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

I'm going to play Roger Ebert here and I have to tell you, if you don't have this book in your library yet it is WELL worth having...just got mine Thursday and it is great!!! You literally can't put it down. Beautiful examples, well illustrated, very colorful. I guarantee you won't be unhappy!!

There are SO many cool signs out there....

Where did you get this book? I looked in the bookstore section of oldgas and didn't see it...

Can you supply a link?

Amistadi's book is a long overdue. A fresh new book featuring hundreds of signs, neon and porcelain.

The price guide is the most accurate to date.
This hobby has needed a current, new book featuring many rarely seen signs and this is it.

A great combination of automobilia, gas and oil.

Nice job Rich!!!

To order Amistadi's new book go to;
pcmpublishing.com and click on books.

I ordered three myself..good value and fun gift to send to a good collector friends.

I plan on offering the Amistadi sign book here on Oldgas.com, but I haven't received a shipment yet. I'll make an announcement when they are available.
Order from PCM Publishing if you need one right away.

------------------
Jim "Oldgas" Potts
Your host and moderator

Let me know when they come in Jim. Anything that helps pay the bills is good enough for me..



------------------
Scott
www.frontrangegas.com

Great reviews!!! Sounds like a book I need. I'll watch for your post Jim and will order thru OldGas. Thanks.

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

Ralph, maybe I'm reading the prices wrong? there seems to be a huge area between the high and low ends. He writes that the prices reflect a grade 8+ so does that mean he's seen a grade #8 sell for the low end price?
I too think it's a great resource book, and to think that one guy has owned them all. Whew? do you suppose he regrets selling any of them? ha.


------------------
Don "oltoydoc" Sherwood
Vintage Gas

I'm wih Scootdog... Let us know when they are available...

He hasn't owned all of the signs pictured. Some one took a photo of one of my signs in my shop (I saw the book last Sunday & about s%#& when I saw my sign in the book!). Do you guys think I should call him & ask him where he got the photo?

Wayne Henderson added some photos to the mix, as a photo of one of my signs is in there, too - and that image was in the PCM classifieds 4 or 5 years ago.

Maybe you guys whose photos got published of your personal collection without your permission should see the author about your royalities. I can assure you that money is being made off your collection without your permission then you are intitled to something. Just my two cents worth since I was not allowed a while back to put a photo on this site that was sent to me by the owner then the owner decided that he did not want it published. I owned the photo and it was sent to me by the owner of the globe.

I believe that who ever takes the picture retains the right to the picture. This is why I always ask for permission to use a picture. When I was writing the Gas Pump ID book, I receivd a picture of a Wayne pump that I didn't have. I could not use it in the book because the owner would not give me permission. I even ask permission to take a picture of items that are for sale at swap meets, I feel the seller deserves this.
There was a picture of a twin American pump in an old issue of CTO that I couldn't use because I could not get ahold of the owner.
If anyone has a problem with the use of a picture I'm sure the Copywrite laws are posted on the web somewhere.
Jack Sim http://shop.vendio.com/handyjack

Maybe I think differently than most. I probably would feel a little bit of pride that something I owned made it into a resource book for other collectors. Let's be serious, I doubt anyone is getting rich of off writing resource books for our hobby. Just my two cents.

My feelings are that we should be glad that a fresh new autmobilia book is out and available. It is a tremendous amount of work producing a book like this and I sure would not want to tackle this project.

Why is anyone splitting hairs? Enjoy the new book.

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...

Maybe you guys can get a complimentary copy out of it, I would let him know how you feel, it may be a simple resolution.

The point of whether someone is making money or not has to do with the extent of damage the owner of the photo claims. Pros would be more likely to collect any damages. In this cover your *** society we live in
one should always try to get a release.

I never relized what a fine collection of stolen property I actually own(or do I?)

Good point, I once made the mistake of sending a picture to someone of an only one known wrigleys gum dispenser, he circulated the image so much thru scans and photocopies that a year later everyone was convienced that there was a bunch of them out there, which of course did affect the value of the piece.
I am not familiar with the signs in question but if they are unique that would agitate me as well.

I am a professional photographer and it is true that the law offer more sympathy to those taking pictures for a living.

