993 RS polyurethane kit sale
10-03-2017, 06:20 PM
#16
It does seem, however, that obtaining a monetary compensation/legal resolution for the use of the picture by a second or subsequent party requires at a minimum that you prove your privacy was invaded, and that a profit was indeed obtained by the "illegal" user. These things are not easy to prove most of the time. Never mind the cost (money and time) of legal representation and procedure.
Please also keep in mind I did write in my post regarding the appropriateness of using such pictures, namely the marketer should have asked for permission. I do believe this statement falls under your "ethically" proposition.
Finally, your assumption that I did not "researched" the "facts" I stated is simply unfounded and easily rejected. Unless you are indeed a lawyer, (and I have a very weak feeling you may be), know this stuff well, and have no need to, you can look up the subject at hand and realize that although the natural knee jerk reaction of the average citizen is to think your pictures are always your private property and that criminal prosecution is in these cases is trivial, there are many occasions where it is not so black and white to pursuit legal compensation/punishment for these actions. The pictures may be your property, but different circumstances may dictate different outcomes.
What you will universally find in your research is that the only way to avoid issues with your ownership of your pictures in the internet is to copyright/trademark/whatever such content.
Bottom line, my kind sir, IF YOU DONT WANT YOUR PICTURES USED AND SPREAD ON THE INTERNET, DO NOT SHARE THEM.
And this, my kind sir, IS a fact I am willing to "put forward" with or without research.
Regards, and please from here on, if we meet again, try not to make assumptions as to how I think/reach conclusions, thank you. Just ask, if you must.
Cheers,
10-03-2017, 06:42 PM
#17
"The problem with pictures is once they leave your camera, if you do not copyright them they are never just yours again."
Let's be 100% clear, the presence of these pictures in the
GT3-TEK advertisement, in no way, either directly or implied, represents my personal endorsement or use of their products. There are no GT3-TEK products on my car, nor has there been for over a year. These items have been removed and replaced, for various reasons that I am not at liberty to discuss in an Open Forum such as Rennlist.
If a potential buyer wished to choose their products, that decision is none of my business.
Let's be 100% clear, the presence of these pictures in the
GT3-TEK advertisement, in no way, either directly or implied, represents my personal endorsement or use of their products. There are no GT3-TEK products on my car, nor has there been for over a year. These items have been removed and replaced, for various reasons that I am not at liberty to discuss in an Open Forum such as Rennlist.
If a potential buyer wished to choose their products, that decision is none of my business.
Again, I do not condone his actions. I do believe that you can ask him to delete your pictures from his computer, and this will solve your troubles easily and cheap. If he does not, then consider your legal options. I am afraid however, that you will only be making a couple of lawyers happy for a really small yield.
JMHO, I promise I will never again address you referring this matter. I can only apologize and move on. I do not even like the RS look....
Cheers
10-03-2017, 06:47 PM
#18
Rennlist Member
AS I stated so eloquently earlier....
...and who is Hector?
Let's be 100% clear here, the presence of these pictures in the
GT3-TEK advertisement, in no way, either directly, indirectly or implied, represents my personal endorsement or present use of their products on any car I own now, or will own in the future. There are no GT3-TEK products on my car, nor has there been for closer to 18 months. These GT3-TEK items, RS front splitters, RS side skirts and RS tail have been removed and replaced, for various reasons such that I am not at liberty to discuss in an Open Forum such as Rennlist.
If a potential buyer wishes to choose GT3-TEK as their supplier, so be it, that decision is between them, and none of my business.
Let's be 100% clear here, the presence of these pictures in the
GT3-TEK advertisement, in no way, either directly, indirectly or implied, represents my personal endorsement or present use of their products on any car I own now, or will own in the future. There are no GT3-TEK products on my car, nor has there been for closer to 18 months. These GT3-TEK items, RS front splitters, RS side skirts and RS tail have been removed and replaced, for various reasons such that I am not at liberty to discuss in an Open Forum such as Rennlist.
If a potential buyer wishes to choose GT3-TEK as their supplier, so be it, that decision is between them, and none of my business.
10-03-2017, 07:08 PM
#20
Rennlist Member
Upset...me? Never!
tuto993: No need for an apology...and as you, I don't much like the RS look either. I was there once, but have moved on. But to each his own.
And no worries, I am not upset, just attempting to state my position in the clearest possible way, to eliminate the possibility for any misunderstanding, within the confines of a Public Forum, with sponsors.
Were I in Promotions and Advertising at GT3-TEK, I would pull down the pics of my 993 car, or at least block out the license plate, but that's their call. I have tried getting in touch with them in the past via telephone and email, on another matter which I am not at liberty to discuss, to no avail, so I shan't try again, anticipating a similar result. Let's not to waste any more time and energy on this topic. On to bigger, better and more pleasant topics.
I do appreciate your feedback and advice. Thanks again.
___________________________
And no worries, I am not upset, just attempting to state my position in the clearest possible way, to eliminate the possibility for any misunderstanding, within the confines of a Public Forum, with sponsors.
Were I in Promotions and Advertising at GT3-TEK, I would pull down the pics of my 993 car, or at least block out the license plate, but that's their call. I have tried getting in touch with them in the past via telephone and email, on another matter which I am not at liberty to discuss, to no avail, so I shan't try again, anticipating a similar result. Let's not to waste any more time and energy on this topic. On to bigger, better and more pleasant topics.
I do appreciate your feedback and advice. Thanks again.
___________________________
And I am so sorry I upset you. Not my intension in the most minimal way. Apparently you have your reasons to be upset with this product/seller, but remember I did not (do not) know that any existed when I made my comment. Nor is my interest to find out.
Again, I do not condone his actions. I do believe that you can ask him to delete your pictures from his computer, and this will solve your troubles easily and cheap. If he does not, then consider your legal options. I am afraid however, that you will only be making a couple of lawyers happy for a really small yield.
JMHO, I promise I will never again address you referring this matter. I can only apologize and move on. I do not even like the RS look....
Cheers
Again, I do not condone his actions. I do believe that you can ask him to delete your pictures from his computer, and this will solve your troubles easily and cheap. If he does not, then consider your legal options. I am afraid however, that you will only be making a couple of lawyers happy for a really small yield.
JMHO, I promise I will never again address you referring this matter. I can only apologize and move on. I do not even like the RS look....
Cheers
10-03-2017, 08:23 PM
#21
Rennlist Member
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
Using someone's pictures without their permission is no bueno.
10-03-2017, 08:28 PM
#22
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I am not a lawyer, Hector. However, my GF is a professional potographer, so I am fairly familiar with the issue of "who the picture belongs to". In short, it either belongs to a photographer, jointly to a photographer and his/her customer or to a customer, if photographer chooses to give this tight.
To wit: "The picture is a “work of authorship” under copyright law (see 17 USC s. 101), and the photographer is the author. Of course, the photographer may license or sell these copyrights to someone else, but until he does something like that he owns them." You can read more here: https://www.quora.com/Does-a-picture...e-person-in-it There are several grey areas, having to do with model releases, etc. The article, however, goes into fairly decent and simple explanations of actual use of stolen photos for profit. And proving that is extremely easy if the photographs are used for advertisement, that part is actually very black and white.
Another thing - you can not really ask somebody "to delete it from their computer" as you've stated. it's not what it's about, not at all. BTW, I'm not making assumptions about your knowledge on the subject. Your statement of: "The problem with pictures is once they leave your camera, if you do not copyright them they are never just yours again." is simply not true. As in, not at all, as in "counter to actual facts". I honestly don't have a problem with that, rather, by the fact that my GF has made numerous rather sizable incisions in my brain on the very subject, I want other to also be aware of who the pictures actually belong to.
PS, The only grey area here might be who actually took those pics of Martin's and Bill's cars. If the pictures were taken by owners,or if owners have at least a partial ownership, it's clear. If they weer photographed by someone else, that someone owns them and (I doubt) might have given their permission for their use.
PPS. I predict crickets. Giant, alien-sized crickets.
To wit: "The picture is a “work of authorship” under copyright law (see 17 USC s. 101), and the photographer is the author. Of course, the photographer may license or sell these copyrights to someone else, but until he does something like that he owns them." You can read more here: https://www.quora.com/Does-a-picture...e-person-in-it There are several grey areas, having to do with model releases, etc. The article, however, goes into fairly decent and simple explanations of actual use of stolen photos for profit. And proving that is extremely easy if the photographs are used for advertisement, that part is actually very black and white.
Another thing - you can not really ask somebody "to delete it from their computer" as you've stated. it's not what it's about, not at all. BTW, I'm not making assumptions about your knowledge on the subject. Your statement of: "The problem with pictures is once they leave your camera, if you do not copyright them they are never just yours again." is simply not true. As in, not at all, as in "counter to actual facts". I honestly don't have a problem with that, rather, by the fact that my GF has made numerous rather sizable incisions in my brain on the very subject, I want other to also be aware of who the pictures actually belong to.
PS, The only grey area here might be who actually took those pics of Martin's and Bill's cars. If the pictures were taken by owners,or if owners have at least a partial ownership, it's clear. If they weer photographed by someone else, that someone owns them and (I doubt) might have given their permission for their use.
PPS. I predict crickets. Giant, alien-sized crickets.
10-03-2017, 09:19 PM
#24
I am not a lawyer, Hector. However, my GF is a professional potographer, so I am fairly familiar with the issue of "who the picture belongs to". In short, it either belongs to a photographer, jointly to a photographer and his/her customer or to a customer, if photographer chooses to give this tight.
To wit: "The picture is a “work of authorship” under copyright law (see 17 USC s. 101), and the photographer is the author. Of course, the photographer may license or sell these copyrights to someone else, but until he does something like that he owns them." You can read more here: https://www.quora.com/Does-a-picture...e-person-in-it There are several grey areas, having to do with model releases, etc. The article, however, goes into fairly decent and simple explanations of actual use of stolen photos for profit. And proving that is extremely easy if the photographs are used for advertisement, that part is actually very black and white.
Another thing - you can not really ask somebody "to delete it from their computer" as you've stated. it's not what it's about, not at all. BTW, I'm not making assumptions about your knowledge on the subject. Your statement of: "The problem with pictures is once they leave your camera, if you do not copyright them they are never just yours again." is simply not true. As in, not at all, as in "counter to actual facts". I honestly don't have a problem with that, rather, by the fact that my GF has made numerous rather sizable incisions in my brain on the very subject, I want other to also be aware of who the pictures actually belong to.
PS, The only grey area here might be who actually took those pics of Martin's and Bill's cars. If the pictures were taken by owners,or if owners have at least a partial ownership, it's clear. If they weer photographed by someone else, that someone owns them and (I doubt) might have given their permission for their use.
PPS. I predict crickets. Giant, alien-sized crickets.
To wit: "The picture is a “work of authorship” under copyright law (see 17 USC s. 101), and the photographer is the author. Of course, the photographer may license or sell these copyrights to someone else, but until he does something like that he owns them." You can read more here: https://www.quora.com/Does-a-picture...e-person-in-it There are several grey areas, having to do with model releases, etc. The article, however, goes into fairly decent and simple explanations of actual use of stolen photos for profit. And proving that is extremely easy if the photographs are used for advertisement, that part is actually very black and white.
Another thing - you can not really ask somebody "to delete it from their computer" as you've stated. it's not what it's about, not at all. BTW, I'm not making assumptions about your knowledge on the subject. Your statement of: "The problem with pictures is once they leave your camera, if you do not copyright them they are never just yours again." is simply not true. As in, not at all, as in "counter to actual facts". I honestly don't have a problem with that, rather, by the fact that my GF has made numerous rather sizable incisions in my brain on the very subject, I want other to also be aware of who the pictures actually belong to.
PS, The only grey area here might be who actually took those pics of Martin's and Bill's cars. If the pictures were taken by owners,or if owners have at least a partial ownership, it's clear. If they weer photographed by someone else, that someone owns them and (I doubt) might have given their permission for their use.
PPS. I predict crickets. Giant, alien-sized crickets.
I still notice that, in my experience and as far as I can tell, no professional photographer today posts pictures, proofs, etc. without some kind of written (not merely understood) warning/reminder about copyright/trademark/property claim either plainly stated in text and/or watermarks, and such. It is very obvious to me that this is a serious problem, and if it were so straight forward, such practices would be unnecessary.
Anyways, thank you all. I'm sorry my beginnings as a rennlister has been marked by a little controversy.
I just want to remind everyone that most of us who join public forums like this one tend to post some or lots of pictures (just check my introductory post elsewhere on this 993 section), and it is probably advisable to "kiss those goodbye" if you are willing to publish them. If not, do not post them. All anybody has to do is click on your pick and "voila" they take possession of it.
Cheers, drive safely, but drive fast
10-03-2017, 09:33 PM
#25
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
No worries, Hector, this beehive gets disturbed once in a while, it's all good.
I did want to point out that the pics are copyrighted by default, the moment they are taken (only in US, AFAIK). So this vendor puts themselves in a very precarious position by using them. Not a great idea and could be really expensive, y'hear?
I did want to point out that the pics are copyrighted by default, the moment they are taken (only in US, AFAIK). So this vendor puts themselves in a very precarious position by using them. Not a great idea and could be really expensive, y'hear?
10-05-2017, 09:22 AM
#27
10-05-2017, 11:04 AM
#29
Wow! How shady for them to misrepresent their aftermarket parts with pictures of a car with oem parts. Thanks to all who brought the truth to light.
Buyer beware!
