Legality of selling automotive photos...

01/19/2005 06:09:33 PM · #1

Is it legal to say sell a print of say a 2005 Ford Mustang? Would it be legal to sell that photo as stock photography? -- I'm assuming the photo would be of the entire vehicle and it would be quite clear that it is a Ford Mustang.

How about if it's just a picture of say a headlight and side of the car, but nowhere is the Ford logo of the Mustang visible?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/19/2005 06:11:58 PM · #2

I don't think it would be a problem if it's for personal use (hanging on wall at home/office,etc). I don't think Ford would even bother with a lawsuit for 1 print.

You won't be able to use it on Shutterstock because it's recognizable as a name brand. I have tons of car pictures from the local autoshow and in the same boat.

Message edited by author 2005-01-19 18:13:29.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/19/2005 06:12:55 PM · #3

As to stock - you can't show more than 1/3 of the car and can't show any logos or anything absolutely distinguishable (names, symbols).

M

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/19/2005 06:15:53 PM · #4

Originally posted by mavrik:

As to stock - you can't show more than 1/3 of the car and can't show any logos or anything absolutely distinguishable (names, symbols).

M

Is that shutterstock's stand or istock, or a general stock rule?

Also, what about say selling a calender with 12 different cars in it?

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/19/2005 06:28:27 PM · #5

I've seen that general rule on more than one site, so i think it must be a general rule. Also, you can't really sell pictures of specific cars without permission - like 12 full body cars in 12 month calendar. You'd need to get permission for that, I think.

M

01/19/2005 06:31:31 PM · #6

hrmm...cool, thanks for the input.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/19/2005 06:57:26 PM · #7

Originally posted by mavrik:

As to stock - you can't show more than 1/3 of the car and can't show any logos or anything absolutely distinguishable (names, symbols).

M

Most real stock agencies have no such policy. Check this, or this, or
this out at Bruce Coleman Agency. You need a property release from the owner (not the manufaturer) of the vehicle to use the image in some cases.

Message edited by author 2005-01-19 19:17:19.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/19/2005 07:05:05 PM · #8

This link to a stock industry Special Releases list of restricted subjects was posted by Jon over on Shutterstock.

There is no one rule for all cars (or buildings) nor for all stock sites. Certain car designs and/or features are copyrighted by the manufacturer, and you need a release from them to make it the subject of your photo. That doesn't mean that you can never publish a picture with a RollsRoyce in it, but not as the featured subject, and don't use the logo.

The 1/3 of a car guide is one Shutterstock recently implimented to aid in the speedy review for which they are "famous."

Message edited by author 2005-01-19 19:06:50.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/19/2005 07:14:59 PM · #9

Here is another stock photo agency that has no problem buying and selling photos of automobiles.

Full frame, logos intact.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/19/2005 07:24:33 PM · #10

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Here is another stock photo agency that has no problem buying and selling photos of automobiles.

Full frame, logos intact.

People smoke pot too. Doesn't make it legal.

01/19/2005 07:40:56 PM · #11

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by nsbca7:
Here is another stock photo agency that has no problem buying and selling photos of automobiles.

Full frame, logos intact.

People smoke pot too. Doesn't make it legal.

Bruce Coleman is one of the oldest, largest and most well respected stock agencies in the world. They were buying and selling images legally before the people over at istock or shutterstock were old enough to pull off their own diapers. I had a contract with them in the past and I know them to be stand up when it comes to copyright laws.

And they don't deal in 20 cent pictures.

Message edited by author 2005-01-19 19:42:09.

01/19/2005 08:21:55 PM · #12

hrmm...thanks for the input once again -- I'm going to check all the links in a second.

I found another site where stock photos were being sold at like $80+ a pop for 800 pixels and like $150 a pop for fullsize that showed the whole automobile.

But on the sign up page, I read the terms policy, and basically it said something to the extent of YOU are responsible for checking the copyrights of all images and YOU will be held responsible for any legal actions from the sales of your photos or copyrighted images -- sounds kinda shady to me (although they took a whopping 40% profit, but at $150 a pop, that's not that bad really).

01/19/2005 08:49:26 PM · #13

Most of the legality of using an image of an automobile has to do with usage. If I want to publish an image of a Ford F150 loaded with crates of stawberies in a ad for my produce shipping firm I will probably have no problem. If I want to use a picture of the same truck stuck in the mud to advertise my Chevy dealership I had better first consult with a good copyright lawyer.

The policy that agencies such as shutterstock have on recognizable logos is based on the way they do business. Anyone can buy 500 or more images to use in any way they see fit at a set price of $139 for the bunch.

A professional agency like Bruce Coleman charges for each individual image according to usage, so they basically know what you are using the image for before you purchase it.

Message edited by author 2005-01-19 20:59:20.

01/19/2005 09:00:34 PM · #14

I hear you perfectly.

So...having a photo up for stock sale, doesn't it have to be able to be used by anyone any way they want -- isn't that what they purchase when they purchase a stock photo -- the right to use the photo how they see fit?

So, any stock photo should be able to be sold to anyone any way they see fit.

I could have the photo used by the produce company, and Ford would probably be happy -- and now Chevy comes along and buys the image, and Ford's going to have a problem with that for sure.

01/19/2005 09:15:00 PM · #15

This one has got to be illegal...

//www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0036-0407-0408-5811.html

01/19/2005 09:17:03 PM · #16

Originally posted by deapee:

This one has got to be illegal...

//www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0036-0407-0408-5811.html

When I was at the local autoshow I took pictures of all the badges.

01/19/2005 09:23:05 PM · #17

Originally posted by deapee:

So...having a photo up for stock sale, doesn't it have to be able to be used by anyone any way they want -- isn't that what they purchase when they purchase a stock photo -- the right to use the photo how they see fit?

So, any stock photo should be able to be sold to anyone any way they see fit.

Most right protected stock agencies along with the photographers they represent would say no. They can only use the image for what they say they are using it for. If they purchase the use of an image to appear on page four of Playboy magazine and the image at pulication shows up on the back cover the ad agency is going to be raking over some more bucks or else dealing with a lot of lawyers.

Istock and Shutterstock are a whole different breed then most professional stock agencies. That is the way they do business as that is the nature of their business. You don't find Shutterstock images in ads in newsweek magazine and you won't find Bruce Coleman dealing in images taken with a 3mp camera.

Duty free images entail another set of rules entirely.

01/19/2005 09:26:07 PM · #18

Originally posted by deapee:

This one has got to be illegal...

//www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0036-0407-0408-5811.html

Don't you ever look at automotive or hot rod magazines? Images like that are all through them. And many of those images come directly from stock photo agencies.

01/19/2005 09:32:49 PM · #19

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by deapee:
This one has got to be illegal...

//www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0036-0407-0408-5811.html

Don't you ever look at automotive or hot rod magazines? Images like that are all through them. And many of those images come directly from stock photo agencies.

I thought the magazines hire photographers to take pictures for them.

01/19/2005 09:46:03 PM · #20

Originally posted by faidoi:

I thought the magazines hire photographers to take pictures for them.

Sometimes. Stock photos are generally less expensive then hireing a photographer. If the mag is featuring coverage of a car show in LA then they send a staff photographer or hire a freelance. If they just need a picture of a stock baby blue 67' Mustang they buy it from an agency.

Look in the credits of almost any national magazine for a list of contributing photographers and you will see what I mean.

Better yet, come up off of $25 and get a copy of 2005 Photographer's Market. It explains in detail how stock agencies, magazines, and copyright laws work in relation to the photographer.

01/19/2005 09:55:17 PM · #21

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by faidoi:
I thought the magazines hire photographers to take pictures for them.

Sometimes. Stock photos are generally less expensive then hireing a photographer. If the mag is featuring coverage of a car show in LA then they send a staff photographer or hire a freelance. If they just need a picture of a stock baby blue 67' Mustang they buy it from an agency.

Look in the credits of almost any national magazine for a list of contributing photographers and you will see what I mean.

I bet you most graphic designers for the magazines or the person writing the article takes the pictures.

01/19/2005 09:59:56 PM · #22

hrmm...what's a good stock agency (with online submission ability) for automotive photos?

01/19/2005 10:01:43 PM · #23

Originally posted by faidoi:

I bet you most graphic designers for the magazines or the person writing the article takes the pictures.

For most national, and even regional magazines I would bet you are wrong.

Now it would seem that we are both betting people, what do you want to bet. I have an old Spotmatic with a 50mm f/1.4 in perfect condition. I will put up that against your Sony DSC-S70.