Over the years I have noticed many contributors to this forum share a passion for photography as well as for cars. There seem to be many enthusiasts and a few professionals in the crowd. So I decided to post this to learn from the advice and feed back of others.
Recently, I have started to dabble in stock photography. I am enjoying the challenge of having some of my better pictures objectively analyzed and then accepted or rejected for sales based on their merits. I was looking forward to creating and using some great shots of my 991, only to discover that apparently the visual appearance of a Porsche is copy write protected from “every angle, bumper to bumper”. I can take as many picture of my car as I want, but I can’t legally use them for commercial purposes without a release. (Or at least it is tough sell in the world of stock photography)
Now, I have seen many images of Porsches for sale, and even purchased a picture on one of my own cars taken by a pro. Many pro photographers have made great car shots is their special nitch.
What have other people done about this issue? What rules do you follow?
I am still planning to get some great shots, but I am just wondering if they can be put to good use.

 

Where did you get that info from? What you state is not copyrightable. It's like saying a picture that you take of the Grand Canyon cannot be put to commercial use by an individual.

I may be wrong but I think if you take a picture of a subject and with permission for the owner, you can do what you like with it. You can copyright YOUR image and others may not reproduce that image without your permission.

 

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a lawyer or a pro photographer, so I am not the expert. But, I got it from the company that I am sending my images to actually.
Apparently, there are many items, buildings, and places that can’t be photographed for commercial purposes without a release. Examples that I have read about include Porsches, and Ferraris, any picture taken from inside a Disney park, and the Eifel tower at night. I guess the argument is that it is like taking a picture of someone else’s painting selling the photo and keeping all the money. In that example I have great sympathy for the painter, but for Disney and Porsche… not so much.
Sounds silly to me, but I also recognize the importance of respecting other peoples work.

 

find another company

do you think 6speedonline or rennlist require a photo release from mother porsche everytime we post pics of our cars on their forum?

 

Speaking of pictures, where do you find these girls that pose on your car? Are they copyrighted?

 

This is a super interesting topic OP. Lets dig around and figure out whats fact, legal, enforceable, and workarounds.

This may be something to do with the argument presented by your agency:

http://boingboing.net/2008/01/13/for...wners-are.html

 

Selling it for monetary benefit is the issue of interest here..I'm curious how this unfolds.

 

It's not a copyright issue Cars may be protected by trademarks and design patents, not by copyright. When you take a picture of a commercial product, which photo is actually protected by copyright, wherein you depict the trademark you may be committing trademark infringement if the photo is offered for sale

If the use of the trademark is minimal (and an attorney may be able to tell you whether its use is de minimis) then you be able to use it and sell it.

 

john doe puts his Porsche pictures on 6speed/rennlist forums, they use this in part to attract advertisers to their site (check the vendor directory). do you think the forums don't charge these companies.

what would be interesting is too see how many (if any) of the vendors have a release from Porsche to display our cars with their accessories.....

 

The issue you are raising is: What is Fair Use? The display of the image of my vehicle and those of my friends may be published without infringing on the rights of Porsche. It is fair use. Would the sale of a photo of the Porsche crest be a de minimis use? Prob not.
How about Andy Warhol's paintings or Campbell Soup cans? I always wondered about that one.

 

Rnl
Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize for using the incorrect terms. I recognize that for matters of law, precision of language is very important, and terms that seem interchangeable to the public may have vastly different meanings.
Still I am having trouble with the idea that you pay money to own a car and you don’t on the rights to it’s image. But I guess that if I am willing to accept that buying a can of soda doesn’t give you rights to all of Coca-Cola’s branding material, then I can come around. What I am still having a hard time with is that I read that it is not just the crest, name, and logos, but the very shape of the car that is protected. The image of every curve, crevice and vent is considered proprietary; even if you avoid or remove the all the logos. Any thoughts on this?
Also, I am not familiar with the term “fair use”, but the concept seems reasonable. But if you think about it, images used on this and other sites keep people on the site longer, and increase the number of clicks or interactions with the site. Both of these are important metrics for increasing advertizing revenue. So while there are no dollars exchanged for the pictures, the use of the images has very real monetary implications. Is this still considered “fair use”?

 

I've just talked to Porsche NA. Their response regarding the use of their cars as a subject in an image whether for personal use or commercial use:

As long as there is no defacing of the logo and brand the photographer is entitled to use the image as their own and do with it what they wish. The photographer is liable to protect their own works via their own copyright. PCNA will of course not be liable for and third party claims or references.

In short... you are free to take and market your images as you see fit.

 

Some of the after market mods I have seen on the 911 are criminal but not illegal. I would take the best pictures I could and not worry about it. The worst that would happen is they would ask you to pull it.

 

Thanks for all the insights, and thanks Haku for putting in the call to Porsche NA. It seems like the main issue is a disconnect between the risk Stock photo companies are willing to take and what Porsche NA actually considers a problem. Ironically photoshoping away the badges and the branding, as is sometimes recommended, may actually be what angers Porsche NA the most.

 

^ thanks to you Airdoc that I learned a few things.

I think the real issue is to apply common sense whilst being aware of "fair representation and fair use" that we would all like for our own services and products.

I am still intrigued to find out which stock photo outfit rejected your pics and in particular to check out their terms and conditions which I presume are the basis of their objection.

This info regarding copyright from ShutterStock:

"Copyright is a form of legal protection that gives the authors of a creative work 
 the exclusive right to display, reproduce, distribute, and financially benefit from 
 the work they create. Authors of artistic works can provide permission to others 
 to do the same – and can choose to do so for compensation – which is the 
 fundamental premise behind “licensing.” The right of copyright is found in 
 most countries’ laws and is respected internationally through conventions. 
 There is no universal copyright law, and protections can vary by country.
Ideas are not protected by copyright. However, authors’ expressions of ideas are
 protected. If an unauthorized person copies original elements of another person’s photographs or designs, and if those elements are “substantially similar” to the
 original work, that person can be held liable for copyright infringement.

So what does this mean for you?

First, it means that you own your photographs. When you submit them to 
 Shutterstock, you are providing Shutterstock with permission to license 
 the images to photo buyers on your behalf.
Second, it means that you should be careful to avoid copying any original 
 or unique elements of another person’s work. In just the same way that 
 you have protections and rights afforded to you by copyright, so do other 
 artists and authors.

The best way to steer clear of copyright issues is to simply focus on 
 creating original work. Be your own artist. Avoid copying the work of 
 others. It’s not worth the risk.

When Shutterstock pursues copyright infringement Shutterstock pursues copyright infringements, including the following:
• Unauthorized use of your images.
• When one contributor copies another contributor’s work.

Copyright issues are taken seriously, since they can result in legal disputes 
 and they can affect customers’ perception of the integrity of the archive. 
 Our goal is to have a safe and secure marketplace for everyone involved.

For more on copyright laws in the U.S., see: 
 http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf"