| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/14/2005 07:42:49 PM · #1 |
has anyone tried taking car shots at a car dealership? i was wonder how they would feel about this in general. i would think that they would love the fact that someone is interested in their cars and maybe even making them more desirable by giving the appearance of a 'photo shoot', but know that many businesses don't like pictures being taken on their property. i was at a dealership the other evening (even with my camera, but had too much else going on to try taking any pictures.. plus was nearly out of space on my card anyway) and noticed some wonderful cars - some even with interesting lighting set-ups at night.
anyone had any experience with this? i would assume that a ford dealership is probably more receptive to this than a jaguar dealership, but who knows
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 07:47:34 PM · #2 |
I took a photo of a Rolls-Royce for one of the challenges
at the "Symbolic cars" dealership in La Jolla. The staff was very friendly and cooperative, and, needless to say, there were some pretty amazing (and pricey) cars there (the one in the photo had a price tag of ~$350,000.00 if I remember correctly). |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 07:51:54 PM · #3 |
i think if u stand in the street then ur off their property and you can take any photo you want.
read this:
Krages Photo rights |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 07:53:58 PM · #4 |
I was just thinking about this yesterday when I took my 'Cadillac' photograph of a car parked next to me. I love taking pictures of cars. You can find so many unique details and history in cars from there trade mark hood ornament's or emblems. I was thinking of going to my local dealer and take a picture of the new mustang. I believe that is a good car to capture because it has the 60's look grill and back incorporated into the 2005 model.
Here is the one I took the yesterday.
 |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 07:56:02 PM · #5 |
| I would think if you asked the owner or general manager in advance and explained to them why you are taking the photos, many would be cooperative with you. Many of them would like to sell you a car after all |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 08:03:26 PM · #6 |
I have shot on several new car lots. I always ask permission first and so far no problems.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 08:28:28 PM · #7 |
I work on car lots daily and know the managers and some of the owners of large car lots. I think its going to be hit and miss. You may find some that are paranoid and not want you around. But I bet most wouldn't mind at all. In fact I bet if you had some exceptional shots they would even pay you to use them in ads. I would offer to ask them what they think but they would more willing to let me do stuff than a stranger.
Tim |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 08:42:54 PM · #8 |
| I read where some of the car logos are copyrigthed and reproduction is illegal, one for sure is the Hood orinament of the Rolls-Royce, another is the Mustang for Ford. There are others. |
|
|
|
03/14/2005 08:58:11 PM · #9 |
Plz remember that some logos, and some parts of cars are trademarks already. It means u can't shoot 'em, just like the eifel tower nowadays!
I've read somewhere that the "horse logo" on stangs can't be shot! So beware of that!
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 09:07:41 PM · #10 |
hmmm, thanks for all the replies - i think i may try it someday soon. i would hope that the curves/shapes on the cars aren't copyrighted, but they very well may be.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2005 09:08:20 PM · #11 |
| they can't be shot in general or can't be sold after being shot? |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 02:35:46 PM · #12 |
i think they mean that they can't be sold after shot.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 02:46:10 PM · #13 |
you can sell a photograph of whatever you want exept if it is a picture of people, then you need their consent.. unless there are more then 4 persons in the picture then it is considered a group photo and you don´t need the models consent.
the mustang and rolls royce signs are trademarks, you can´t make a similar sign and use it on your car, but you can take a picture of it and sell it if you want, nobody can copyright your pictures except you.
if the mustang was so well copyrighted then it would be illegal for horses to stand on their back feets.. try to sue all horses for having a will of their own ;)
and who doesn´t remember the Marlborogh man.. riding a horse that stood on 2 feets just like the mustang sign ?? I think the sigarette comercial is older then the Ford Mustang ;)
Message edited by author 2005-03-15 14:47:35. |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 02:53:38 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
you can sell a photograph of whatever you want exept if it is a picture of people, then you need their consent.. unless there are more then 4 persons in the picture then it is considered a group photo and you don´t need the models consent.
the mustang and rolls royce signs are trademarks, you can´t make a similar sign and use it on your car, but you can take a picture of it and sell it if you want, nobody can copyright your pictures except you.
if the mustang was so well copyrighted then it would be illegal for horses to stand on their back feets.. try to sue all horses for having a will of their own ;)
and who doesn´t remember the Marlborogh man.. riding a horse that stood on 2 feets just like the mustang sign ?? I think the sigarette comercial is older then the Ford Mustang ;) |
Not True See this link.... or you could end up in court
//www.pacaoffice.org/resources/specialReleases.html |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 03:08:54 PM · #15 |
PACA only deals with stock photography (besides the fact that I think their list is far too conservative...since when can you copyright a tree?).....I can personally sell or display in a gallery art prints of a Mustang without getting Ford's permission, just like I can have a character in one of my films drive one without getting Ford's permission.
Message edited by author 2005-03-15 15:12:14.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 03:17:03 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by sfboatright:
PACA only deals with stock photography (besides the fact that I think their list is far too conservative...since when can you copyright a tree?).....I can personally sell or display in a gallery art prints of a Mustang without getting Ford's permission, just like I can have a character in one of my films drive one without getting Ford's permission. |
You can think what ever you want. But the courts have the final say. So why take a chance... |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 03:37:32 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Originally posted by sfboatright:
PACA only deals with stock photography (besides the fact that I think their list is far too conservative...since when can you copyright a tree?).....I can personally sell or display in a gallery art prints of a Mustang without getting Ford's permission, just like I can have a character in one of my films drive one without getting Ford's permission. |
You can think what ever you want. But the courts have the final say. So why take a chance... |
Because I refuse to be intimidated by companies who want to charge for images that anyone can legally take for free.
