OT: Question about posting pictures

I was just thinking of how great it is to be able to post pictures in posts. To visit the Nostalgia Forum is really like reading a great magazine, you just don't have to wait as long for a new issue as it is constantly renewing itself!!!

However, it struck me that we're using lots of pictures with copyright. Are we really allowed to do that? I don't know the exact content of copyright laws so I'm a bit confused about this. It really would be a shame if we could get into legal trouble for using other peoples pictures. I mean, we're not making money on them, we're just using them for explanation or information purposes. Does anybody know the correct behaviour on these issues?

"The (potential) outlaw"

Oops, gotcha!
This theme was topic in another motorsport forum some weeks ago, and it really includes some rather explosive components!

It is reported that especially the lawyers of McLaren-Mercedes are rather busy nowadays, prohibiting not only the non-commercial internet publication of their own pictures - e.g. those from their official website -, but also privately taken photos showing one of their cars or even showing the WEST logo.

Okay, most pictures shown here in our historic forum have no actual commercial concern, but you are acorrect, most of them by one way or another have a copyright. And in most cases the copyright owner is not the owner of the homepage from which we have taken them ...

Some years ago I heard some guys shouting about the endless freedom of the web, but realistically ... who knows??
May be our administrators can take care of this question?

I have a question. You see, I'm a guy who is totally uninterested in motorsport, but I'm very interested in German infrastructure. My friend, who wish to be unknown, sent me an e-mail the other day with a picture attached. He believes that the road on the picture is the German A1 Autobahn from Hamburg to Bremen. I'm not sure as the vehicle on the picture doesn't look like any car I've seen on that road before. I wonder if anyone on this site knows if this really is the A1 Autobahn? Here is the picture, which I don't know, in any way, where it comes from:



Ron Dennis, sue my pants off!!!

Quote / MichaelM: 'It is reported that especially the lawyers of McLaren-Mercedes are rather busy nowadays, .. or even showing the WEST logo.'

Seems, the guy in his car soon will get some troubles with the lawyers of McLaren-Mercedes ...

BTW: It is the A1-Autobahn, you can clearly see that! Maybe not in Germany, but in Austria.;)

Bullshit, don't believe this Austrian guy, because there are no Autobahns AT ALL in Austria! They only have something similar which they call AUTOBAHN, in order to allow the governmental robber-knights to sell their small self-adhering and expensive-like-hell lables one has to fix at the car's front window!

It is in fact the A1 Bremen-Hamburg, the photo has been taken between exit 22 (Buxtehude) and exit 23 (Hintertupfingen), about 400 meters after the rest area with the green toilette. The displayed car is the newly introduced highway police car specially developed for catching speeders. Although donated by a large German automobile factory (as can be seen by the logo), the expenses for running these cars exceeded the available budget considerably, so police authorities decided to drop the traditional green-white layout in favour of a sponsor livery. It is reported that expenses per km consequently could be reduced from DEM 2.856,45 to only DEM 0,04. As this is even much lower than standard police cars, other squadrons are now studying similar projects.

This, of course, is starting a world-wide trend. In Australia, where distances are vast and people few, they are selling the rights to every speeding ticket stop to 'Funniest Home Videos,' and for this reason speed cameras are going out of use.
"We can get more money by combining the fine with the TV rights even though we can't do the job as efficiently as the automated cameras," a spokesman said. "Then we ask the booked motorist to dance, and thus we get a better fee from Channel 9, which increases if he dances on the roof of the car."
The speed cameras, meanwhile, have been sold to motor race promoters, who are having a field day putting 'copyright' signs at the entry gates and confiscating all camera equipment as people arrive. They are now selling photographs taken by the speed cameras at up to 20 locations around the circuit, and find that most cars will be photographed about 20 times in a five-lap race.
The next move will be to make the photos available to stewards to help them in deciding disputes about driving misbehavior on the circuit. Techniques are being studied and camera locations being perfected so the most common breaches will be automatically covered.

