Should we feel violated?

chromer · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:16 am Post subject: Should we feel violated?

A dealer is selling new C-Dory's in NH, but using GIF images of our boats. I see Dora Jean and Valkyrie being used. There is one other i've seen but dont remember who's it is.

Here is the ad...
http://adcache.boattraderonline.com/6/8/0/86119480.htm

I am sure its perfectly ok, but come on...they should be able to take their own promo shots. Did they ask or just do it?

Sarge · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:36 am Post subject:

whatever...

Islander · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:40 am Post subject:

In my opinion the photos are being used to sell boats, and hence are being used for commercial gain. They should ask for permission of the boat owners to use the photos in my opinion. I am an amatuer photographer who on ocasion has sold some photos. Here is what istockphoto (a source for royalty free photos) has to say about using photos of others private property:

.1 - Property Release:

The requirement for a property release isn't as clear-cut as for a model release, because there is no specific right of privacy that attaches to property, as it does to people. Having said that, there are at least two reasons for obtaining property releases: (i) on the theory that a person's identity might be connected to the property in question (such as where a person's property is used in a manner that might defame the person as owner); and (ii) on the basis that to use someone's property for commercial gain without their consent may amount to an offense called "conversion". Also, if you go on someone's private property to take a picture of them or their property, it could amount to trespass.
iStock recommends that a Property Release be obtained when the image contains identifiable property wherever possible (this isn't just for houses, it could apply to pets, cars and other personal property. The more recognizable and unique the property (and the more the owner's identity might be connected to or determined from the property) the greater the need for a property release.
The Property Release needs to signed by the legal and beneficial owner(s) of the property or their authorized agent. Many of the same formalities apply as for Model Releases.

Jim on Wild Blue was a professional photographer and I would be interested to hear what he has to say on the matter.

TyBoo · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:25 am Post subject:

doc · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:57 am Post subject:

Well, the third one, the 25 with the white bouy on top is our C-Alaska. I guess I wouldn't have put any photos on line that I was too worried about, but it seems a little flakey.

chromer · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:01 am Post subject:

At a minimum, the selling party should have noted somewhere that the photos were not the actual boats available for sale.

Sarge · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:08 am Post subject:

whatever...

DaveS · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:22 am Post subject:

If a photo of our vessel was used for advertising, I would feel honored that it was chosen.....however, I would certainly appreciate that a request of me be made for authorization to do so.

That being said....if someone superimposed our vessel in a picture at the "Columbus Day Regatta" in Florida, I might have a problem with it.....particularly if my wife saw it.... Mr. Green

However, certain C-Brats could most likely get away with it as that is why some of us proudly wear the name "brat"..... Laughing

LOL!

Alyssa Jean · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:25 am Post subject:

It is listed as an Angler???? There ain't such an animal in a 25.

dogon dory · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:35 am Post subject:

Sorry, Folks - Post Deleted By Author

dotnmarty · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:37 am Post subject:

I thought it was common practice to identify a picture of a similar boat as "sistership". While this picture issue doesn't cause me any great concern, it does get my attention regarding the access essentially anyone has to what we post. Sometimes I think (if I think) I'm just talking over the back fence to my neighbor, when in reality my remarks are available for anyone to see.

RJD Wannabe · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:42 am Post subject:

YES, that sucks, independant of legal stuff

colobear · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:01 am Post subject:

Since a photo of C-Cakes is being used as the main photo on the factory's website opening page I thought I'd chime in. I did not know they were using the photo until Peter of C-Dancer mentioned it on this site. My thoughts when I found out were mixed: A. Cool, wait'll I tell the kids/friends, etc. (and I did). B: A little irritation that they never asked my permission even though Merv of Kingfisher (Grumpy) took and owned the picture. Finally I have settled on: I'm pleased that they are using my boat's photo on the factory site but I wish they had the courtesy to ask first or at least tell me they were doing so and if they are going to use the photo at least caption it correctly (it's really not a 25 in Catalina harbor.) I think they are legally OK since photos posted on the web apparently aren't really private, see the current hoorah about Miss SC or something being blackmailed with MySpace candids.

Having said all that, I'd be fairly PO'd about my boat's photo being lifted by some unknown Brat and sent to Amalgamated Boats For Sale and if they were paid for doing so I'd be redfaced and stomping around. I'd contact the dealer and tell them they did not have my permission to use the photo and to get it off their advertising.

JamesTXSD · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject:

I spent my professional life protecting ownership of images, through the Professional Photographers of America, our state professional association, and on our own. I was on a national committee that helped develop the PPA's stand on copyright protection. Yes, the usage of those images is not legal, although most private avenues to pursue damages aren't worth the effort. The "big guys" (like Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc) have been sued and LOST copyright infringement cases. It actually became a source of revenue for our professional association (can't say I'm happy about that, either).

Here's my (definitely biased) take: "using" (insert "borrowing", "stealing", "referencing" or any other term you prefer) someone else's image without express permission (and posting an image here does NOT imply permission for others to take that image) is wrong. Someone that would do such a thing likely has no other ethics, and I would certainly recommend NOT DOING BUSINESS with these types. If they will steal an image, will they be honest in their other business dealings? If they're not fair in taking something that doesn't belong to them (to promote their business), will they be fair in pricing service work to their customers? It's easy to plead ignorance, when the plea should be something else.

The factory should provide images for their dealers, or the dealers should shoot or purchase images themselves. If they contact an owner and ask for permission BEFORE ANY USAGE, and get that permission, well that's a different story. Some folks would be proud that their images are being used that way.

It's an ugly can of worms, but stealing is stealing. If they were using my image without permission, I'd be making some demands... forcefully... and with the backing of my professional association and their drooling lawyers.

You can't copy an author's book. You can't duplicate a studio's movie. You can't "knock off a few copies" of a CD to give to friends. Unless it's "freeware", the software you use in your computer is copyrighted. Images are protected likewise.

Yes, people do it (steal images). Some people also shoplift. Or rob banks. The fact that they do it doesn't make it right. They are stealing someone else's intellectual/artistic property.

And in the words of the great philosopher Forrest Gump: and that's all I got to say about that.

Jim B.
M. Photog. Cr. CPP

dotnmarty · Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject:

Well, the case has been made. Let's at least limit access to photo albums to logged in C-Brats.