Primarily Petroliana Shop Talk Forums Shop Talk Petroliana Forums General Petroliana Discussion Amistadi's Antique Advertising

Hi Ralph, and group. It is more than "splitting hairs". Just because you take a picture does not mean you own it nor the right to reproduce it. I am all in favor of the resource books and really appreicate it. But, unless the item being photed is in the public domain, or you have permission (written) a person is opening themselves up to lawsuits etc. Again, I agree with wanting the best resource books available. The property still belongs to the individual, not the hobby. I, too, would be proud to have one of my items in a resource book. But the law is fairly clear and the it is still an individual right. Sorry if I sound like a wet blanket.

I really don't think all the resource books are being written for the fun of it. I think there must be a buck or two in it, or it wouldn't be done! My 2 cents (or maybe 1)
worth.

------------------

I don't mind people taking pictures of things in my collection; however, I agree with Alex & Roger. If you're publishing a book with images of other people's items I'd think that you'd ask permission to use those images. I think I'm going to try to get in touch with Mr. Amistadi to here his side of the story. I'm glad that he went to the trouble to publish the book, I know they're alot of work.

Does it really matter where he got the pictures?? Anyone that takes the time to put together a guide for the rest of us should be applauded, as opposed to what is going on in this forum. Some of you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Why not be happy that Mr. Amistadi has published a guide that will help all of us. Your sniggling and bickering about "royalties" if he happened to use one of your pictures is total BS. Are you in this hobby for fun? education? or for the almighty dollar? If Mr. Amistadi happened to use a picture of one of my signs... I would be proud to have been a participant in helping this hobby. Please learn to Help the Hobby...and quit acting like a bunch of selfish children.

------------------
Frank

[This message has been edited by FrankSargent (edited 07-11-2005).]

I wasn't going to give a reply to what Frank said, since I am new to this web site. But that being said I couldn't keep quiet. I have had people steal images of mine, have found them in racing magazines and books. Even found a photo of myself next to my car, with the author's name submitted in place of mine. My photo his name. Theft is theft! That is the reason we have copyright laws. The author of this book (I haven't seen it) wrote it for one reason, to make money. And if he has a large reading public, he makes more money. I am in the process of writing a book about racing the Can Am and IMSA series'. The first thing my editor asked was if I had releases for all photos and all quotes. Sorry, seems like a no-brainer. You use a photo you give credit and have a release. What say the rest of you?

Regardless of where you come down on this issue (there is merit to both sides), good luck trying to enforce photo piracy of any kind. Being in the catalog & web business, I have spent months & tons of dough taking photographs (Ralph knows this better than I do), only to find my photos in ebay listings, on other websites, in magazines, books etc. There are the rare occasions where people actually ask which is nice, but 95% of the pics of mine used are done unauthorized. GUESS WHAT....unless I have done something to the pic to GUARANTEE that I took it, there is nothing I can do. IF, I can prove it's mine, then there is the wonderful world of litigation to get involved in. The bottom-line is this: if it chafes you for others to use pics of your stuff I suggest not letting any outsider photograph anything you have! People inevitably share them with others and they get downloaded & saved and passed around and the next thing you know, your Texaco sign ends up in someone's book. I for one would be honored if I owned something nice enough or rare enough to make a price guide. As for these guys writing books to get rich....don't bet on it. Most do it to establish themselves as an authority, which for the research involved, I believe it cements their status.
I've never done it, but all these SPECIALITY hobbyist guides are considered short/small runs by the publishers. The authors are generally given a modest advance ($10,000-$25,000) and then are required to purchase a percentage of the printing. So for 18-24 months work, you get a little bonus check, a welfare-type royalty check & a butt-load of books. Bear in mind, I'm not endorsing or bemoaning the picture issue, just saying it goes on all the time and that these guys that bring a new book to the table deserve a pat on the back. I know what a dog-fight it is to put out a 100 page catalog that only gets tweaked once a year. I can't imagine doing what Jack did or any of these authors for that matter.

Seth/Vic's '66'

Using pictures of someone elses stuff is a touchy issue. Most people that want to photogragh my collection ask permission first. I don't mind buys taking pictures of my stuff for their own enjoyment, but I tell them which pieces I don't want published.

When we receive a picture for use on Shop Talk from someone other than the owner of the item, and we know who the owner of that item is, we contact the and ask permission. That's what Roger was refferring to.
A friend of mine had a picture of the same globe. I asked for a copy of it for use in the globe album. He respected the owners wishes to not distribute the picture.

Several years ago there was a dispute about some pictures that were taken at a swap meet. Its my understanding that if something is in public view its fair game to be photographed and published.

The author of the book may not know he didn't have the owners permission to use the picture of Tom's sign. The person supplying the picture may have mis-represented who owned it.

The mere fact that we are discussing it, shows that publishing images of other peoples items is an important issue.

