Looking for legal advice

[fatboy18]

noell35 said:

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?!

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.

Where did I say my was unique because of the stripes? You have totally made that up in your own mind.

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

Edited by fatboy18 on Monday 23 February 07:04

Er, those stripes are NOT Graphics, they are painted on from the factory. I put that Splitter on the front of the car, the Wheels are Pruner CCW with extended wheel studs.

So please read the post correctly, I NEVER SAID THE STRIPES WERE UNIQUE

[fatboy18]

JustinP1 said:

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:

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.

Hi Justin, thanks for the compliments, yes i was flattered when i saw the picture, but merely wanted to know the legal position because i have never personally seeked financial gain

[Roo]

JustinP1 said:

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:

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.

Ask Gill for a framed print to keep with the cars history file.

[Munter]

fatboy18 said:

r, those stripes are NOT Graphics, they are painted on from the factory. I put that Splitter on the front of the car, the Wheels are Pruner CCW with extended wheel studs.

So please read the post correctly, I NEVER SAID THE STRIPES WERE UNIQUE

So err...what is the unique bit that's "yours"?

The Mobil 1 logo?
The Michelin logo?
The Oreca logo?
The Dodge name/logo?

Presumably you got permission from Mobil, Michelin, Oreca and Dodge to reproduce their logos and put them on your car?

[fatboy18]

Munter said:

fatboy18 said:

r, those stripes are NOT Graphics, they are painted on from the factory. I put that Splitter on the front of the car, the Wheels are Pruner CCW with extended wheel studs.

So please read the post correctly, I NEVER SAID THE STRIPES WERE UNIQUE

So err...what is the unique bit that's "yours"?

The Mobil 1 logo?
The Michelin logo?
The Oreca logo?
The Dodge name/logo?

Presumably you got permission from Mobil, Michelin, Oreca and Dodge to reproduce their logos and put them on your car?

Dodge/Chrysler is aware of the car, the company that produced the graphics several years ago has been asked not to produce any more and remove pictures from their website. The Michelin stickers are available (I purchased them from a seller at Le mans a few years ago), there are colour changes to the other graphics which renders them different from the original hence the word Unique.

This is also one of the reasons I have never seeked to gain any financial reward for the car. The car is not original, its a rendition.

Edited by fatboy18 on Monday 23 February 13:03

[LoonR1]

fatboy18 said:

odge/Chrysler is aware of the car, the company that produced the graphics several years ago has been asked not to produce any more and remove pictures from their website. The Michelin stickers are available, there are colour changes to the other graphics which renders them different from the original hence the word Unique.

This is also one of the reasons I have never seeked to gain any financial reward for the car. The car is not original, its a rendition.

If it's a rendition and not original how do you know the car in the photo is yours?

[fatboy18]

LoonR1 said:

fatboy18 said:

odge/Chrysler is aware of the car, the company that produced the graphics several years ago has been asked not to produce any more and remove pictures from their website. The Michelin stickers are available, there are colour changes to the other graphics which renders them different from the original hence the word Unique.

This is also one of the reasons I have never seeked to gain any financial reward for the car. The car is not original, its a rendition.

If it's a rendition and not original how do you know the car in the photo is yours?

fatboy18 said:

r, those stripes are NOT Graphics, they are painted on from the factory. I put that Splitter on the front of the car, the Wheels are Pruner CCW with extended wheel studs.

So please read the post correctly, I NEVER SAID THE STRIPES WERE UNIQUE

Because of this ^

[TooMany2cvs]

fatboy18 said:

there are colour changes to the other graphics which renders them different from the original

Are those other graphics brands?

[fatboy18]

TooMany2cvs said:

fatboy18 said:

there are colour changes to the other graphics which renders them different from the original

Are those other graphics brands?

Year on year, people sticker up their cars for the Le mans pilgrimage, many changes and plays on words are used none of it is ever done with the view to make money and my car is no different, how many Martini porsches are there, cars with Various advertising brands, go to any race meeting and you can buy stickers of almost anything.

[noell35]

fatboy18 said:

r, those stripes are NOT Graphics, they are painted on from the factory. I put that Splitter on the front of the car, the Wheels are Pruner CCW with extended wheel studs.

So please read the post correctly, I NEVER SAID THE STRIPES WERE UNIQUE

So it's not the graphics it's the splitter and wheels that are unique so I did read the post correctly?

[fatboy18]

noell35 said:

fatboy18 said:

r, those stripes are NOT Graphics, they are painted on from the factory. I put that Splitter on the front of the car, the Wheels are Pruner CCW with extended wheel studs.

So please read the post correctly, I NEVER SAID THE STRIPES WERE UNIQUE

So it's not the graphics it's the splitter and wheels that are unique so I did read the post correctly?