CF... As for the copyrights on the photos, I have no idea what the ramifications are... and it has crossed my mind more than once. I think it's ridiculous that photographers and artists are able to be sued by companies who put the stinking signs on the car to promote products or companies. How does it raise the stature of a company with anyone if the photographers or artists are getting sued - or simply being prevented from plying their trade - by the teams?
It happens here, too. Larry Perkins' lawyers tried to prevent a friend of mine from selling art prints including the Perkins car. Said friend went to a lawyer who put him onto a Patent Attorney who rang the Perkins lawyer and said "I won't even bother talking to you unless you're a Patent specialist, now leave my client alone."
Being an artist, he can shade logos and blur them for effect and they are no longer subject to copyright...
What a minefield, what a stupid situation!

For the position of the car (which I also have no idea what kind it is) this most be a road in the UK, Japan, Australia or some other 'left driving' country.;)

Hmmm,

Hintertupfingen, do I detect another Faller-model builder here?

Speaking of Faller models, I have a beautiful N-Scale model of the railroad station in Schwarzburg just waiting for me to build!

BTW I had the son of Rainer W. Schlegelmilch contact me a while back and offer me free use of any of his father's images for use on my website. So while the Ron Dennis's of the world turn to litigation there are still some enlightened people left in this world. If my site ever went commercial, which it will never, then I think you would have a responsibility to seek permission.

Michael M - you seem to be thinking of Switzerland rather than Austria. In Austria you need a sticker even to drive on the main A-roads.


Anyway, that picture of the car was taken somewhere between London and Edinburgh (probably just north of Luton) on the A1(M) in England, as it clearly shows some Scottish driver in a hurry to get home.

Originally posted by Darren Galpin
Anyway, that picture of the car was taken somewhere between London and Edinburgh (probably just north of Luton) on the A1(M) in England, as it clearly shows some Scottish driver in a hurry to get home.

Hurrying home or trying to avoid a road rage incident with a German in a Ferrari coming up in his mirrors?

I thought he was trying to outrun some bobbies with night sticks.
Some of the photos I've been posting have been from Nigel Snowdon's book, and in some threads I have mentioned this. Others are from the Australian Grand Prix book, and I know I don't need to. Then there are sundry photos for which I don't have any idea of their origins... too bad.

Re Ron Dennis' threats:

I wonder how West and the other sponsors would react to RD trying to restrict the use of images of the Macs given that they are virtually rolling billboards and every time we post a picture of his cars we are in fact providing free advertising for any of the sponsors who's logos are visible in the photos. I don't know about you, but if I was paying RD cubic money to advertise on his cars I would take a dim view of him trying to restrict the exposure of my logo in almost any way. I suspect if his threats were directed to the attention of the ad agency that handles West or Mobil 1, they might tell ol' Ron to put a sock in it!

Years ago at Racing Car News we often had correspondence from Coca Cola. The local bottlers that covered the area in which Winton circuit was had paid for naming rights to a corner. In turn, the magazine reports kept on mentioning the name.
Coca Cola insisted that we had no right to use their name!
Their attitude is wierd, and I'll tell you that the sponsors are behind Ron Dennis completely. I don't know what their distorted thinking is, but it's a world-wide move.
It's to do with rights to trademarks and their exclusivity on merchandise.

There is some weird logic at work here. The idea is that if you don’t protect your trademark then in the future a judge will rule against you for that very fact that you didn’t protect it in the past!

The horse and buggy meets the computer age.

Very late 1970s or very early 1980s I wrote a tiny product report in an obscure section of a magazine, calling a new BMX bike "The Rolls-Royce of BMX bikes". Next thing I knew, I had a threatening letter from Rolls-Royce's legal people saying I was using their trade mark illegaly.
At first I thought it was a joke - but it wasn't.
It makes me wonder about a book I saw recently in one of the many catalogues I get. The TITLE of the book was something like: "Xxxx the Rolls-Royce of Motorcycles".
(I think it was motorcycles, could have been something else).

Hereafter the text of a letter sent to the webmaster of a private non-commercial Nick Heidfeld fanpage. As said before, this topic was discussed already some weeks ago in another racing forum. I have no permit to copy this text, but I believe the theme is of general interest, so I have "stolen" it. However, I removed name and address of webmaster and site.

-QUOTE-

UNAUTHORISED USE OF IMAGE

I have been instructed to write to you by McLaren International Limited
("McLaren"), a company within the TAG McLaren Group of companies.

