Art guys using your cars to make money

Has this happened to anyone before: your looking around on the net or in magazines, and you see that some artist has taken a photo of unmistakenly YOUR car (Its yours right down to the customed lightbar) and then did some "creative" touching up and then are selling prints/posters/lithographs and never asked your permission? This is not only wrong in so many ways but it's gotta be illegal. Artist/Lawyer HAMBERS what do you do? Who else has this happened to?

 

Happened to a friend of mine with his restored Willys pickup. Was surfing ebay and there was someone selling a clock with a picture of his truck, no touch ups or anything, just lifted off his website and put on a clock. He reported the seller to ebay and contacted the seller directly and told him he was using a copyrighted picture without permission. The listings were pulled and have not reappeared. If you have pictures up on your webpage you can put a copyright notice on the page and also put a copyright mark on the pictures. Not that someone still wouldn't use them, but at least them you have a bit or recourse if you desired.

 

It's legal to do, if it's THEIR photograph. My wife's a photographer, and has lots of pictures of cars...If you sell a picture of a flower, do you owe the dirt and rain money for growing it??

 

As a photographer, I fell pretty confident saying this. No matter what the subject is, if I take the photograph, it's mine to do whatever I wish with. With minor exceptions. If I take photos under contract, I can add cliches such as, I will not reproduce said photos with intent to harm the subject. In this world of photoshop and such, many models are afraid that their heads will end up on nude bodies, and..... that's a career down the tubes. Or worse, photos that were takin in confidentiality, get leaked to the public by a photographer looking to make a buck, and someones personal enjoyment, becomes front page news.

So.. to close, if a photographer takes a great shot of your ride... be thankful he chose your ride as a subject. If it ends up in a newspaper, magazine, etc... be proud that your ride was worthy. If you are upset that your name wasn't included... that's a different story, as I always try to get the owners names when I take photos of their cars. But that's not necissary either. It's just a nice thing to do.

 

I feel that if someone takes a photograph and paints from it, then its pretty well o.k.

If someone lifts an image and just uses it with no change, then its not o.k.

I think the actual rules are that the image must be changed 20% or something like that for it to be legal.


I paint from photographs all the time. I use magazines and images from the HAMB as reference material.

I have copies of Brush's work laying around in my studio to use for reference material. (as well as many many other HAMB artists)



But mostly, I really like to change things to look like I painted them. In other words I like to take an image and make it my own.

Where does the legal line lay? I don't know. I've even studied this stuff.

Artists like Jeff Koons has run into this dilema. Are Andy Warhol's soup can prints copyright infringement? Most of the times I learned that the line isn't clear. Its up to the artist's concience and the fatness of the picture owner's wallet.




An example I've personally dealt with is my monsters' similarity to Roth's stuff. There is a similarity for sure. I am using what Roth did as reference there is no doubt.

But it works out like this....Neither Roth, nor anyone else can copyright an idea. So the idea of a rat monster driving a burning out car is open season....but the IMAGE of a Rat Fink driving a burning out car is out of bounds. You cannot copy that without permission.

Again, it falls to the artist to change the image and make it his or hers.

Thats what I try to do with my artwork.

 

The photographer owns the rights to the photo.

The only thing that would be an issue is if a reproduction of the subject lessens the value of the subject. A photo or painting of your car rarely changes the value of a car. (Though a few photos in a national magazine might --I repeat, "might"-- INCREASE its value a bit). In other words, he's not selling copies of your car so that everyone with a Visa card can look as cool as you... he's selling his art, which is an image, not a car.

Just take it as flattery and go on with your life knowing some photographer thought your car is cool.

 

If the photographer took the photo himself, he can do what he wants with it.
That is why celebrities have no leg to stand on when photographers take their pictures out in public. I beleive it is called emminant domain or something. If your car is out there in public, and the guy comes along and snaps a pic of it, then sells it to The Eveneing Star and makes $1,000.00 off it, it is perfectly legal.

Now if you have a pic of the car posted on your website, and someone steals the photo and makes $$$ off of it, you might be able to sue. Check with your local attorney...

 

Why would it matter to you? I'd take it as a compliment, not to mention that if it's anyone "famous" your car is appreciating from the deal. People need to lighten up in this world. We drive these cars because we love them, be happy that others love your work. Magazines do it all of the time with show coverage etc...what's really the difference?

Mootz

 

Sorta related - I had an Uncle who was an excellent amateur artist. While looking at his collection I had noticed a painting or two that did NOT bear his signature - when I aksed him WHY? he told me that he had copied those images from a photograph and didn't feel he had the right to place his signature on something based in someone else's work. Not a legality thing - just an honor thing. I personally feel teh same way here - I have seen right here on the HAMB where an artist sells an image of anothers car - seems to me that common decency would dictate you at least ask the person - but again there's no legal basis as far as I know.

 

I paint rod pics and use the web for some of my source material. If the
material is copyrighted I won't use it, if it's not then it's open season!! To be fair I have contacted the owners of some of the the cars or whoever posted the pic and have let them have a print just for goodwill, mostly though owners are more than pleased I have chosen their cars for subjects!
Photographers will take pics of interesting stuff if you don't want pics taken then don't drive interesting cars. It's like whining celebs who moan about the press...but just remember the more ink your cars gets the more desireable it can become, the more desirable the bigger the price....then are you gona moan

 

Similar story, I found a website for some guy on the East Coast that designs and builds yor "dream car/hot rod" from the stock car you bring to their shop. In the "pictures section" of cars they allegedly did was my buddy's light blue with pearl white flamed 49 Ford. The pic was taken at the Road Agents show a few years ago, but I painted, flamed and striped the car! We sent him an e-mail threatening him, and he removed it last I checked. Hardly worth a battle, but suprising what people will try.