I thought we'd get some feedback/opinions when I mentioned that one of my signs ended up in Richard's new book without my permission (wasn't sure if this would become a can of worms but I wanted to get other collectors' opinions). Well stated opinions on all sides. I'm not "looking for anything" as far as $$, credit for ownership, etc.; I just think that if you don't know where a photo of an item came from or don't have permission to use said photo you shouldn't use it. With Richard being in business I'm kind of surprised that he & his publisher would go ahead & print the book w/o checking on ownership of an item before using it. JMO

Property Of... marks mean nothing. Signs and globes were routinely discarded or sold as scrap. Lots of the stuff we coollect was actually given away!

Tom,
Could be whoever gave Amistadi that picture said the sign was his!

Funny thing....a repro guy sent me a cd with pics of original globes. He said they were for me to look at, but I couldn't publish them. Punch line: Some of the globes pictured were mine!

I believe it was Jason that asked why someone wouldn't want pictures of their stuff published.
1. They don't want it repopped. Not all reppops are marked. Some potential buyers might decide to settle for a repro, thus possibly hurting the resale value.
2. Security. As the value of our collections increase this will become a bigger issue.
3. Ego. Everyone likes to have something that most people have never seen.

A couple thoughts..

Having a pic of Your sign with no credit given can be a drag if you would like to have your name on it.

But far far worse is if you do not want EVERYONE IN THE WORLD to know you have a certain piece, to have your name connected to the pic without permission.

So I think that the photo credit issue should be dealt with securely before publishing.

If you only take photos they get around a bit less, IMO..

Wow! What a great country we live in.The fact that this subject can receive this much attention blows my mind. No wonder we can't agree on anything like politic's or religion.

i I do understand that "property of" means nothing on these items, just trying to say at one time they did. I think some of these corporations would, and do pay a hefty price to have some of there memorabilia back to show the history of there company. Lord only knows that when these advertising items were produced, little did they know that one day they would be fetching big bucks. Most are not even in business any more. The world of advertising is a great hobby to a "great majority" of us who enjoy bringing the past to present, but to others, we all know it is "strictly buiness". EGO, you got that right. We all want that rare piece that most people have never seen. What good is all these treasures to us that we possess if we dont't want the world to see. I for one have learned a great many things from these advertising books, my hats off to them. After-all, YOU sure can't take them with you...

Sodamamak,
My wife says when I die, she won't have to buy a COFFIN. She will have me buried in one of my smelly old stinking gas pumps, that never got restored or pictured in a book!!
LOL
db

ROGER THAT DB. I perfer to be incinerated on top of my 1895 John Wayne stage-coach..
LOL..............

This has got kind of morbid. I'm thinking
of a custom made 6 or 7 color porcelain
tombstone for myself. Not anytime soon!
Would have to be secure or some kid with a crowbar will have me hanging on the wall.

Dick, your wife could build a coffin out of 36b tops (wonder where she could find some....)

Tom,
She ain't stupid ! She will use a SMELLY STINKY gaspump full of spiders & dirt, then before all the dirt is on top of me. She will sell MY collection of stuff & take the trips WE never took !
LOL
db

Wayne Henderson of PCM Publishing told me he did the layout of the Amistadi sign book. He found a few of the photos being considered for the book were of lesser quality. So he substituted higher quality photos that had been submitted to Petroleum Collectibles Monthly for publication. PCM owns the publishing rights to those photos. Richard Amistadi did not make the decision on the use of those photos. Let's not beat him up for what appears to be legal use by the publisher.

------------------
Jim "Oldgas" Potts
Your host and moderator

I don't subscribe to PCM, I'm still wondering how he/they got the photo?? Guess I'll figure out who's taken photo's of my collection & see who "submitted it"...

Hey everyone.

As a person who works with Copyrighted Images and Registered Trademarks every day, I feel that the actual gist of this matter has not been addressed.

First off, let's get 'ownership' taken care of. Say you own a sign - or a globe - or whatever. You only own that item - not the Copyright or the Trademark - just that specific item. Everybody clear on that?

Now let's talk about photography. According to Copyright laws - the person who takes the photograph owns that photograph. This does not have anything to do with the ownership of the actual item itself - just the photograph. Once YOU take the photograph, you can use it anyway you want to. Remember, you own the image. If you want to use it in a book, sell it as posters, make it into T-shirts, etc. - you can do that without the permission of the person that owns the item itself.

Now there are a few things you can't do with an photograph. You can't take a photograph of a copyrighted piece of art - all by itself - and reproduce it. That would be Copyright infringment. By the same token, you can't take a shot of a Trademark (I.E. a Chevrolet logo) - all by itself - and reproduce it. That would be Trademark Infringment.

