What a cheek...

pvr said:
Is that true though? If someone takes a picture of me they can not publish it without my permissions?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the ip rights of an individual to their picture. I'm sure they are different to property. I do wonder though if permission were needed to publish a picture how could there ever be pictures of groups, crowds, street scenes, etc in magazines, tv, etc.?
 
If you take photos specifically of people, ie, they are the only person in the photo or they are a group of people, rather than say just a random shot of people in a high street that are not easily identifiable, you need to get a model release form signed by the model/s in the photo to say that they give up their rights and allow the photos to be published. No magazine will publish these types of photos without this release form. Cars and other items are not subject to this.

Whilst I can sympathise, you'll be skating on thin ice to get them to do anything other than an apology.
 
Pete said:
If you take photos specifically of people, ie, they are the only person in the photo or they are a group of people, rather than say just a random shot of people in a high street that are not easily identifiable, you need to get a model release form signed by the model/s in the photo to say that they give up their rights and allow the photos to be published. No magazine will publish these types of photos without this release form. Cars and other items are not subject to this.

Whilst I can sympathise, you'll be skating on thin ice to get them to do anything other than an apology.
Click to expand...

That all sounds logical Pete.

I spoke to the manufacturer today, advised politely that it was not my intention to have the image used for general marketing of a product not eventually fitted to the car. He agreed to cease using and will advise all distributors to cease too.

Actually I would not mind except my car is such an identifiable example (AE lights, clear lights, narrow number plate and mount, CF roundel, Flat wipers, etc. Vs a generic facelift Z4 and equally it's not really a true representation of the product on a standard Z4.
 
Ok, I'll bite. . What harm is there? Are you upset that they may be profiting without paying you? Please understand that I'm not being critical in any way. This just wouldn't bother me at all.
 
rabman5 said:
Ok, I'll bite. . What harm is there? Are you upset that they may be profiting without paying you? Please understand that I'm not being critical in any way. This just wouldn't bother me at all.
Click to expand...
I understand and normally I could not care less. This instance the photo was only ever for internal use, not something I ever purchased and given my Zed is reasonably well known not something I wanted associated with it. Eventually I just felt it was a cheek to supply it to a whole raft of third parties, ebay traders etc. If I had the gfrille fitted I'd be delighted.
No big deal really and now it's just more of a board discusion about photo ip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom