joedls and rvrtrash ... are these your cars?

[joedls]

Even though I didn't give my permission before they used my pic, I have now given it in exchange for the link on this page: http://mustangsunlimited.com/links.asp

I can understand people protecting their interests. I believe they should do so vigorously. But I wasn't trying to earn any money by selling this pic, so (for me) no harm, no foul.

 

[68gt390]

Pretty soon, hopefully everyone here on the site will be able to walk into their house, computer room, garage, or what ever and see the GT/CS diecast model sitting somewhere on display and say - hey, I know who's car was used to make that model. I think that will be pretty cool. Plus, they did ask for my permission to use the car for the model.

Don :grin:

 

[hookedtrout]

Well, Cory, I don't disagree with you, but if someone has restored and cared for their GT/CS (or any other classic or street rod), you deserve some sort of aknowledgement, and/or respect.

In a commercial situation like this, they benefit from your hard work. You waxed the car, picked out the wheels, and spend a lot of time with TLC. If a catalog, or website, or even book uses photos of your car, the right thing to do (ethical thing ) is give that person credit. A little bit goes a long way.

Paul N.

That's cool Paul, I know there are a lot of people that would not want their photo's used and I understand and respect that. I actually posted my response not having even read your post as they posted about the same time, I was typing mine when your posted. My post even though it followed your post was in no way a response to your post just my own feelings. I guess my post was permission for anyone to use my pictures however and whenever they want, I'm good with it. Life is just to short to sweat out the things that won't harm you or yours.

Reminds me of a time I was at the hospital with my step dad after he had a mild heart attack and I think it's well worth sharing not that I'm implying anyone here is stressed over this issue. First let me give a little background, my step dad, who raised me, is a short fused, high stressed, easily irritated, non tollerating, has a temper from hell and an individual that I love dearly. On his last day in the hospital the nurses assured him that he would be done and out by noon. We were there to bring him home. Noon rolled around and he was fit to be tied and the nurses were giving all the likely excuses as to why the Dr hadn't been in to finish up and release him. About 1:45 PM the Doc shows up and dad lights into him about how he'd been ready to go home at 10 AM and blah blah and the Doc was very patient and listened intently. When dad finished he asked dad to sit down and that he would be right back. He left and when he came back he had TV and VCR. He informed dad that he wouldn't be going anywhere until he had watched a presentation by one of the worlds most well known heart specialists turned professional speaker on the subject of stress, can't remember his name. He made my dad sit down and watch a 45 minute video on how stress not only shortens your life but kills you and then the Doc talked for almost another hour to my dad on the effects of stress. I was ready to bust a gut as it was perfect for my dad. He informed my dad that he had better get over the little things or start digging his grave as stress was a leading cause of heart problems and after having spent time with my dad he assured him that stress was his biggest heart problems.

He's still the most difficult person I know to be around but I enjoy being around him anyway.

Cory

 

[hookedtrout]

Pretty soon, hopefully everyone here on the site will be able to walk into their house, computer room, garage, or what ever and see the GT/CS diecast model sitting somewhere on display and say - hey, I know who's car was used to make that model. I think that will be pretty cool. Plus, they did ask for my permission to use the car for the model.

Don :grin:

Right ON!

 

[rvrtrash]

I guess I should explain further. When I first saw the picture I thought it was cool they used my car. Then I started remembering how they ripped me off a couple of times a few years ago and here they were using my car to promote their business. That kind of bothered me so I called them. I told the guy that answered the phone that I would like to talk to someone about their website because they'd used a picture of my car without permission and he asked which picture, said just a minute and put me on hold. He came back and said OK-We'll pull it immediately. I asked why they didn't contact me to ask permission first and he said he didn't know, he didn't do it and hung up on me. It was like they didn't give a hoot and I wasn't worth wasting their time on-pretty much the same attitude I got from them 3 years ago. There is too many other vendors I can go to for me to tolerate rudeness. I won't loose sleep over it but they just won't be getting any of my next two Mustang project business. Their loss.

Steve

 

[BroadwayBlue]

Wow this thread has taken on a life of it's own!

I wasn't sure if the owner's knew or not. I understand both sides.

If it was me, a simple "would it be OK" would suit me just fine.

I know in the past with other car forums some people did get upset when their photos were used without permission in a catalog and website. It wasn't a problem that it was their car in the photo but it was their photo and would have appreciated a simple approval.