You CAN make a completely new piece of art (a painting for example) and show a Texaco gas station and a General Motors dealership with a Chevy sign out front. That is okay since you are making new art - and you will 'own' the Copyright to the painting a soon as you 'publish' it. Texaco and GM can't touch you. You won't own the Copyright or the Trademark for the Texaco or Chevy logos - just the actual image depicted in your painting.

Everyone clear on these points?

Now lets talk about the Amistadi book.

Any publisher will make you prove 'ownership' of every photo you intend to use in your book. They will require 'releases' from the person or corporation that owns the image. No publisher wants to be sued for Copyright Infringment.

Now that the book is 'published', Amistadi owns all the images in the book. They can not be reproduced without his or the publisher's permission. The original 'owners' have released their claims on the images and they now transfer to Amistadi.

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

Remember, if you let ANYBODY take a shot of any of your collectables - that person can do whatever they want to with the resulting photo. And if you submit a photo to a book or a periodical (or this web site) you are automatically giving permission to use the image as they see fit.

If anyone needs any more information. I'd suggest you visit the Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office web page: http://www.copyright.gov/

Later . . .

Jim




------------------
www.T-waysGraphics.com

[This message has been edited by T-way (edited 07-14-2005).]

I always wondered how that worked. You did a great job ox explaining it. Thanks.

Thanks for explaining it Tway. I do have one question. What if someone takes a picture of your items without your permission. I'm talking about at your home or shop, not in a public setting. I heard a "discussion" between a guy that took a picture and intended to publish it and the guy that the object of the picture belonged to.
It was in a public setting. The guy wanting to publish the pictures said he didn't need permission because the item was in public view. That makes sense.
The other guy countered with a comment that the same guy had photgraphed his collection in private without permission and published some of the pictures. The guy taking pictures didn't have a good response to that point.
I guess my question is what happens when the owner of the photo that was taken in a private setting didn't have permission to photograph it to start with?
I would think a person's right to privacy would outweigh the ownership rights of the photographer.

So what all this means is that the picture of the Sinclair Benzol globe that I "OWN" can be put on this website without the owner of the globe being able to say anything. Anyone want to see it?? Just let me know.

Not sure about the right to privacy issue.
But if you took it you own it(the image)I have taken thousands of polaroids of kids and Santa and I own the rights to everyone of them. I have been called for a release several times by Walmart and others when people show up and try to dupe one of my polaroids. If someone sneeks in, snaps a photo of your collection they can do what they want with it as far as publication.I
don't think there are alot of petro paparazzi
out there so I wouldn't worry to much.

Roger,
Tway said:
"Now let's talk about photography. According to Copyright laws - the person who takes the photograph owns that photograph."
1. You didn't take the photograph.
2. Even if you did, the rules of this site prohibit you posting it.

Buster,
"If someone sneeks in, snaps a photo of your collection they can do what they want with it as far as publication.I
don't think there are alot of petro paparazzi
out there so I wouldn't worry to much."

I don't know what the law says about it, but if someone took pictures of my stuff INSIDE MY HOME WITHOUT MY CONSENT and then published them, they'd have a problem on their hands!
I don't mind everyone seening most of my collection, but there are a few pieces that the only way anyone sees is by invitation only. Those pieces don't get photographed without my permission.
More of this stuff goes on than most people realize. I think we'll see more disputes about stuff like this as the value of what we collect goes up.


[This message has been edited by Lastgas15 (edited 07-14-2005).]

The picture was "given" to me. I own it now, not the taker of the picture. I read the rules of the site and nowhere that I can figure does it say I can't put a picture on this site that I own. Could you please tell me what part of the rules you are talking about? I can't find it.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this Web site. You agree to not send objectionable email to other members of this forum. You agree to not use a second forum identity in a deceptive way.

Those are the rules I read and can't figure out where it says I can't post the Sinclair picture. I own the picture, it was given to me freely, so unless there is something going on I don't know about, I still believe I should be able to post it. T-way, what is your take on it? Just curious.

It's the long standing policy of this site that we will not publish an image of an item when the owner of that item objects to its being published. Any further posts on the subject of the globe in question will be deleted.

Bob Drake
Lastgas15, oldgas.com administration

AND..........
Is it any wonder why the "legal industry" is doing so well in the USA? Everything seems to be an arguement anymore. And to
think...at a place we celebrate the past,
the modern day is having its way
LET'S MOVE ON....

