Looking for legal advice
Discussion
fatboy18 said:
Nice attitude mate 
Link has been posted.
If someone like "Mission Motorsport" had asked me, or the Guys that run "The Supercar Event" I would have no objection as monies would be going to a good cause.
All I wanted was clear legal advice on where I stand, Clearly Pistonheads is not the place.
Thank you for your help.
You're seriously claiming that two stripes down the middle of a car is a unique design. Better get onto Ford about their sporty Transits from the middle of last decade on then. Link has been posted.If someone like "Mission Motorsport" had asked me, or the Guys that run "The Supercar Event" I would have no objection as monies would be going to a good cause.
All I wanted was clear legal advice on where I stand, Clearly Pistonheads is not the place.
Thank you for your help.
Edited by LoonR1 on Monday 23 February 07:57
Loudy McFatass said:
LoonR1 said:
Go to charity, b
ks. Also bks on the whole thread. You said you found it online and have been asked for a link a couple of times. Let's have the link then.
I'm guessing you're not a fan of Monday mornings then?! ks. Also bks on the whole thread. You said you found it online and have been asked for a link a couple of times. Let's have the link then. 
LoonR1 said:
Never have been, but I'm a cynic all week too. The timing of the link being posted did for me though as I was typing my post when the OP replied. Have to say that him claiming that the car he has is unique due to the two stripes down the middle is pretty funny though.
More than just two stripes though isn't it?gruffalo said:
More than just two stripes though isn't it?
Not a LOT more, if you ignore the trademarks and copyrights of other brands that the OP's using (without permission?).
B'sides, it's not the most sparklingly original graphic concept, is it? Are there many Vipers _without_ stripes...?
1997 Indy pace car
...and, ooh look, 2000 Daytona 24hr winner...
No, sorry, OP - you have slightly fewer legs to stand on than your car's namesake.
mrtwisty said:
LoonR1 said:
Go to charity, bks. Also bks on the whole thread. You said you found it online and have been asked for a link a couple of times. Let's have the link then.
Bloody hell Loon, rein it in a bit would you? ks. Also bks on the whole thread. You said you found it online and have been asked for a link a couple of times. Let's have the link then. Hungry Pigeon said:
As others have posted already, copyright in the photo belongs to the photographer. Since you didn't take the photo you have no copyright or moral rights that are being infringed, and thus you have no grounds to object to the photographer's use of their photo.
Its not that cut and dry.Yes the 'tog has copyright but it doesnt mean he can use the image commercially with no regards.
We have cases where celebs have won against tshirt manufacturers.
Where furniture makers have won (against Getty!) for their products featured incidentally in shots.
We have one incident where a photographer produced a kind of look alike image and someone used it commercially!
LoonR1 said:
Loudy McFatass said:
LoonR1 said:
Go to charity, bks. Also bks on the whole thread. You said you found it online and have been asked for a link a couple of times. Let's have the link then.
I'm guessing you're not a fan of Monday mornings then?! ks. Also bks on the whole thread. You said you found it online and have been asked for a link a couple of times. Let's have the link then. Edited by fatboy18 on Monday 23 February 09:39
fatboy18 said:
Where did I say my was unique because of the stripes?
Your one possible claim would be that the design was copyright, and that the image breached that copyright. It clearly isn't. Apart from the design being utterly generic, the image is clearly not a straight documentary representation of your car, but incorporates artistic craftsmanship.http://www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base/frequently-a...
You'll note in that that there is no requirement for quality... Which is just as well, really...
Anyway, going back a step, do you have permission from the owners of the brands and trademarks you've applied to your car? No? Then do you not feel just a _tad_ hypocritical? The big difference, of course, is that they DO have legal grounds to go after you, should they feel it worth their while...
TooMany2cvs said:
mrtwisty said:
LoonR1 said:
Go to charity, bks. Also bks on the whole thread. You said you found it online and have been asked for a link a couple of times. Let's have the link then.
Bloody hell Loon, rein it in a bit would you? ks. Also bks on the whole thread. You said you found it online and have been asked for a link a couple of times. Let's have the link then. I have never ever used my car for commercial gain. Its been seen at the Autosport International show,
its been seen at many charity events, but I have never made any financial gain from using or showing the car.