 

I think it's sort of the same way that paparatzzi get away with selling pictures of celebrities. As long as your out in public, it's fair game. I think some car shows even have like a photo waiver you sign when you register. Myself, if I were going to draw/paint a car to sell on something like a t-shirt of something, I would change the car up a little--just out of respect.

Now as far as someone STEALING photos from your website, thats a whole 'nother bag of apples.

 

Kustum72 I know what you are referring to. I think it's cool he used the car but why put those stupid flames and lake headers on it if Steve wanted those on the car he himself would have put them there. That to me is bogus.As far as being legal it is legal because he made those stupid changes. The only thing i would question is the car is striped and signed by ROTH you can clearly see the stripping in the picture. That may or may not be legal to use with out permission.

 

I've came upon photos of mine on message boards, etc., and even used as avatars. I feel honored that people liked 'em enough to steal 'em....

 

Yeah...I hate getting stuff stolen as much as any other guy....but uncopyrighted images on the net are free range...even though I usually change the image enough to be unrecognizable...

Talk about stealing stuff....whats Ryan's motto when it comes to stealing stuff off of the HAMB?....look what I found the other day....here is an image I created for RagDoll in the "CARS Movie" thread....and somehow it is now on the official Doc Hudson myspace page???? WTF?

Here is the link to the page...its in his pictures...it's even got the HAMB Logo on it!!!!!

http://www.myspace.com/1951_hudson_homet

 

Absolutely untrue (in some states ). For what it's worth, in my experience the only photographers that do not have to ask for permission (i.e. get a model or property release) are those who are shooting for news stories (magazines are borderline).

People are fine without a release (as I would think property would be), as long as it is un-identifiable.

Ben

 

I personally would be flattered, unless the artist changed the original concept of the car, or used it in a demeaning way. But I think this thread is pulling some great opinions and great discussion, The issue didnt happen to me, but my best friend who is pretty upset about what they did to his car. This is a great discussion, thoes unsaid rules, respect, artistic creativity and talent, theres alot to it....makes you think about the other "rules"

 

the artist really didnt do anything wrong, i fail to see the problem. I had a guy take one of my artworks and print up some t-shirts with my artwork on them, and then he went on to tell me his buddy did the artwork, when my signature was on the fucking t-shirt, that i didnt care for. the t-shirts were for a local gasser club so i let it slide, but the fact that he tried to tell me his buddy did the artwork made me want to smack the guy in the mouth.

 

Ok whay he did wrong was change the look of the guys car. How would you like it if a guy took your art work change a few things and made it look stupid would you be affened? Why not just asl permision and keep the car looking right.

 

if the guy changed the car, then it isnt the same car anymore is it? if someone took my artwork (legally, bought a copy) and changed it(and took my name off it), then it isnt my artwork anymore. and there is nothing i can do.
just an example for you: all the different mona lisa's kicking around with smiles or moustaches or afros.

 

The biggest problem in this scenario is that the artist completely screwed up an absolutley perfect car........if it were mine I would be a bit annoyed as well. He added some flames and a piece of a lake header and you can still see that the headers are supposed to be down in the frame, point being just ask permission rather then screw up a correct car where I would have bet the owner would have glady said ok, this is the car in question before it was changed in print.

 

Do you think Leonardo De vinci would be happy about that? I'm sure if someone fucked up your art work you would be pissed.

 

So in your mind it is a perfect car. In someone elses mind it isnt and can be changed. This is about the most ridiculous argument I have yet to hear on an otherwise pretty good topic.

 

The only reason he changed the car was so he could use the picture. Why not ask permission and leave it alone?

 

da vinci would probably be pissed but henry ford might be pissed that i chopped 3" out of the roof of my model a too. listen im not saying that the owner of the car shouldnt be pissed, im just saying there is nothing he can do about it, thats all. i would be pissed if someone took one of my car renderings and put big monster truck tires and shit on it, but it wouldnt be my artwork anymore it would be out of my hands, you know what i mean?

 

If you are into traditional real hot rods and disagree that this is a perfect Hot Rod then some people have there your own messed up issue's and as far putting flames on a Roth striped car then they are screwed up in there own mind.

 

I see what your saying but you also said the artist didn't do anything wrong thats where i disagree he fucked up a car a guy put allot of time into to acheive a certain look.

 

this is no doubt true....but art is about creativity like it or hate it. like i can appriciate what jackson pollock (splatter painting) did, but to me it looks like shit. So what you may think is a perfect car (and i happen to agree with you) someone else may think it looks better with flames as crazy as it does sound.

 

Sorry, my fault.


I seemed to have left my "HotRod Guide to Coolness" at home in my other pants pocket. But dont worry, those pants have regulation 3" cuffs.

Since when did hotrods fall under the rule of some Lennanist state? Are the Stormtroopers of Death going to show up at my garage in their polished jump boots and beat me for not having the period perfect car?

Is that a blower on that car? (the pic is kinda small and my eyes arent that good from being an artist all day)

A traditional car with a blower is pretty ghay. (but then again, just my opinion)

 

The only thing ridiculous about this argument is this post. If the guy wants to change the look he should build or draw his own and not screw with somebody elses.