McLaren has had brought to its attention the Quick-Nick website and of the West
Competition Team's F3000 racing cars. The site features a number of pictures
of Nick Heidfeld and of the West Competition Team's F3000 racing cars. The
publication of these images has not been authorised and amounts to an
infringement in the copyright to the photograph and to that which exists in the
livery of the car itself.

The website acknowledges that the relevant pictures are copyright to mclaren.net
but such a notice does not validate the publication of a copyright work. The
purpose of copyright law is to prevent unauthorised reproduction of photographs,
as in this case, and not merely to require an acknowledgement to the owner of
the copyright.

Furthermore, the livery of the West McLaren Mercedes Formula One and West
Competition team F3000 cars are artistic works as contemplated by the Copyright
Design and Patents Act 1988. This livery was created at substantial expense and
with the input of many man hours. The livery is now widely recognised as one of
the most innovative and distinctive in motor sports. The publication of the
photograph of this vehicle constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the
design of its livery. I must advise you in this respect that we have recently
taken Leading Counsel's advice to support this in a similar situation to this
and thereafter took High Court proceedings in the English courts against a well
known High Street retailer which resulted in an agreement to pay substantial
damages and costs to McLaren International Limited.

It is important to note that Nick Heidfeld has rights over the use of his image
which are protectable in many jurisdictions. Therefore, imagery featuring Nick
Heidfeld should not be used without the driver's express permission.

In the circumstances, unless I receive by close of business on Friday, 30th June
agreement to the terms outlined below, I will be instructing our external
solicitors to commence proceedings for damages and injunctive relief without
further notice to yourself:

1. You will whether directly or indirectly or whether by your servants, agents
or otherwise howsoever immediately remove all imagery of Nick Heidfeld, the West
McLaren Mercedes Formula One car and the McLaren F3000 cars from the
nick-heidfeld.com and any other website, and shall not at any point in the
future print, copy, reproduce or otherwise publish any such image in any form in
any media whatsoever.

2. In the event that you agree to paragraph 1 above but shall breach any of the
terms thereof then McLaren reserves the rights to issue proceedings for damages
and injunctive relief based upon the original cause of action in addition to any
breach of paragraphs 1 above. of this letter.

Yours faithfully

Mark Hubbard
Legal Adviser

-UNQUOTE-

This clearly says that not only the official McLaren pictures - e.g. those from their website - are protected by copyright, but also the images of drivers and the livery of racing cars in general. This means that also publication of privately taken pictures are a copyright infringement - at least according to McLaren's point of view!

So, as C F began in this thread, it seems that at any time we could be walking into a legal minefield. But let's not worry about that in this Nostalgia Forum, let's stick to stuff over thirty years old and nobody will bother us.
Or will they?
Anybody got a Durex Surtees photo?

So how do these presumedly overpaid copyright legal advisers differentiate between illegal use of images and the many free downloads and screensavers from official websites around the world?

Perhaps another way of looking at it is for every person that is ever threatened by these legal advisers to claim that the image/s in question are indeed screensavers from an official site - How are the legal gurus going to prove otherwise??

Guys,

Whilst I might very well understand the theatrical concern of some legal advisors over the "infringement" of copyright laws on the net, let's be clear: it is a lost battle. I know it might seem very incorrect on my part to say that, and many of us, not so young, might still feel a certain respect for rules, hence generating some kind of mental concern. But one of the basic rules -common sense, really- of any given legal system is that you should only regulate aspects of human behaviour that you can somehow monitor. By monitor I mean (and I excuse myself, but I do not think I have ever written about anything else but cars and drivers in English) the chance that a given power might have to make people behave in a certain way, and penalising the behaviour that goes against that.
Well, in a world where the powers want to impose behaviours on everybody all the time, I think we all welcomed the internet as a pretty major revolution for various reasons. One of them, of course, is that there is a major re-foundation of the rules; old rules will not be valid over the net, unless users agree, basically not because we are making any revolution, but because rules are impossible to "monitor", if you know what I mean. Let me give you another example: insulting people is normally something that a legal system will traditionally contemplate as an unacceptable behaviour, and, since Roman times, some kind of penalty was to be imposed on the insulting person. Now, when on the net, us users know that, should we be insulted -for instance, on a Forum- the thing to do is ask for the intermediation of a Moderator, that will do whatever he feels he has to do, within his powers (but of course will not go to court!). The example goes to show that whilst some serious offences might be at present the subject of discussion between the governments of the world as regards of how to coordinate action against them, some others, and we go back to copyrights, are just on a second class ticket. At the end, notwithstanding the fact that definitions on copyright infringements are a sorry sight (and this is a professional opinion) the simple idea of witnessing the creation of a worldwide Big Brother in charge of prosecuting "illegal" scanning of images (protected in their country with a copyright, I mean) is so ridiculous that I do not want to give it a second thought.
When the authorities solve the really serious problems that the net might create (and I am talking about the kind of offences that will -and do- freeze our spirits, like organised traffic of children or human organs) then, and only then, we will be ready to hear their points of view on copyright.
For the time being, let's just laugh at their ridiculous propositions. As loud as possible.

