Was permission required?

thewtam

thewtam

Messages
67
Name
Matthew
Edit My Images
No
OK, it is Sunday night, meal and wine consumed so thinking slow. Friend just telephoned with a question. I feel I should know the answer straight off, I am a full time tog but for the life of me I have gone blank.

This is the scenario.

Friend bought a Landrover Discovery 9 months ago and handed over to a chap who customises them beyond recognition. It's a mean machine basically, have not seen it yet, but apparently it is a beast.

The job was supposed to take 3 months and said friend went down today to collect it and found it unfinished inside. Paid for it anyway, miffed, but felt he had to just get ahold of the thing anyway.

Here is the thing. The fellow who has done the work tells him that Landrover Magazine have been down to run a story on him and in the process took photographs of the newly customised Disco. My friend is annoyed because he wasn't asked and is not particularly enthused to see his car in the magazine.

Friend does not know the tone of the article, the emphasis or how may photos may appear.

He is asking if Landover Magazine have overstepped the mark. Should they have sort permission from the vehicle owner etc etc. Can he stop publication if he choses?

I am fairly well versed in the do's and don'ts, copyright, licensing etc, I deal with it regularly but for the life of me I don't know what to tell him.

I suspect that the Mag photo/journo has interviewed the bloke and been led out to the current project, took some pics and never thought to question who owned the vehicle and whether perhaps owner consent should have been sort. I am not entirely sure one way or the other.

If I have not been coherent chuck a question at me but does anyone have thoughts on this one.

Matt
 
The question is: is the landrover-customizer person using this landrover to promote his business? If there is no association then the images could fall under the editorial/newsworthy umbrella and permission/release is not required. However it sounds like the shots of the vehicle are indeed being used to promote a business, so the property owner should have been asked for consent first. At least that's what I think would be the case.

This is not a copyright issue, but one of image usage and whether it is 'commercial' or not.
 
I am thinking perhaps a property release would be required if the picture is used in a promotional context but if Landrover were running an editorial on your friend then they wouldn't need it.

This one gets complicated though because if you yourself wanted to use a picture of the car for commercial applications you would need to get the permission from Landrover to use their logo/brand, which is presumably still visible.

You need to get hold of the publication before you know what action you can take.
 
I read said mag every month, and it probably wont be a "look at this company" type thing, it will be a "look at what this guy has done to this car" type affair and maybe a small mention of the company he works for in the text.

As for photos, most of thier articles like that span 2-3 pages with interior, exterior static from several angles and often a few "action shots"

I know nothing of the legal bits and bobs, but this info may help those that do.
 
I thought the critical thing for photographing property is the land where the shot was taken from.

If someone takes a photo of my property whilst stood on my land then there could be commercial copyright issues, but they are free to do what they like with images of my property taken from land i do not own which sounds like the situation in question.
 
It might make an interesting follow up story in the magizine if your friend has a lot of problems with it.....
 
This chap who did the customising has overstepped the mark IMHO as the car was not his property and was only contracted to carry out the mods! ..... Not sure what can be done about it though.
 
Put simply, if pictures of the OP's friend's vehicle are being used to promote the modder's business/services, then permission from the vehicle owner would be required.

Adrian, people are not entirely free to do what they want of images of your property, whether they had permission to be on that land or not - gaining permission to take a shot is not the same as gaining permission to use the shot(s) in a commercial context (though editorial publication would be fine).

As to what the vehicle owner can do - I suggest he speaks to the magazine if he's bothered by his car being published in this way. Permission for commercial usage is required so that property owners can make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish their property to advertise a particular business or service.
 
No offence, but your mate is overreacting a little. People work their backsides off to get their vehicles in to mags and his has done it and it still isn't finished.

I would be a little miffed they had interviewed me about my car however but I'd at least request a free copy of it.

I would be extremely annoyed that it wasn't finished though and not paid until it was!
 
I'd suggest a letter to the magazine saying how nice it would be to see the picture in print, but did they know how much it has cost, how it's still not been finished and that he customiser still wanted paying before releasing the vehicle as he showed no signs of finishing it..
 
IMHO you have no case. Just imagine what more of a nightmare things would be for photographers. e.g: I'm in London, I take a picture of Nelson's Column. The picture is sold to a magazine for an article on London Tourism. The Owner of Nelson's column then complain I didn't have their permission to sell the photo...WTF!

Probably not the best scenario, but hope you get the gist.
 
Another scenario.........as a Publican I have been intervieved for local TV, Rag and Radio on different occaisions. Pictures are taken, say of a pint being drawn, does the brewery say: "hold on, that's our beer being pictured, and we haven't given permission"??
 
He could insist that the mag cover up any identifying marks of the car,Reg plate, VIN, etc.

I thin kthe guy doing the work was trying to big up the car, and the fact that he is behind on it by saying that it was so good it would be in a magazine.

Lets face it, myou don't spend that amount of money, wait that long for a customised vehicle for people not to look at it.

He should be pleased it is in the magazine, maybe have a word with the customiser to say"it would have been nice to be asked" but most people would be really happy to have a car in a mag.

With regards permission etc, has he got anykind of contract with the customiser, it may say that he is able to use photos of his work for publicity, which would cover this scenario.
 