They wanted to know how I knew it was my car in the picture and not someone elses, the graphics were colour matched to match the Silver painted stripes does it make sense now?

[TooMany2cvs]

fatboy18 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

fatboy18 said:

there are colour changes to the other graphics which renders them different from the original

Are those other graphics brands?

Year on year, people sticker up their cars for the Le mans pilgrimage, many changes and plays on words are used none of it is ever done with the view to make money and my car is no different, how many Martini porsches are there, cars with Various advertising brands, go to any race meeting and you can buy stickers of almost anything.

Nobody said there weren't - nor does it mean they aren't breaching copyright or infringing trademarks. Whilst there may well be an implicit licence to use their branding, by displaying advertising for them in the form of stickers, you can bet your bottom dollar that implicit licence will not allow the colours to be changed or other changes. Large amounts of money are spent on brand guidelines to restrict exactly that.

But that's beside the point. You are seeking to impose some kind of ownership of the intellectual property in the styling of your car, yet that styling is built on the intellectual property and branding of others. Did you just pick those stickers and positioning randomly, or might there have been just the faintest intent to echo the livery on the Vipers raced by Oreca and others?

[fatboy18]

TooMany2cvs said:

fatboy18 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

fatboy18 said:

there are colour changes to the other graphics which renders them different from the original

Are those other graphics brands?

Year on year, people sticker up their cars for the Le mans pilgrimage, many changes and plays on words are used none of it is ever done with the view to make money and my car is no different, how many Martini porsches are there, cars with Various advertising brands, go to any race meeting and you can buy stickers of almost anything.

Nobody said there weren't - nor does it mean they aren't breaching copyright or infringing trademarks. Whilst there may well be an implicit licence to use their branding, by displaying advertising for them in the form of stickers, you can bet your bottom dollar that implicit licence will not allow the colours to be changed or other changes. Large amounts of money are spent on brand guidelines to restrict exactly that.

But that's beside the point. You are seeking to impose some kind of ownership of the intellectual property in the styling of your car, yet that styling is built on the intellectual property and branding of others. Did you just pick those stickers and positioning randomly, or might there have been just the faintest intent to echo the livery on the Vipers raced by Oreca and others?

The only ownership I was asking about was the picture being of my own car, that is all. Everyone else seems to have questioned the styling?

Example, How do you know its your car, "I know its my car because of X,Y,Z".

Edited by fatboy18 on Monday 23 February 14:38

[TooMany2cvs]

fatboy18 said:

The only ownership I was asking about was the picture being of my own car, that is all.

No, you told us the picture was of your car.

You asked about whether they could sell their picture, that just happened to be of your car. Your only potential legal interest in that picture is in the intellectual property of the styling - do you have copyright in it.

[fatboy18]

TooMany2cvs said:

fatboy18 said:

The only ownership I was asking about was the picture being of my own car, that is all.

No, you told us the picture was of your car.

You asked about whether they could sell their picture, that just happened to be of your car. Your only potential legal interest in that picture is in the intellectual property of the styling - do you have copyright in it.

I'm beginning to loose the will to live and give up trying to explain this

Lets try again.
The car in the picture belongs to me. Can someone take a picture of my car and make profit from it?

Any better for you?

[Munter]

fatboy18 said:

Lets try again.
The car in the picture belongs to me. Can someone take a picture of my car and make profit from it?

YES

In the same way I can take a picture of your face/Lewis Hamiltons face and sell that.

If you put it in public, and it's not a trademark or other protected property (And you already said it's all the property of other people!), then someone can take a pic of it and sell it.

Now Mobil etc might have something to say about it because it's their property in the photo. You on the other hand just have a car, and some legally dodgy stickers on it. You don't own the rights to the stickers or the design of the car. So....you got nothing.

[TooMany2cvs]

fatboy18 said:

Lets try again.
The car in the picture belongs to me. Can someone take a picture of my car and make profit from it?

Any better for you?

How many times, in how many different ways, do you need the answer "YES" to be given?

Go back to Greg66's reply, right at the start of the thread, only just over half an hour after you first asked the question. Everything beyond that is you being in denial about your hypocrisy.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 23 February 15:55

[Spangles]

fatboy18 said:

odge/ The Michelin stickers are available (I purchased them from a seller at Le mans a few years ago),

Edited by fatboy18 on Monday 23 February 13:03

So if something is available for sale that makes it OK? Doesn't that negate your initial query?

[Hungry Pigeon]

Greg66 said:

It really is that cut and dry.

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.

Thanks Greg. As an IP lawyer with 20+ years experience, I started to draft a reply to this, but decided that I couldn't actually be arsed to post a reply. Your post has saved me the bother. Cheers

[noell35]

Nevermind fatboy. for £25 you can get a nice pillow to cry in to.