I didn't mean to cause so much controversy. Thought it was cool and was curious if people knew. Interesting conversation in any case.

 

[Mosesatm]

Thanks for the clarification Casey.

Hmmmm, I wonder if now might be a good time to pull all those '70s era pictures we posted of ourselves!:wink:

This is not legal advice:

Generally, anything that can be viewed by the public may be used without permission.

For printed material (and I presume the web), then a copyright notice is required to protect the material. Otherwise, it is considered public material (to be viewed by the public).

Casey

 

[PNewitt]

Boy, Rich, you sure know how to "stir the pot" around here!!!!! (Kidding)

You're the eagle-eye I mentioned in my letter. You are also the one who seems to find a lot of GT/CS "stuff" on the 'net (how do you do it?). It sure helps me, for the book, and I know that it helps a lot of other folks. We ALL appreciate it very much--so don't, for a second have regrets, whether serious or tongue-in-cheek.

I think that some of the realities of some of the Mustang parts dealers has come out of this thread, too. That's a good thing. I feel that some of them take advantage (and mock) the enthusiasts. We do it for fun and it's a hobby (of sorts). I just wish that more true enthusiasts worked at these stores. But, each store is different.

We'll see what shakes out in the coming days.

In the meantime, keep up the great work!

Paul.

 

[PNewitt]

Hey everyone!
A quick follow-through...

I finally got a response today to my inquiring e-mail about the use of owner's cars from Mustangs Unlimited, and here it is:

--------------

Hello,
Any images that are obtained and, displayed on our website come from our photographer or, Google. The photos on Google are for anybody to see and, use. There is no copy right on any of these photos. We do not go to message boards looking for photos. Do you know which part numbers of ours, is one of your members cars? We would be happy to contact any member and, display their car photo with there permission. If you have any other further questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact me.

Thank You,
Leon Laske
Ebay Sales

Mustangs Unlimited
2505 Newpoint Pkwy.
Lawrenceville, Ga. 30043
888-229-2929 ext.157
770-446-1965 ext.157

770-446-3055 fax
http://www.mustangsunlimited.com
From: Sales Team [email protected]

--------------------

Only a quick point: If, as they say, that they got the images from "Google Images"; when you go there, the original website is included when you see the image you requested, so (IMO) they must have seen, and known that they are the gallery pages from this site.

In the future, if you are concerned about whether your images are protected, you can place a copyright (©) symbol ( option key with letter G at the same time on a Mac), with your initials, or name, and the year ( i.e. © PMN 2006 ).
But--you'll need something like Photoshop to place the type on top of a photo, and do it in a contrasting color.

So--here is the response for your info. It's your choice whether you wish to respond, and/or add notations to any photos you place on the net.

Paul N.

 

[admin]

The photos on Google are for anybody to see and, use. There is no copy right on any of these photos.

This statement is not correct. Per Google's FAQ page on it's image search:

"Are there any copyright restrictions associated with the images?

The images identified by the Google Image Search service may be protected by copyrights. Although you can locate and access the images through our service, we cannot grant you any rights to use them for any purpose other than viewing them on the web. Accordingly, if you would like to use any images you have found through our service, we advise you to contact the site owner to obtain the requisite permissions."​

 

[390cs68rcode]

This statement is not correct. Per Google's FAQ page on it's image search:

"Are there any copyright restrictions associated with the images?

The images identified by the Google Image Search service may be protected by copyrights. Although you can locate and access the images through our service, we cannot grant you any rights to use them for any purpose other than viewing them on the web. Accordingly, if you would like to use any images you have found through our service, we advise you to contact the site owner to obtain the requisite permissions."​

now it's time to boycott Mustangs Unlimited. I hate companies that do this type of thing.

Ask me to use my car/images and I would be happy to allow it.

 

[Mosesatm]

Please note that the statement says, ".....MAY be protected by copyrights...." It doesn't say that all images are protected.

I agree that what MU did was rude but it also seems to be legal unless Steve and Joe copyrighted the images.

 

[admin]

I think Google says "may" because the photo could be in the public domain. Google's software really has no way of knowing.

From everything I can find copyright is automatic when you create the photo. If the author doesn't specifically state that their work is public domain then it's copyright protected. (with or without a copyright notice).

Per www.copyright.com (and similar verbage on www.copyright.gov)

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a tangible form, such as the first time it is written or recorded. Neither publication, registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright, although registration is recommended.

