Umnitza has used my photo with out asking me
09-06-2007, 08:44 AM
#11
Former Vendor
Originally Posted by Russ1974' post='466494' date='Sep 6 2007, 08:25 AM
Or, option 3, they pay you to use them 
Let's hope this doesn't cause any bad feelings though. I appreciate your frustration, but a PM or even phone call/email to the contact details on the company website might be more appropriate. Would be a shame to air all of this in public.
Let's hope this doesn't cause any bad feelings though. I appreciate your frustration, but a PM or even phone call/email to the contact details on the company website might be more appropriate. Would be a shame to air all of this in public.
09-06-2007, 10:14 AM
#12
Contributors
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC , Canada
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2011, X6 Hybrid . Alpine White , every option. 20" Conti' NON runflats,OEM trunk spoiler , LUX V3 AE's , HP Thunder Fogs , custom front bumper reflector delete........
I don't disagree with your concerns but I think for someone who continually posts reprints of other peoples images you should be a little more understanding , do you have permission from the image owners you use ? While I agree this instance is for commercial purposes, it is somewhat hypocritical .
Cheers
Cheers
09-06-2007, 10:35 AM
#13
Senior Members
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New York und Wien
Posts: 2,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by umnitza' post='466535' date='Sep 6 2007, 12:38 PM
It was not our intention to "offend" you. All you have to do - if you a reasonable way about you - is email us and say - Please don't use my photo.
The photos were linked on Google Images for us by a friend that did some searching. Next time, just email us and request we take it down.
What image?
The photos were linked on Google Images for us by a friend that did some searching. Next time, just email us and request we take it down.
What image?
Your company stole his photo. The fact that it is available on Google via a search does not remove his ownership or rights nor does it grant you permission to steal it.
If you use photos in your business, you should be paying for them. Otherwise, YOU ARE STEALING THEM. If you are selling goods by having used someone's photo, that person may be entitled to damages which might be calculated based on the sales of that product during the period during which you had the stolen image in use.
I would be happy to give the OP information on looking into the question of damages.
Is that clear enough for you?
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for the advice of a lawyer qualified to give qualified to give advice in the particular areas of law to which this post relates.
09-06-2007, 10:40 AM
#14
Contributors
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nashville
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2007 530i Alpine White with Navi and Premium PackageIn progress: OEM Mtech kit, H&R Sport Springs, and 19
Whoah,
I couldn't imagine spending my time on anything else. This is very interesting as well as informative. Not to mention free legal advice...
I couldn't imagine spending my time on anything else. This is very interesting as well as informative. Not to mention free legal advice...
09-06-2007, 10:47 AM
#15
Contributors
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 14,646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 Silverstone II E60 M5 2012 E70 AW X5 50i Sport w/ LCI Aero Kit and Rocker Panels
LOL! This is funny stuff. Who cares guys. It's just a picture of your car. Hell, be honored. If it was a picture of your mom, then I'd be concerned. 
09-06-2007, 11:09 AM
#16
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2005 BMW 545i, Silver Grey, Sport Package, R. Shades, Cold Pkg, Sat. Rad., Prem. Sound.
Originally Posted by JSpira' post='466596' date='Sep 6 2007, 01:35 PM
No, that is not correct. He had no obligation to e-mail you.
Your company stole his photo. The fact that it is available on Google via a search does not remove his ownership or rights nor does it grant you permission to steal it.
If you use photos in your business, you should be paying for them. Otherwise, YOU ARE STEALING THEM. If you are selling goods by having used someone's photo, that person may be entitled to damages which might be calculated based on the sales of that product during the period during which you had the stolen image in use.
I would be happy to give the OP information on looking into the question of damages.
Is that clear enough for you?
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for the advice of a lawyer qualified to give qualified to give advice in the particular areas of law to which this post relates.
Your company stole his photo. The fact that it is available on Google via a search does not remove his ownership or rights nor does it grant you permission to steal it.
If you use photos in your business, you should be paying for them. Otherwise, YOU ARE STEALING THEM. If you are selling goods by having used someone's photo, that person may be entitled to damages which might be calculated based on the sales of that product during the period during which you had the stolen image in use.
I would be happy to give the OP information on looking into the question of damages.
Is that clear enough for you?
Disclaimer: This post does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for the advice of a lawyer qualified to give qualified to give advice in the particular areas of law to which this post relates.
Ahhmm. JSpira, did you get permission from Roundel to use as your Avatar?
Let's not involved the lawyers before trying to resolve the issue by contacting the offending party first. Most of the time, the offense is unintended.
Which particular law has been broken in either jursidiction?
At this point, this is a communication issue. I'm not sure if legal action justifies any positive quantitative returns in this case - maybe to satisfy emotional demands only. Just remember that that nothing is cut and clear in legal matters. Even a murderer can be found innocent with the, for lack of a better work, right attorney.
The only sure winners are the lawyers. The loser is usually both parties, and everything as a price.
09-06-2007, 11:23 AM
#18
Senior Members
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New York und Wien
Posts: 2,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bimmer32' post='466615' date='Sep 6 2007, 03:09 PM
Ahhmm. JSpira, did you get permission from Roundel to use as your Avatar?
09-06-2007, 11:26 AM
#19
Senior Members
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New York und Wien
Posts: 2,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bimmer32' post='466615' date='Sep 6 2007, 03:09 PM
Which particular law has been broken in either jursidiction?
This use of the image violated Federal copyright law. The copyright owner can sue an infringer for damages (the owner's lost profit), profits (any profit the infringer made), statutory damages (up to $10,000 and as much as $50,000 for willful infringement), and attorney's fees and costs. They can get injunctive relief, and infringing copies and the equipment used to produce them can be impounded and destroyed. It is also a criminal act to violate Federal copyright law (see 17 U.S.C.A.? 506). It may qualify as a Federal misdemeanor (with a fine as much as $10,000 or imprisonment for up to one year.)
PLEASE SEE MY DISCLAIMER IN PREVIOUS POST REGARDING THIS AND ANY POSTS I MAKE MAKE ON THE SUBJECT
09-06-2007, 11:42 AM
#20
Former Vendor
Originally Posted by JSpira' post='466622' date='Sep 6 2007, 12:23 PM
OK, I'll bite. Why would I need permission for that?
I'm not interested in your legal correspondence on this. Lawyers are evil for this reason. You have nothing better to do than avoid using common sense. I have no ill will towards you using ANY Roundel photo, if the owner is cool with it, why should we not be cool with it.
---
The pictures were freely available on the web, no ownership was ever claimed, implied <-- no watermarks whatsoever. I'm not a lawyer, don't claim or care to ever be one either. there is also enough grey area in this because we did heavily modify the image that it's an "arguable" case <-- something I'm not interested in arguing so we took the image down.
If you want to bark up that tree, we are one of the ONLY sites on the web that not only credit all of our non-company taken photos but also use ONLY our own photos and/or those photos specifically given to us for use by the manufacturers.
Stop arguing, go enjoy your cars.