[Ready2Play]

So, I need to get some more legal advice with regards to copyrights and what all of my rights are as far as suing. My pictures have been used on a website, as well as in magazines to advertise and sell body kits, and vertical door kits. I have already emailed the company about it, and briefly spoke to an attorney when I was in Germany, but would like to see opinions on here.


Here's the site....http://www.extremedimensions.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?prodtype=Body Kits&id=140&cat=Tiburon 03-06

 

[krisyloo]

wow that sucks man, sue and get more stuff for you car )

 

[06orangecrush]

personally, i don't think you have rights to anything. if you didn't go through the process of "copyrighting" it then anyone can use the pics

 

[YoYo]

Be proud of it

 

[06orangecrush]

yeah ^^ i wish people wanted to use pics of my car on their sites and stuff

 

[Ready2Play]

Actually, the photographer automatically holds a copyright on any picture he/she takes. That much I already know. And I am not saying that I am not glad that my car is worthy of using as advertisement, but that is just it, it was used as ADVERTISEMENT. Something taht costs normal people money because they make money from it. It is for their personal gain. I have already found cases where people have gotten thousands of dollars for copyright infringements for various reasons, all on photographs. They never asked for permission at all, and I would not have consented without some sort of compensation. My car draws attention, and I'm sure that's why they used it. Businesses PAY for things taht draw attention. This business stole mine.


And aside from just listing it on their site, like I said, it has also been in AT LEAST one magazine. This month's IMPORT TUNER, page 69. I also know about them distibuting my pictures to their distributers for advertising purposes. That is a double whammy there. They are GIVING my pictures out to other people to make money with as well. I filed a VERO complaint about taht a few months ago, but didn't even realize that they were using it as full advertisement until someone on here brought it to my attention.

 

[YoYo]

Actually, the photographer automatically holds a copyright on any picture he/she takes. That much I already know.

Thats right and if i take a pic with my camera i have those same rights to use it in whatever i want

Did the company respond to your email or not?

 

[satanhanx]

You are correct in that the photographer automatically owns all rights to his/her photographs. But, what would probably prevent you from suing is the fact that your pictures seem to be all over the place. Once you upload your pictures to many websites, those pictures automatically become public domain, and some even become the property of the website. This is something that would be listed in the terms and conditions of any website that you have personally uploaded your photos to. As far as magazines are concerned, if you have consented to any magazines publishing your pictures, those pictures automatically become the property of that magazine. So, if you consented to one magazine printing them, they could have very easily given/sold your pictures to anyone they pleased. I fully understand why you're upset, but unless you can prove that those pictures are not public domain, or property of anyone else, you won't have a case.

 

[GTea]

I'm in the midst of starting a wedding photography business with my brother, and my understanding of copyright law, is that you must have your images marked as being copywritten, with a watermark, or on the website where they are being hosted. Otherwise, I believe your only recourse is to have them take the pictures down, I highly doubt you'd be able to get any monetary relief.

 

[jmpusmcr]

I'm in the midst of starting a wedding photography business with my brother, and my understanding of copyright law, is that you must have your images marked as being copywritten, with a watermark, or on the website where they are being hosted. Otherwise, I believe your only recourse is to have them take the pictures down, I highly doubt you'd be able to get any monetary relief.

actually, i was partners with a professional photographer. we photographed horse shows, including the big ones like congress. and they cannot use those photos without his signature on a release form, or some other proof showing he gave them the ok. lots of people wanted to use our photos on their website, we gave them permission of course, but had them include the photographers name on the pic.

 

[Ready2Play]

You are correct in that the photographer automatically owns all rights to his/her photographs. But, what would probably prevent you from suing is the fact that your pictures seem to be all over the place. Once you upload your pictures to many websites, those pictures automatically become public domain, and some even become the property of the website. This is something that would be listed in the terms and conditions of any website that you have personally uploaded your photos to. As far as magazines are concerned, if you have consented to any magazines publishing your pictures, those pictures automatically become the property of that magazine. So, if you consented to one magazine printing them, they could have very easily given/sold your pictures to anyone they pleased. I fully understand why you're upset, but unless you can prove that those pictures are not public domain, or property of anyone else, you won't have a case.