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989 . Should the copyright holder elect to utilize a copyright notice, he/she may do so freely without permission from or registration with, the U.S. Copyright Office. In fact, the use of a copyright notice is recommended as it reminds the public that the work is protected by copyright.​

I do see how Mustangs Unlimited would think that images on the web are not copyright protected, so I don't completely blame them. It's a confusing subject and I think many people assume if it's on internet then it's fair game.

 

[PNewitt]

I do see how Mustangs Unlimited would think that images on the web are not copyright protected, so I don't completely blame them. It's a confusing subject and I think many people assume if it's on internet then it's fair game.

It's not a matter of who is right or wrong (as such), but who has the most $$, time and motivation to go to court, and/or prosecute, sue, etc.

Due to this situation, I've cut back on showing you preview pics I'm using in the book, for fear of them being "grabbed" by anyone else for their own use (regardless of file size). That's too bad. I don't say this as any kind of "punishment", but as protection of my work--until the book is out.

Jon makes some good points, and I agree with Jason.

Paul.

 

[Mosesatm]

Here is a link to a non-lawyer language web-site about copyrights. Also below is a summary of 10 copyright myths, and the 1st myth.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

In Summary
• These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are written, and no copyright notice is required.
• Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not, only damages are affected by that.
• Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net.
• Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable social purposes. Ask yourself why you are republishing what you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it in your own words.
• Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's a concept from trademark law. The ownership of names is also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name copyrighted.
• Fan fiction and other work derived from copyrighted works is a copyright violation.
• Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply. Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright violation into the criminal realm.
• Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder; often it's not that hard to ask permission.
• Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing facts from E-mail you got isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail, nobody could wring any damages from you for posting it. The law doesn't do much to protect works with no commercial value.

1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."

This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.
It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.
The correct form for a notice is:
"Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"
You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the "moral rights."

 

[PNewitt]

I think that Jon, as a practical matter, you could add a statement at the bottom, and/or near the gallery photos that states something like this:

© 2006 "CaliforniaSpecial.com". All rights reserved. Each photo is the property of the stated owner, and to use these photos for any use other then personal, such as commercial, requires permission in writing.

Something like that. This, beyond any legalese, is a matter of ethics, and consideration for the owner(s).

For what it's worth,

Paul.

 

[Mustanglvr]

Wow, Arlie, you did your homework! Great post, very informative.

 

[Mosesatm]

Here is something from Piercelaw.edu. Is this saying that the owner of the material can't sue the user of the material unless the item is registered?

Authors' Rights

Registration.
Although web pages and email messages are protected as soon as created, copyright registration is needed before U.S. owners can bring suit. Also, prompt registration provides remedies that make lawsuits affordable. Statutory damages of $150,000 (or more, and attorney fees) for willful infringement can be obtained if published works are registered within three months, or unpublished works are registered before they are infringed.

Registration costs only $45, and simple application forms with basic instructions are available from the Copyright Office -- TX still appears to be the best choice. Yet, it would be prohibitively expensive for prolific authors or artists to register individual items other than in the context of existing disputes. Their options much improve when multiple works can be registered as a collection.

** Web pages.
The entire contents of a web site no more require multiple registrations than a book with many chapters and numerous illustrations -- or a CD with text and music, still and animated graphics, and software. Copyright Office Circular 66 contains a brief discussion. However, the following could mislead those unfamiliar with copyright (fee updated):
Revisions and updates
Many works transmitted online are revised or updated frequently. For individual works, however, there is no blanket registration available to cover revisions published on multiple dates. A revised version for each daily revision may be registered separately.... A separate application and $[45] filing fee would be required for each....
While new text isn't covered by prior registrations, it is difficult to see why a court would allow someone to get away with copying a page of mostly registered content merely because it contains a few new sentences or other changes!

** Email.
If a list owner wants to register threaded list contents, that should be possible -- particularly if copyright has been assigned by members. The main thing that seems unclear is how much time could be spanned by a single registration. Given that "prompt" registration means within three months of "publication", that period makes sense.

The situation for email authors is much more ambiguous. First, group registration of several periodical contributions by a single author is possible, but combining email posts would require liberal interpretation of the term "periodical." Alternatively, email authors might register their "unpublished" collections, but that presents a different problem: Are messages to "public" lists "published" for all purposes, or might they be regarded as "unpublished" for registration purposes? Perhaps because no one has tried to register, the Copyright Office seems to have so far posted no information specific to that.