NigelPaul said:
IMHO you have no case. Just imagine what more of a nightmare things would be for photographers. e.g: I'm in London, I take a picture of Nelson's Column. The picture is sold to a magazine for an article on London Tourism. The Owner of Nelson's column then complain I didn't have their permission to sell the photo...WTF!

Probably not the best scenario, but hope you get the gist.
Click to expand...

Actually that's probably one of the worst examples that you could think of, apart from photography in the Royal Parks - you need a licence for commercial photos taken in Trafalgar Square! :lol:

If the article is along the lines of what Tom (TCR) has suggested, then it probably falls into the same category as the VW Camper pic in B&Q that was discussed on here a few weeks ago.

Ref the Landrover badge/logo - from my understanding you don't need permission from the company if it is an integral part of the vehicle, only if it used as a close up out of context or isolated from the setting that it's in.
 
Actually that's probably one of the worst examples that you could think of, apart from photography in the Royal Parks - you need a licence for commercial photos taken in Trafalgar Square!
Click to expand...

Knew I should have thought of something different! :D

Was jist IMHO though! ;)

Cheers Mark. :thumbs:
 
DemiLion said:
Ref the Landrover badge/logo - from my understanding you don't need permission from the company if it is an integral part of the vehicle, only if it used as a close up out of context or isolated from the setting that it's in.
Click to expand...

Totally correct, the company who's logo appears in photographs could do nothing about it as it would be considered an incidental inclusion (S.31 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act).

Lindsay D said:
Put simply, if pictures of the OP's friend's vehicle are being used to promote the modder's business/services, then permission from the vehicle owner would be required.
Click to expand...
Not true. Permission to access the interior of the vehicle was already granted, it must of been to carry out the work to the vehicle. Since there were no conditions of entry (e.g. no photography) then the mechanic was free to create the images. If that was a condition of entry, the mechanic trespassed, which is a civil offence.

Lindsay D said:
Adrian, people are not entirely free to do what they want of images of your property, whether they had permission to be on that land or not - gaining permission to take a shot is not the same as gaining permission to use the shot(s) in a commercial context (though editorial publication would be fine).

As to what the vehicle owner can do - I suggest he speaks to the magazine if he's bothered by his car being published in this way. Permission for commercial usage is required so that property owners can make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish their property to advertise a particular business or service.
Click to expand...
In the UK, people do not own the light rays that bounce of themselves or their property. Unless there is a breach of privacy, the photographer was privately commissioned or the photographer is using the image to say something which they know is untrue, there is no recourse for the model, or in this case, the owner of the Land Rover.

One could take a picture of a person wearing the latest Gucci glasses in a public street with a telephoto lens and then use that image to advertise those glasses. No law has been broken as there is no expectation of privacy and; the subject cannot seek an injunction against the use of the photograph as nothing untrue has been said about them nor was it commissioned by them for private and domestic purposes.

Property releases are exactly the same as model releases, utterly useless and unenforceable in the majority of cases. People like to have them because they clearly spell out that permission has been granted to access private property and that there are no conditions of entry. Even if one trespassed to create images, those images can be used commercially, editorially and for any other use that can be thought of. As trespass is a civil offence, landlords (or their agents) must remove trespassers (with reasonable force if necessary), if damage has been caused to the property then the landlord may seek those damages from the trespassers. Owning property which is the subject of a photograph does not give one any rights over that photograph. Copyright in artistic works is either: the property of the author or; the property of their employer. This is clearly stated in law.

In summary, the owner (your friend) can do nothing about the photographs in the magazine. He could however sue for breach of contract if the work requested and paid for has not been performed to the expected standard, this would likely come under the Sale of Goods Act. For that, I'd recommend contacting Consumer Direct or Trading Standards/Office of Fair Trading.
 
Last edited:
Thank you to everyone for the replies. My view is that the customiser should have, at the very least, phone my friend and asked if he minded. Clearly a no would have caused him a problem, maybe why he didn't ask! Aside from all the rules on copyright,taking pictures for editorial, the question of permissions and whose land you are on, I would have thought that even without a written contract (which their may be) my friend could have expected a degree of confidentiality. As a photographer, under those circumstances I would have questioned who owned the car and checked with the owner.
If Landrover Magazine knew the details it seems discourteous at best.

My analogy would be that I photograph houses for estate agents, sometimes long before the property is to come to the market. If I then published those photos or sent them to a magazine, the property owner and agent would rightly feel very miffed. And that lack of respect and trust would damage my reputation.

So is it a breach of trust between my friend and the chap who has worked on the car, rather than any specific photographic issue?

An interesting comment about a follow up story given the car wasn't finished and took nine months as opposed to three. If the article is promoting the guys business it seems a bit out of order to use a car/contract (verbal or written) that has not been done correctly.

Matt
 
One other thought as some folk are banging on about copyright issues and permission to enter the vehicle for photos. If the customizer's work is unique enough does the copyright of the custom work not belong to the customizer until he say's otherwise.
If a agreement has not been drawn up transferring copyright ownership of the customization to the vehicle owner what's to stop the customizer making a condition the customized work vehicle the vehicle has had must not shown on public roads or displayed outside a garage building for example, or at the least return the vehicle to it's original state and billing him after hearing of the vehicle owners complaints.

Personally I think it's making a mountain of a molehill, I'd be chuffed to see my customized motor getting pics in a well known magazine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top