have handled things all by themselves, or now wish to remain out of this thread? Just an observation.

Sorry to have taken this thread off topic, now back to the courtroom drama. ACTION!

(see I was two minutes to late sending my post!)

[RB30-ZED]

Well that might be as we are both on the other side of the wolrd we have been sleeping peacefully while you guys are getting in to it

[Bambikiller240]

Ha Ha, Iwas going to post that answer, but figured I'd just see if anyone else figured that out.

[panchovisa]

Carl, your so sly!

[Gav240z]

Well as a general rule the pics I post in my gallery that are of cars I do not own i post in my general gallery while pics of my car or VicZcar events go into there own folder. If anyone ever says nice comments about a car in my gallery and I don't own it. I inform them i'm not the owner and try to point them towards the owner of the car. That way I don't take the credit for anyones hard work

[Go240Zags]

EScanlon

"At this point, you have violated the agreement by which you took the pictures. Posting on YOUR home computer is fine, posting on the INTERNET is considered a PUBLIC display. That is no longer a personal use / enjoyment case. Now, you've disseminated the photograph. Unless they are pictures of items / people for which you have ascertained and received permission to post in a public forum (called a photo release), you cannot post them."

As a newspaper editor/journalist/photojournalist, I know that photos taken of people or items in public for use in the free press of the U.S. do not require any kind of photo release. This doesn't matter if it is in a newspaper, on television or the internet. In the public you have no right to your own image or that of your car or other possessions, even if you are a child. Anyone can take your picture and anyone can publish it (as long as it is not for profit, say advertising). There are some gray areas and you are not allowed to hold someone up to ridicule by altering the picture to make the situation unflattering, etc. However, if you chose to go running (or driving) down the public street naked (starkers) I have the right to take the photo and publish it. In general in newspapers, the copyright begins when the article, drawing, photo, etc. has been published. I have had articles I have written lifted verbatum and have had a few of my photos taken as well. I usually find this flattering if I am credited, but if not litigation may be in order. If you are working for someone, i.e. a newspaper, the copyright generally belongs to the newspaper, unless otherwise specified. Of course, the internet has opened a whole new frontier in copyright law. Usually the internet, in this country, is considered the same as say a newspaper or book. If I want to insure my copyright is enforceable, I save the first published incidence as well as stamping (or writing) copyright C (encircled) w/ my name and the date. Do this and you have just copyrighted your image (you could do the same on the pictures you submit here). Something like suggested by Bambi, but it wouldn't have to cover the image. In the U.S. The wonderful thing about freedom of speech in the U.S., at least, is you do not have to be a professional journalist to take advantage of these same laws. Anyone can take anybody's photo as long as they are in public, at a Z show you would need to have it posted that no photos could be taken and/or if they are not used anywhere else. That would put a real damper on half the fun of the show I'd think and cause a lot of confusion to boot.

[EScanlon]

Gary;

You're obviously better informed than I regarding the specifics on this law. I erred by using the basic rule of thumb given to me in my college days.

The example I used was about a car show and that throws another level onto it. Since the specifics of the law address those items occurring in a PUBLIC place, I can see why the photographer has no limitations as to what he can take pictures of, and use (with some restrictions). Many car shows, from what I have seen being involved both as a participant and MC, have been organized such that they can and do restrict PUBLIC access. I'm not referring to whether people have to pay to get in or not, I'm referring to shows that specify Marque, Model, or Year of production. As such, the event from what I recall from college, can no longer be called a PUBLIC event.

Maybe, I'm completely wrong, that's why my first line was admitting that I'm not a lawyer. Thanks for expanding on my post. Am I wrong regarding what I posted above?

Enrique

[240znz]

Steven,

Again, great pics of your car. Funny that while I was providing an answer to a comment of one pic, that I thought "has Steven been asked if it is OK to use his gallery images?" The work you have done is first class and I'm sure that you don't mind the congrats.

Regardless of whatever law exists, I like to think that as a member of this club, I would expect to be asked permission first prior to any pics from my gallery (nothing worth taking anyway) being copied to another. It's just in keeping with the atmosphere of this club.

Well....I hope I didn't upset anyone....you know...its easily done these days...gezzzzzz

[EScanlon]

...Regardless of whatever law exists, I like to think that as a member of this club, I would expect to be asked permission first prior to any pics from my gallery (nothing worth taking anyway) being copied to another.

And the nomination for the best Classic Z Car Golden Rule proclamation goes to.....

I agree, and think this is probably the BEST way to paraphrase the prior discussion.

Enrique

[Go240Zags]

Gary;

You're obviously better informed than I regarding the specifics on this law. I erred by using the basic rule of thumb given to me in my college days.

The example I used was about a car show and that throws another level onto it. Since the specifics of the law address those items occurring in a PUBLIC place, I can see why the photographer has no limitations as to what he can take pictures of, and use (with some restrictions). Many car shows, from what I have seen being involved both as a participant and MC, have been organized such that they can and do restrict PUBLIC access. I'm not referring to whether people have to pay to get in or not, I'm referring to shows that specify Marque, Model, or Year of production. As such, the event from what I recall from college, can no longer be called a PUBLIC event.

Maybe, I'm completely wrong, that's why my first line was admitting that I'm not a lawyer. Thanks for expanding on my post. Am I wrong regarding what I posted above?

Enrique

Enrique,

I've yet to attend a specific Z event, and am looking forward to doing so when I can get the chance. I'm sure you're right about some events being closed to cameras and photo shooting (unless under specific limitations maybe). I'm so used to gaining access to things where people want me to take and publish their picture I never really thought about restrictions. However, if the event was held say, in a public park, or on a public street, then it would still be open to photo taking. Unless however they had permission to close the park entirely to the public. I tend to bow to people's wishes to not have their photo taken, unless I consider it of importance to our readers (it's hard to cut someone out of a crowded public scene, though). I remember a bus load of Canadian Air Cadets drove into the ditch along Highway 97 once, just a couple thousand feet from the U.S./Canada border crossing on their way home from some event (I live just 4 miles south of BC). I took a picture of them all standing by the wrecked bus. Some adult told me I had no right to do so, so I had to give her a quick lesson in freedom of the press in the U.S. She wasn't too happy, but that was her right and I had my right to take the photo. She was probably more embarrassed than worried about the cadets.

How are things in Vancouver, WA? Sunny Sept. Sunday and in the 80's here today.

Gary

[Mike]

It just rubs me the wrong way to see some one else getting praise for two years of my work.

Plus it just fills the Gallery with copies of the same photo.

Steven

Hi Steven,

I immediately thought of you when those pictures went up in the gallery. However, I must admit that all of the good things said with the images were pretty flattering! None the less, it's still your car and you can go outside and drive it.

I still love all of those pictures, they were nicely done.