Michelin stickers are free to anyone who wants them, they give them away at shows.
RobDickinson said:
Its not that cut and dry.
Yes the 'tog has copyright but it doesnt mean he can use the image commercially with no regards.
We have cases where celebs have won against tshirt manufacturers.
Where furniture makers have won (against Getty!) for their products featured incidentally in shots.
We have one incident where a photographer produced a kind of look alike image and someone used it commercially!
It really is that cut and dry. Yes the 'tog has copyright but it doesnt mean he can use the image commercially with no regards.
We have cases where celebs have won against tshirt manufacturers.
Where furniture makers have won (against Getty!) for their products featured incidentally in shots.
We have one incident where a photographer produced a kind of look alike image and someone used it commercially!
The celebs win because they have a case in passing off. They have a business licensing the use of their image; someone does that without their consent; that causes their business a loss. The OP hasn't said he has such a business.
Furniture maker likely won because it/he had a design right or copyright in the furniture which was infringed by being reproduced in the photo. OP has no such rights.
Mocking up a photo so that is it is a lookalike of another photo is just copying - so infringement. Nothing to do with this case.
The OP has had the answer to his question in this thread. He may not like it, but that's life.
Greg66 said:
RobDickinson said:
Its not that cut and dry.
Yes the 'tog has copyright but it doesnt mean he can use the image commercially with no regards.
We have cases where celebs have won against tshirt manufacturers.
Where furniture makers have won (against Getty!) for their products featured incidentally in shots.
We have one incident where a photographer produced a kind of look alike image and someone used it commercially!
It really is that cut and dry. Yes the 'tog has copyright but it doesnt mean he can use the image commercially with no regards.
We have cases where celebs have won against tshirt manufacturers.
Where furniture makers have won (against Getty!) for their products featured incidentally in shots.
We have one incident where a photographer produced a kind of look alike image and someone used it commercially!
The celebs win because they have a case in passing off. They have a business licensing the use of their image; someone does that without their consent; that causes their business a loss. The OP hasn't said he has such a business.
Furniture maker likely won because it/he had a design right or copyright in the furniture which was infringed by being reproduced in the photo. OP has no such rights.
Mocking up a photo so that is it is a lookalike of another photo is just copying - so infringement. Nothing to do with this case.
The OP has had the answer to his question in this thread. He may not like it, but that's life.
Its rather flattering.All I wanted to know is did the seller have the right to make commercial gain from the photo
Seems the Answer is yes, so thats fine.Mods please feel free to close this thread
Thank you.
fatboy18 said:
LoonR1 said:
Loudy McFatass said:
LoonR1 said:
Go to charity, bks. Also bks on the whole thread. You said you found it online and have been asked for a link a couple of times. Let's have the link then.
I'm guessing you're not a fan of Monday mornings then?! ks. Also bks on the whole thread. You said you found it online and have been asked for a link a couple of times. Let's have the link then. Edited by fatboy18 on Monday 23 February 09:39
fatboy18 said:
The Graphics on the car are specific to my car only, Its 'My' actual car in the photograph.
The photograph has been taken by someone else. Its not one of my own photos.
The card is being offered at £3.99 + postage
The photograph has been taken by someone else. Its not one of my own photos.
The card is being offered at £3.99 + postage
Edited by fatboy18 on Monday 23 February 07:04
fatboy18 said:
All I wanted to know is did the seller have the right to make commercial gain from the photo Seems the Answer is yes, so thats fine.
Not legal advice, but commercial: Seems the Answer is yes, so thats fine.Looking at the sellers feedback, they've sold about 130 cards ever.
She sells 20 a month, and she stocks 39 different types. Assuming a card with your car on is an average seller, 6 a year might get sold.
Even if you licence here the photo as say 50p per use, we're only talking about £3 a year.
On the other hand, I'd be over the moon if a card company wanted to use a photo of my E-Class Merc with child seat in the back.
You have a very nice car, one which is worth publishing a photo of. Unique cars which are published can be perceived to be worth more. More than £3 more.
She's helping you sell your car when you come round to doing so.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff