LOL I found a Pic of my car on Ebay

Currently reading:
LOL I found a Pic of my car on Ebay

This post contains affiliate links which may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.
I already paid for the Wiper before i noticed :mad:

I dont really mind the pic, its just dirty. Nobody sees my car Dirty :devil:

Even if they used that pic to clone my car they would be royally screwed because it actually looks nothing like that.
 
Not strictly true as you need permission from the owner of whatever you are photographing. Most things you can get away with but cars you cant, they are seen as similar in Law to people.
 
Not strictly true as you need permission from the owner of whatever you are photographing. Most things you can get away with but cars you cant, they are seen as similar in Law to people.

In that case, because you've openly admitted that this photo was taken before your ownership of the car then you dont have those rights..

the photographer might have had permission from the previous owner to take said photograph..

All you can do is email the company in question asking to blank out the registration stating you are the owner..

but even then they dont have to do anything... if i wanted to i can see your registration on your car, in fact i actually have... your registration is open to the public cant get around that :p
 
Like i said im not worried about the Reg. I dont even remove it from my own pics. Its just a dirty pic of my all over fleabay.

But as for the copyright im not sure you are correct. On one hand when you purchase something you buy all rights to anything involved with it unless stated in a contract. On the other hand there are many photo's of famous objects, buildings etc sold without permission from the owner. For example i dont need a licence to use a picture of the Eiffel tower.
 
but as for the copyright im not sure you are correct. On one hand when you purchase something you buy all rights to anything involved with it unless stated in a contract. On the other hand there are many photo's of famous objects, buildings etc sold without permission from the owner. For example i dont need a licence to use a picture of the Eiffel tower.

Point still stands.. I can take a photo of your car without your permission, nothing you can do about that.. take me to court if you wish (i actually have a picture too :p) but its common courtesy to ask, and if they say no then dont. (dont mind do you ;) )

All i said was the previous owner might have given permission... but the company using the photo will need permission from the photographer to use the photograph..

I explore a lot of buildings, i take photographs and host them in a public place.. Nothing wrong with taking photographs or showing them to people.. they are still my photographs..

However if a newspaper was to directly use my image as a news report without my permission they have technically "Stolen" my image.. they would need permissions from the image owner..
 
Not strictly true as you need permission from the owner of whatever you are photographing. Most things you can get away with but cars you cant, they are seen as similar in Law to people.

So.... photographers and TV or film companies have to get permission from the owners of every car and every person that happens to be in shot when they photograph or film anything?

I don't think so.
 
Its not illegal to use a camera or video camera in a public place, unless of course it states otherwise(public swiming pools etc.).

It is however illegal to use photo's or videos of someone(or something that belongs to someone) for advertising without their permission.

Due to the fact your car was owned by someone else previously permission may well have been given for those images to be used. But as previously said you now own the vehicle so you could ask them to at least block out the reg plate or ask you permission for it to be used.

The BBC broadcast hundreds of car registrations.
 
Last edited:
I'll chip in here.

My wife is a professional stock photographer and I can assure you that 'rights' on either side are complex and ultimately depend on subject, circumstances, type of publication etc. etc.

Now we get into "Property Release" and "Model Release" for starters. However there are then rules governing, for example "Editorial" use which is non comercial (ie. picture is not being used to adverstise for commercial gain) which in most cases means a property release is not required. Also we get into "public" or "private"

If I take a pictures of kids playing on public land in a public space, and do not specifically target an individual, then there is nothing the parents can do or say. I could use these pictures for national editorial use in news papers etc. in articles about local playing fields in England. A specific focus would require a model release.

To add confusion to the whole situation there are certain areas where one can not take pictures for publication. I believe Trafalgar Square is one such place unless you have offical permission. However you can I believe take pictures of the Houses of Parliment and Tower Bridge and then these can be used in an editorial publication (including books) and you can be paid for your images.

This case of the use of the Stilo picture for promoting a wiper sale I think is quite interesting. Is this image being used in a private sale or is it commercial usage. I would say (unless the seller is a trader) then it is a private sale.

However, going back to the children play on a pitch, there is only one specifically identifiable Stilo in the image and the poster should IMHO have blurred the registration.

Professional picture libraries (such a Alamy) take great care to guide and protect both their photographers and their clients (image buyers) from potential problems.

Also, any photographer selling images would be well advised to have both 3rd party liability insurance and indemnity insurance.

I'm not 100% up to date or accurate in what I've written above but one thing I'm 100% sure of is covering our/my wife's legal liabilites.

You may trip over my wife's camera bag becuase she placed it in a stupid place (next to her feet next to you) and you'll be covered for up to £5,000,000. However the photographer next to her with just a fancy/expensive gear selling pictures as a hobby / alternative income stream is in many cases uninsured. If you trip over their tripod and cut your knee or similar then get their name, address etc. etc. If they refuse to supply then contact the zoo, park etc. officials. Any photographer who is selling pictures commercially should be insured. Sorry I'm on a high horse now but it really pisses me off that with the low and modest income my wife makes from photography there are so many "insured camera drivers" out there chancing it. We pay good money for good insurance to protect YOU at OUR expense! I just wish so many others had the same respect and responsibility.

Back to the Stilo picture. I personally would ask eBay to smudge the registration. I don't think they have to but by you asking you are showing your objection and one or more of such objections may result is new guidelines and tighter publication rules on eBay.
 
Last edited:
Im Glad you got my Point S130.
Its surprising how little these "freelancers" disregard laws and process in this kind of industry. I know a lot of laws and rules rely people being honest and its so easy to use, say, a photograph for the internet without permission but its good to see your wife is doing things by the book like we do :worship:
Few and far between these days.
 
Thanks, and I would like to correct a typo.

I meant to write "uninsured camera drivers" .......

and you say 'using a photo for internet without permission'. This is a realy problem. we get reuquests from people to use images for websites, to print and piant from etc. etc. and this is great. However there are those that pinch the image (low resolution and often water marked) without our permission.

At the moment we are actually pursuing such a theft by a blogger (possibly with alternative business interests) and I can assure you that it takes loads of time and effort to do this. Thankfully many other professional photographers from sites we use look after each other's backs and point out places where they think your images are being used.

Thankfully we have far more "askers" than "takers" and this is really great and nice. However the takers are steeling from us and if they steel from us they will steel from you........ e.g. pick up you lost wallet and nick its contents.
 
I wouldnt say thats 100% true. A lot of people even in the industry who think a photo found on google is free game. As you say though there a your knock off Nigels who sit at their ****ty PC's with cracked software, creating crap design for quite a bit of money considering they have no overheads, qualifications or regards for other peoples property and dont declare the money to pay Tax on.
It pisses me off big time. (n)
 
Back
Top