The law is on our side....worst case scenario is you'll get a strongly worded cease and desist letter, but just because a corporate attorney says something doesn't make it true.
Do you think Morgan Spurlock had permission to use the McDonald's arches in "SuperSize Me?"
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 03:51:07 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by sfboatright:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Originally posted by sfboatright:
PACA only deals with stock photography (besides the fact that I think their list is far too conservative...since when can you copyright a tree?).....I can personally sell or display in a gallery art prints of a Mustang without getting Ford's permission, just like I can have a character in one of my films drive one without getting Ford's permission. |
You can think what ever you want. But the courts have the final say. So why take a chance... |
Because I refuse to be intimidated by companies who want to charge for images that anyone can legally take for free.
The law is on our side....worst case scenario is you'll get a strongly worded cease and desist letter, but just because a corporate attorney says something doesn't make it true.
Do you think Morgan Spurlock had permission to use the McDonald's arches in "SuperSize Me?" |
Have at it... but be sure you can afford to support that attitude.. lol |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 04:01:12 PM · #19 |
I was watching a show on the discovery channel or The Learning channel about a two months ago on this. The program was about one photographer that his only job was to try to get the best picture of a car before the public see it. The only thing was the photographer had to be on public land while taking the picture. From the program below is what I got out of it.
You can take pictures of car and concept cars without any problem. That is why car companies go to so much expense to disguise there new models with paper, printed covers, tarps,etc. while testing them to keep from photographs [that do it for a living] getting a shot of the car before the company it self releases the car for viewing and sales. If you look in most car magazines you will see pictures of cars that were taken with all kinds of covers over them [by manufacture] to alter the new look or changes. The the photographer, if lucky enough to get a shot at a test track or on the road, can go to different magazine companies and sell them to the highest bidder.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 04:32:06 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
I was watching a show on the discovery channel or The Learning channel about a two months ago on this. The program was about one photographer that his only job was to try to get the best picture of a car before the public see it. The only thing was the photographer had to be on public land while taking the picture. From the program below is what I got out of it.
You can take pictures of car and concept cars without any problem. That is why car companies go to so much expense to disguise there new models with paper, printed covers, tarps,etc. while testing them to keep from photographs [that do it for a living] getting a shot of the car before the company it self releases the car for viewing and sales. If you look in most car magazines you will see pictures of cars that were taken with all kinds of covers over them [by manufacture] to alter the new look or changes. The the photographer, if lucky enough to get a shot at a test track or on the road, can go to different magazine companies and sell them to the highest bidder. |
That is because the design in not copyrighted or trademarked yet. The courts are starting to really enforce copyrihgt and trademark laws with heavy fines. As a photographer I am glad the are, cause that protects all of us... |
|
|
|
03/15/2005 06:20:57 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
That is because the design in not copyrighted or trademarked yet. The courts are starting to really enforce copyrihgt and trademark laws with heavy fines. As a photographer I am glad the are, cause that protects all of us... |
First off, the magazine usage that SDW65 mentioned is editorial...so that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Copyright of a design exists as soon as the thing is designed....even before the car is assembled, when it's drawn onto paper, the copyright exists. Trademark isn't relevant to this discussion because, as I understand it, that only deals with trading under a logo or name within a specific industry....I can't build a car and call it a Mustang because it's trademarked....I can build a computer and call it a Mustang because Ford doesn't make computers. (Edit: I still couldn't use their logo because that's a design and is therefore copyrighted. But you can't copyright the word 'Mustang.')
It's not a matter of whether or not the company owns the copyright on the design of the car (because they do), it's a question of whether a photographer is allowed to take a photograph of an object that is in public view.....if it's an art print to hang in a gallery or to be sold individually, no company is going to care. Take, for example, classic car wall calendars. Do you think that photographer had to get Chevy's permission to take the picture of that perfectly restored Camaro?
Message edited by author 2005-03-15 18:22:58.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2005 07:32:28 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by sfboatright:
Take, for example, classic car wall calendars. Do you think that photographer had to get Chevy's permission to take the picture of that perfectly restored Camaro? |
For some designs yes. For others, no.
Addressing a couple other points people mentioned ...
The Lone Cypress is privately owned, as is all the land around it, from which you could photograph. Furthermore, it's not an issue of copyright, but of trademark -- the owners have registered it with the Patent and Trademark office -- you can no more use it for commercial purposes than you can the Coca Cola logo. You can, of course, take and print and display your own private copy as a rememberance of your visit, you just can't sell copies or use the image commercially.
The Eiffel Tower's lighting design has a copyright, so you can't sell night-time images of the tower, but I don't think there's a restriction on daytime shots.
Many overall car designs already have copyright protection, not just their logos.
"Commercial use" will likely include selling of both reproductions (prints) or using the image as a stock or promotional item. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 03:47:33 AM EDT.