Actually, I have NEVER consented for my pictures to be published in ANY magazine. These were pictures that I personally took. And just because a picture has been published online doe snot give free reign over their use for advertisement purposes. The photographer still owns the rights, and you must be granted permission to use them.

 

[Ready2Play]

Not sure where they got the images, but if it was from Cardomain, they are really screwed. They can not only be sued by me, but by cardomain too, But I don't think that I had all of these pics on cardomain. Maybe a couple of them. But all of them were posted here once upon a time.


Everything seen or read on the Service is owned by us or used with permission. The user may not copy, use, or retransmit anything for the Service without our express written permission. Furthermore, Members are not allowed to post or distribute any material without consent of the owners. Violation of this policy may result in copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights violation and subject the user to civil or criminal penalties.
CarDomain respects the intellectual property of others. CarDomain is in compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If it is believed that work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement and is accessible on the Service, please provide CarDomain's Copyright Agent the following information:

 

[GTea]

actually, i was partners with a professional photographer. we photographed horse shows, including the big ones like congress. and they cannot use those photos without his signature on a release form, or some other proof showing he gave them the ok. lots of people wanted to use our photos on their website, we gave them permission of course, but had them include the photographers name on the pic.

In that case... there was most likely a registered copyright.

Ready2Play... unless you physically state that the image is copyrighted, and not for reproduction and all that crap, your only recourse will most likely to have the pictures taken down. Don't go making plans of sueing these guys and getting lots of money, because it won't happen.

And for the cardomain thing.. you don't have to be a member to look at the pictures, so the user agreement doesn't pertain to them.

 

[Ready2Play]

from the copyright official website:

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (“copies”) or in phonograph disks (“phonorecords”), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.

 

[rbgCODE]

Here's the site....http://www.extremedimensions.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?prodtype=Body Kits&id=140&cat=Tiburon 03-06

The best part is how they watermarked them as their own now.

 

[Ready2Play]

And according to the website, you have 5 years from time of the publication, to submit a request for an OFFICIAL copyright that will be recorded, which will be used in the persuit of any suit action. If the copyright is obtained within the first three months of the pictures being used, the lawyer fees and stuff may be waived.
\


Again, an exert from the official copyright homepage:

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.

 

[CarrRyanE]

The best part is how they watermarked them as their own now.

The best part is how screwed they would be if R2P decided to take action... my old boss (Director of Design) pressed charges against a magazine company and ended up with $40K after fees.

 

[GTea]

from the copyright official website:

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (“copies”) or in phonograph disks (“phonorecords”), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.

Yes... I know what a copyright is. There is also a stronger copyright you can get, called a registered copyright. Where someone retains a copy of the exact item, and penalties are much stricter for violation of it, as long as it is known to the viewer that reproduction/alteration is restricted.

Just get your pictures taken down and be done with it.

 

[Ready2Play]

In that case... there was most likely a registered copyright.

Ready2Play... unless you physically state that the image is copyrighted, and not for reproduction and all that crap, your only recourse will most likely to have the pictures taken down. Don't go making plans of sueing these guys and getting lots of money, because it won't happen.

Sorry man....that is a wrong statement. I was already made aware by an attorney that I DID have recourse in this situation, and that the company could be sued. You do not have to state that an image is physically copyrighted because EVERY photograph automatically holds a copyright as soon as it is produced. That is common knowledge, especially among businesses.

 

[rbgCODE]

Look, you people need to calm down, they used some pictures they werent supposed to. Just call them up and have them removed. There is no reason you need to sue them for piles of money (even though I dont think you would get anything).

Is it really bothering you that bad or are you looking for money?