Bimmer32

You are using the copyrighted material "repeatedly." Every time you post, your avatar is used and appears again and again. Under copyright/fair use laws, you need to get permission if you use the material repeatly.

JSpira

Let me clarify. Photos are the web are freely viewable but not freely available. The law does not require a watermark or any indication of copyright. Copyright is simply automatic.

My comments are not aimed at Umnitza per se. I think your company really aims for a high standard in doing business. Please consider my comments explanatory about the circumstance and based in fact, not in emotion, about the reality of copyright law as it pertains to these photos.

umnitza

thank you.

I assume you took the photo based on your comments then? If so, it was a nice cover IIRC.

---
Taking emotion out of it, one of the laws in Copyright that I remember is that if you heavily modify the original work, which we tried to do, you're in a grey area, if you know anything about this, I'd like to hear more here...

Bimmer32

While no one should assume anything on the Internet is no copyrighted, technically, pinguhk, if discovery is done, may not have copyrighted his photo at the time that it was used by umnitza. If umnita altered the photo "relatively extensive enough" it does not violate copyright laws either, but that's not the case.

The fact is umnita now knows the owner and should communicate to pinguhk (out of courtesy and human friend), to use his photo for the business.

Use a lawyer if you can't resolve a conflict or want to start one. Just keep in mind that cases like this, you may will emotionally but loss financially (time and money).

If I were pinguhk, I'd ask umnitza to at least site the source (give me some credit).

kjhkent

I agree. Good grief. What a reaction. Just focus on the serious stuff this isnt. Take a look around you this really really is not important.

JSpira

I would have to see before and after but in general, creating a derivative work would not (at least to me) be associated with the use of a photo of part of a car in a catalog. You are not an artist, you are using this for commercial purposes, which also would have an impact.

We are getting near the endpoint of my expertise in this area and as much as I would like to try to be helpful, I can only leave you with this thought. If you are using photos of cars in the normal course of business, i.e. selling your products, you should either 1.) commission your own photos (or take them yourself) or 2.) arrange for permission to use a photo that you like, in writing. Whether the copyright owner charges for that permission is not important.

AGAIN - MY EARLIER DISCLAIMERS APPLY TO THIS POST

JetBlack5OC

Umnitza why get in an argument, you sound like a little kid.

Face it, you used a photo without permission to sell a product. Just remove the photo and shut-up.

Exactly the reason why I won't buy any products from you or AIB, because you two fight on this forum like little girls which angel eyes are better, brighter and so on. Not exactly the best way to represent yourself and your business.

Murray

If you are not interested in who owns legal rights to photos - ignore this post...

I'll jump in on the copyright of images, as a professional photographer who deals day-in day-out with international copyright laws.

As I have stated in a previous post, the moment the photographer presses a button to take an image, in most (but not all) countries, the photographer owns the copyright of the image, whatever it happens to be.

The issue is that while you can leagally take a photo of almost anything, every country has laws dealing with what you can do with that image. Again, in most countries, copyright laws protect the use of people's images and images of their property.

You can take a photo of something - what you do with it is something else again. Again, in most countries, if you are going to display the image you have taken for anything and you plan to display it in any way (internet, magazine, newspaper, billboard, etc. etc.) you will be governed by (usually copyright) laws. The exception in nearly every western country is photos taken for editorial purposes and a couple of others where expressed permission is not required (this is what keeps the paparazzi in business).

In practically ALL western countries, if you are going to use the image of someone or their property for ANY commercial purpose (display, advertising, etc.) then you need to have obtained permission to do so or the person who owns the property is entitled to seek redress through the applicable laws.

Images on the internet are not excluded from these laws. Yes they are easy to steal, but that does not mean that you should. If you put something on the internet it can be accessed by others (viewed and yes stolen), but you are not giving away any of your legal rights or obligations by doing so (except in 2 obscure countries that I know of).

Also, someone cannot alter your original image and then claim it as their own. The original artwork (the image) is yours. Again you need permission to modify someone?s image if you are planning to 'display' the changed image as a different work of art. That's why model releases around the world include clauses that specifically state that the image may be altered ("airbrushed" for example) that changes the original image. Property as well as people are covered by these same laws in most countries.

Without these protections in place - my family don't get to eat. :thumbsdown:

Not knowing who owns the copyright to an image does not protect you from the consequences of using that image - no matter how you obtained it.

Have a great day - while I find out how a magazine in Brazil has published one of my images created in 1998 without any apparent compensation to me - I really do like to eat most days

Disclaimer: I am not a copyright laywer - just someone who deals with international copyright laws every day