The evidence is that there could be some long and costly court battles fought should someone decide to do anything, and it is clear from history that many important things go untouched while almost flippant problems get bundles of attention.
In other words, anything can happen. Let's hope it doesn't happen to us.

Ray
Yes, I agree with your comment. Anything can happen. But I have the sensation that pre-68 material won´t attract too much attention anyway...
;-)
fm

I’m not a lawyer but if I were to take a picture of a public person in a public setting then they have no rights at all. If this were not the case then newspapers and magazines would not be able to function, say nothing of the paparazzi. What they are resorting to is simple scare tactics knowing full well that we do not have the money to defend ourselves no matter the validity of our position. That being said to hell with them anyway.

Let me tell you, Dennis, that if a photographer goes to a race meeting in Australia, takes a photo of the Larry Perkins Commodore, then tries to sell said photo, he will be told to cease and desist.
Their claim is that the logos and paint schemes etc are copyright, and that the photographer is infringing on that.
Unbelievable!
Photographers have gone out of business over this.

One more reason to forsake the current crap. I still think that there is no legal basis for their stand.

Whatever the legality, they are doing it. The Perkins team and the Holden Racing Team are threatening whomever they choose, and as related in my post of the 26th, Shane Cowham had to seek legal advice and now blurs some aspects of logos etc to avoid any further confrontations. I'm sure that if the public knew, they would spew about their 'heroes' taking this attitude. They thus ensure that they are the only ones to capitalise on their efforts, but at the potential expense - as I see it - of losing public support.

No doubt they are.

Guys,

last time I posted about this subject was at the end of July this year. 90 days have elapsed, and I want to share with you today some paragraphs that I read this morning on today's Financial Times, editorial on page 18.

Under the heading "The corralling of Napster" we can find these "jewels" (very indicative, in my humble opinion)

(the recording industry)...has been reluctant to adapt to this new world, PREFERRING TO CLING TO TRADITIONAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. But the law is likely to prove too cumbersome to defeat the nimble forces of internet piracy…

…The ability to distribute music (or other intellectual property) at almost zero cost has profound implications…

…Clearly, the copyright laws should continue to protect the interests of those who have created original material, WHERE THAT IS PRACTICABLE…

…This is a struggle in which the fittest can survive. But dinosaurs CONTENT TO DO NOTHING BUT INSIST ON THEIR PRESUMED LEGAL RIGHTS will find that a new species of younger, nimbler operators has taken over their habitat…

I do not think I have to elaborate much further...

Felix Muelas

A recent thread in the Reader's Comments Forum that pertains to this issue. Re. the FIA and F1 photography.

http://www.atlasf1.c...?threadid=11343

It is my understanding that, at least under US IP law, it is permissable to use copyrighted material or non-commercial use as part of a discussion. I think as long as both the poster and server are located in the US, there are no potential legitimate liability concerns. That being said, that doesn't guarantee that actions with little or no legal basis cannot or will not be brought merely for their chilling effect. IP lawyers like to do this sort of territorial pissing. If a large legal firm is brought to bear against an individual or entity without significant resources, the merits of the respective arguments may have virtually no significance. Deep pockets often trump the law, as we all know.

That's my point also. Going back a few years I remember discussing this topic while at Art school and remember the comment that the laws are a lot weaker than is lead on to. Yet of course lawyers have never really been concerned much with actual laws.