Roger:

Sorry - but you don't own the photo unless the photographer signed a release to you giving away his rights to the image. He just gave you a copy of his Copyrighted image instead of selling you one.

If Copyright or Trademark law worked that way, I'd own the Harley-Davidson FatBoy logo on my bike. See what I mean?

Bob:

If someone takes a shot of one of your items (with or without your permission), they still own the actual pohotographic image. Unathorized photography is a different matter than Copyright law - it gets into Privacy Rights and other legal issues. If you sue - and win - the photographer can be required to give you all negatives/digital copies and can be fined.

Copyright law is different. For 'willful' Infringment of a Copyrighted image, the judge can award 'up to' $30,000.00 in fines PER IMAGE if they want to. The infringer also has to turn over all the files and any items bearing the Copyrighted image - and all profits resulting from the sales of the infringed images.

Most of us will not take photos unless we have premission. And I always ask beforehand if I can take a shot and if I can use the image on my web site for reference or future production.

Now things at swap meets or auctions are a different matter all together. Those are in the 'Public Domain' and I can shoot to my heart's content. After all, the stuff is being advertized for sale and nobody will buy something without seeing it. If the owner of the item doesn't want the public to see it - they should keep it at home.

Hope this helps.

Later . . .

Jim

[This message has been edited by T-way (edited 07-14-2005).]

Tway,
Thanks, that's pretty much how I thought it worked.

So T-way, if I interpret what you are saying, the next time I see an ebay listing or website using photos THAT my in-house graphics/photographer girl took, I have legal recourse against them?? Let's say I take a pic of an air meter that I am repo'ing to put in my catalog, then somebody pastes that pic into their ebay ad....I can bust them right? But what if it is a pic I took of a capco Texaco globe that I hold the license on? Can I go after them for using MY pic of TEXACO's trademark?
I'm not being specific so nobody get worried, I have given the go ahead to a lot of guys to use our pics, just wondering for the future....anyone remember F1ordparts from ebay....also know as fartech? That was his m.o.

[This message has been edited by Seth Robbins (edited 07-14-2005).]

Hey, this is great reading!! A lot of different opinions and very good legal commentary. We all should know the basics of tort law to handle disputes or, better yet, avoid them.

I'd like to point out that an individual may have the law on their side in these "copyright" or "privacy" disputes. However, legal remedies are very difficult and expensive to pursue. First, you have to identify and locate the offender (try finding a dishonest eBayer). Then, there may be substantial legal fees and court costs. Next, the outcome in court is always uncertain. Finally, it may be next to impossible to collect on any judgment rendered by the court. Been there, done that.

So, you have to ask yourself if all the effort is worth the time, money and aggravation. Ask anyone who's been in similar legal proceedings.

Just my two cents...

Paul

[This message has been edited by Pablo (edited 07-14-2005).]

[This message has been edited by Pablo (edited 07-14-2005).]

Seth:

Short answer - yes, you can go after them for using one of your photos.

I would suggest a 'cease and desist' letter/e-mail from your laywer. As mentioned (and I'm sure that you know already) laywer fees can get expensive. You can get 'reasonable fees' paid for by the defendant if you win - but you will have to front the initial monies.

No - you can't go after them for using the Texaco logo in the photo. If they 'produce' a Texaco product - then Texaco can go after them. Or if they produce the same item that Texaco authorized you to produce, you can both go after them.

If they buy a dozen of your globes and resell them - that's free trade. But they shouldn't use the image from your catalog to do it.

Later . . .

Jim



------------------
www.T-waysGraphics.com

Does this mean that a couple of people should settle out of court for an image that was COPIED [and posted on this site] to repoduce a globe to sell ? Wether they recieved a profit or items [to sell later]?

IF, I copy an image for personal use and don't make mulitples of to sell, I can be sued ?
db

Lets forget all the legalese and just enjoy the book- has many pictures that many of us would otherwise never see- discussion has most likely helped sell a pile of books- thanks don

------------------
Wanted 5 quart cans

I agree with Don. Its time to move on and have some fun.
Bob

I agree with Don and Bob. Let's get back to having fun and sharing the better parts of our hobby.

It doesn't look like I'll be getting the Amistadi sign book to sell through Oldgas for some time. I recommend ordering through PCM Publishing .

------------------
Jim "Oldgas" Potts
Your host and moderator