 Christine Zipps |
Releases needed to sell car show pics? Actually, I have two related yet different questions: 1. I've captured some photos at a local car show that have received a bit of "acclaim" - like suggestions that they should be on cover of a particular luxury car magazine, etc. One especially is of a $500K, Mercedes gull wing and I would love to approach the organization with an offer to purchase for promotional use (stock) as well as to sell as fine art print. However, I do not know if I can reach the owner of this car. Do I need to get release from him for both purposes? 2. I recently took some shots at a professional baseball park - some are identifable (partial names on back). I do believe that all photos would be property of the baseball organization but am thinking of approaching that organization to see if they would be interested in purchasing them as stock photos - is this "kosher"? Perhaps I should just offer for free in exchange for receiving photo credit? I have applied treatments to them to make them appear more like paintings than photographs and again, receiving some "acclaim" for their unique quality and composition. Thanks in advance for any advice/guidance you're willing to offer! Christine
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi Christine, I am not a lawyer. My opinions are based on what I know of the law, but I would get a more knowledgeable opinion if these were my images. I would suspect that other people, with stronger, and perhaps more accurate opinions may also answer your post. If the car was on public display in a public place I think you can do anything you want to with the shot. If the car was on private ground, even a privately owned parking lot and you shot the picture from the privately owned ground, you would be much better off to get a release. If the car was at someone’s home you almost certainly need a release. Private people have rights to there faces but public people do not have the same rights. So if you took a picture of me at th e beach and published it in an ad I could sue you. If you took a picture of a senator or actor and published it as news they couldn’t do a thing. Same goes for ball players. If you sold the picture for an ad they might have some rights. So there are professional organizations that cold give you a better legal opinion, but this is what I have to offer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thom Schoeller |
Christine, Im on both sides of the fence with this subject. Not only do I do automotive photoshoots professionally for customers, I also own a valuable fully restored '70 Musclecar that draws immediate attention and has been published in calanders, magazines, online E zines etc..The car is photographed dozens of times at every carshow. When I shoot a customers collector car, I ask if they may be interested in the images of their prized machine being published in the future. (never been turned down at the prospect) Legally, what I need to do is collect the information from the owner about the car and get them to sign over permission to myself to use the images commercially. I record the plate # and photograph it as well with the photoshoot. I was tracked down by photographer/writer Dan Lyons to photograph my own car for several calanders he puts together. He writes and photographs for 'Collectible Cars Magazine' and "NAPA Autoparts MuscleMachines calander". I also signed over permission for Dan to use the images he made of my car for publication. The car is currently in the NAPA 2010 MuscleMachines calander (November feature) If I did not sign the release form he would not legally be able to use the images commercially. However with older collectible cars its SOOOO much easier to identify your own car should you find it has been without permission. Wheel options, NOS parts and emblems are identifyable, tire make and model, color code, rare stripe kits and other options like spoilers. New cars, like the MB you photographed, are not so identifyable. Actually, damn near impossible to prove what car it even is! I know folks have photographed my car at carshows and have seen it on photoshare sites like FlickR. Mostly just taken by car enthusiast. I've also seen it in "group shots" amongst other cars in publications like "Cruise News". Personally I have no issue with it especially since no one has financially taken advantage of it. In regards to the carshow image you made of the MB "gullwing". Im assuming this is a privately owned car, not a showroom sample? What kind of acclaim did the images recieve? Commercial recognition, or friends and family? I see NO reason you cant mount and matt as fine art prints. Your not selling a copyrighted image(of the car) , or reproducing MB parts without permission. They actually gain from the publicity. Hope this helps, Thomas
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christine Zipps |
Thanks, John and Thomas - great feedback that helps tremendously! Much appreciated, Christine
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||