3rd & 4th Generation (1992–1996 & 1997–2001)Toyota Camry Discussion for years: 1992-1996 & 1997-2001
Topics of discussion range from fuel economy, safety, modifications, performance all involving America's favorite family car, the Toyota Camry.
Copyright infringement is a huge money lawsuit. You can get a crap load of money for just one picture. Even if they stop using your pics, the damage is already done and you can still take them to the cleaners. Especially when it comes to people using the pictures to make money.
I'm a graphic design student and they drill copyright stuff into us, millions of dollars exchanged in just out of court settlements. Even more if it goes to court, they can't win. It's like that one lady that challenged the music industry on pirating charges, ended up losing and having to pay millions more compared to the thousands they offered in settlement.
isnt there some little fold in the law about pics obtained on a public site though? dont get me wrong, i still think it need permission, but i feel like there is somthing that protects vendors or what have you from lawsuits in this instance.
I'm no law expert, but I was taught any picture taken by any person is rightfully their property and automatically holds a copyright. Even if it was put on a free public site for people to view, it doesn't give others the right to use it for marketing purposes.
"Fair use" is the loop hole that allows people to use the pictures without permission but only for purposes such as criticism, analyzing, and educational, pretty much for non-profit.
I can see how vendors can try to argue "fair use," but "fair use" does not allow a person to use it for marketing and/or profit.
Basically, if it involves money, you need permission. And since it's under civil law, you can always sue them for it.
I'm no law expert, but I was taught any picture taken by any person is rightfully their property and automatically holds a copyright. Even if it was put on a free public site for people to view, it doesn't give others the right to use it for marketing purposes.
"Fair use" is the loop hole that allows people to use the pictures without permission but only for purposes such as criticism, analyzing, and educational, pretty much for non-profit.
I can see how vendors can try to argue "fair use," but "fair use" does not allow a person to use it for marketing and/or profit.
Basically, if it involves money, you need permission. And since it's under civil law, you can always sue them for it.
If it were me, I would be looking at the webhosting site details.
Even so that does not give them a right to use your pictures for advertising purposes unless you have given them permission to do so.
You know you might want to just contact them, and they might be really cool, say I'm sorry and offer you some compensation.
I'm pretty sure in this case, you wouldn't win a big law suit. I am a designer as well. Hard to say for sure, but I doubt you would get much unless they refused to take it down.
Just contact them and ask them to remove it. I did that a couple times when my solara popped up on ebay. It is nice when companies ask your permission- that makes it cool.
In reality, you would not be able to make any recovery....You could certainly litigate it and I am sure that any attorney would gladly allow you to throw $400/hr at them for their assistance.
One thing that you have to prove in a civil case (by the preponderance of the evidence or "greater weight") against another individual or entity (in this case a reseller) is damages. In other words, another individuals actions/omissions must have proximately caused monetary damages/losses. You had to have LOST money....I would bet that you cannot prove with any certainty that you lost money by someone using a picture of your personal automobile.
However, there are different types of damages under the law, but not all of them apply for one reason or another:
Punitive damages - damages that are meant to reform/deter the defendant from acting similarly in the future. If you take a lot of money from someone, they tend to not want to make the same mistake in the future...these are damages usually meant to punish the defendant. These type of damages are rarely except in rare circumstances..."punitive damages may be awarded only if defendant's conduct was malicious, or in reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights."
Statutory Damages - You can only get statutory damages if you had formerly registered the image with the Copyright Office (either before or within 3 months of the infringement). These damages are awarded by a set amount per "work" that was infringed upon- and then there is a differentiation between willful and involuntary infringement.
I say all of that to say this...If you do not like your Camry's face plastered on marketing materials then politely ask them to remove it...Frankly, I would be flattered, unless I was successfully selling posters of my car on the eBay and some jerk decided to use its likeness for their own gain.
-=Adam
__________________ 1992 3VZ-FE with 218K Check her out
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
ToyotaNation.com is an independent Toyota/Lexus enthusiast website. ToyotaNation.com is not sponsored by or in any way affiliated with Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. The Toyota, Lexus and Scion names and logos are trademarks owned by Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
Joe's Camry pic found on ebay!
Thanks for bringing that to my attention Spitfire!
....seems like they could have asked for my permission??!!
Linear Mode
