MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Sites that no longer exist => LuckyOliver.com => Topic started by: News Feed on February 09, 2008, 18:51
-
Got a permit for that photo?
Just a quick link that may be of interest:
My previous post on Your Rights As A Photographer generated some interested feedback, so I thought LuckyOliver's photographers might be interested in PhotoPermit.org, a site which tracks interference with legal photography by authorities, often in the form of arrests, harassment or law suits.
A quick browse through the site's stories and the examples in the forums makes for scary reading. Most of the incidents deal with photojournalists with press credentials, but it all cranks up my personal moral outrage meter.
On an only slightly related note, via PhotoPermit I also found this story from BoingBoing around an issue of photography and trademarks often discussed at LuckyOliver:
The folks at BMC (Black Mustang Club) automotive forum wanted to put together a calendar featuring members' cars, and print it through CafePress. Photos were submitted, the layout was set, and... CafePress notifies the site admin that pictures of Ford cars cannot be printed. Not just Ford logos, not just Mustang logos, the car - as a whole - is a Ford trademark and its image can't be reproduced without permission.
While I certainly can understand vigorous protection of trademarks, I'm also thinking that major brands are going to need to update their Goliath stances to deal with the digital age we all live in. As the contributor noted:
Ford has a lineup of enthusiasts who want to show off their Ford cars, the company is bent on alienating them. 'Them' being some of the most loyal owners and future buyers that they have. Or rather, that they had, because many have decided that they will not be doing business with Ford again if this matter isn't resolved.
The club appears to be going ahead with a different printer, but however it pans out, it's bad PR for Ford.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/luckyoliver/~3/230486670/Got+a+permit+for+that+photo%3F
-
I wonder if they are allowed to drive their cars on public roads, or if it says something in the contract about "The purchase of this car gives the owner usage rights for x number of years, during which the car may only be viewed by the owner and his/her immediate family" ;D
-
Old news.
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27542
-
If Ford is so strict then why can this guy sell all these vectors?
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4687636_ford_escape_2008_vector_car_template.php?id=4687636
-
hmmm... it is a scary world out there!
Not sure i would want to take any for vehicle pictures for stock...
-
It's actually very risky! We had a case in Germany where a photographer arranged an easter picture with a tulip and a figure of an Easterbunny.
The figure was design-protected it ended up in lawsuit against her. Though the charge was withdrawn later she had to paid all lawyer costs a five digit Eurosum!!!! (the selling price was 4,95 Euro through Panthermedia ::))
Looking at some Microstock-Portfolios it's just a matter of time till we hear more of these cases.
The combination of low selling price and many downloads makes Microstock extremely risky in this regards.
If i have the slightest doubt about the legal status (picture of objects pictures inside from buildings many metro-stations are actually design-protected for example all metro-stations in munich etc.) i don't put it on microstock or stock at all.
Traditional stock is less risky because of the high selling price and rare sales.