I've gotten pictures from collectors and even from the repro guys of globes to view for my own enjoyment, but they don't want me publish them. I'll respect their wishes.

I do agree with Bob about the Sinclair Benzol picture. I sent him the picture ONLY to help the "globe of the month" topic. I had actually forgot I had the picture but found it searching through "my documents" one day. Only trying to help so everyone could enjoy the piece. It took me by surprise that Scott did not want anyone to see it since he had freely sent me the picture. It seems if he really wanted to promote the hobby it would be a good thing for everyone to see it. But in hindsite I guess it was his globe so I will let it be.

LastGas Said it best, "Touchy Issue."

Frank Sargent: "Does it matter?" Yes, it does. Ask Spec Cast who made the first diecast Texaco toy airplane without Texaco's permission. It was stopped and they were sued. Ask the people who own the Reddy Killowatt electric image. They catch you..they definitely will sue. Go to a print shop and try to use an image like Texaco on a business card and they (the good print shops) will make you jump through hoops to prove you have permission to use it. (I am working on a business card for hobby purposes and have run into that issue)Ask John Lennon (can't he is dead) about using the line "Here come old flat top..." in the song "Come Together". He borrowed it and was sued and lost. Big $$$. I can go on and on for examples.

Seth: Absolutely correct. Good luck trying to collect any damages for someone using your image. Almost like trying to unring a bell.

Bob Richards: Correct about signed releases. Look how his intellectual proprty was misused.

Roger Cherry's comment is a classic. "Only trying to help." I am sure his intentions were honest and honorable. But, that's when things often go wrong. I am sure Roger was not trying to do anything wrong. Seems like a decent person.

If you watch those "Cop" shows on TV and when they show some people with the faces blocked out while you can see others... It means they don't have permission or signed releases to show their faces. They are diferent than a news program. Anyway....fun issue to debate.

Test

Hi, Longtime listener first time caller.
As a professional photographer my 2 cents.
Yeah, permission should have been requested
and copyright law was broken. Now as to the
examples in the last post they were either
corp. owned copyright trademark images. Or
were taken by or owned by someone who makes money off their image. Clearly it would be hard to find much damage to a non pro who has
a photo published in a hobby guide through no malicious intent. I doubt Amistadi is funding his retirement from this. He should be applauded for his efforts to put such an
outstanding refrence guide together. Sometimes its easier to ask forgiveness rather than permission when dealing with amature photos. When dealing with professional copyrighted or trademarked
images evey effort should be made to get a release. I personally would be thrilled to have any of my signs pictured in any book for this hobby wheather I gave permission or not. It would be an honor.

It's clear that there is interest in this topic. Lets not let this get too out of hand.

My thoughts are simple, if you do not want pictures of your collection to end up in a book, on a website or plastered on a billboard; do not allow or take pictures of your collection.

Opinion: I am in favor of all the pictures being taken and used. The images created by other companies who actually owned the artwork itself. The mere fact of owning one of the signs or globes does not transfer ownership of the image.

Scott

I can understand why someone may be upset if his/her photograph was used without permission. That makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, I don't think one can do too much about that unless the photograph is clearly marked to show that it is yours.

However, I don't understand why someone would be upset if someone came to your house and took a picture of one your original signs or globes and it ended up in a book. Why would you not want a rare piece to be featured in a book so others could enjoy it? Does it take away from the value? Does the collector want it to be published that the piece belongs to them? Are collectors afraid that the piece may be reproduced? Maybe it is because I do not have anything that that rare to be worried about. I'm not criticizing anyone here, but am just trying to understand the viewpoint of owning a rare piece. Maybe I will be lucky enough someday to have to worry about this. Just trying to understand. ~Jason

Hi Buster. Welcome to the Topic. It really doesn't make a diference if someone is making any money or not. The question is whether you have the right to use the image. And a corporate logo vs. a personal item, really is not different. A real estate company can't come take a picture of your house and put it on their brochure because they like the looks of your house. Even if it is in a public place. I was in Las Vegas and one of the hotels shot a video of me, unbeknownst to me. (Sounds kinky, but it is not) Turns out they wanted to use it in their hotel advertising. It is still playing on the vegas strip by the way. The video was shot on their property in a public location. I still had to sign a release before they could use my image. I received no payment of any kind. I know this is all hair splitting and seems petty. I hope his book does well.

scootdog, have to agree 100% on that opinion. how many collectors out there have some hard to find, if not rare peices in there collection that say "PROPERTY OF ????"
i know i do. and,i spent a pretty good buck on them. i am not ready to give up my stuff to there "rightful owners" i.e., s.o.c.o.n.y., coca-cola, ect. we are sometimes a very "greedy" society...
we buy a sign from a dealer, and it says PROPERTY OF ???, are we buying stolen property ???. after-all, i doubt if graney's antiques had any permission to sell that peice to you..
just my 2-cents, not that it really matters, because it don't...