Legal or not, ticking off members of the most respected Mustang site on the web is not a good business decision for someone trying to sell products to Mustang owners.

Sure the image may have been public domain, but you really have to question the attention to detail (wrong dimensions as mentioned in a previous post) and the lack of initiative here (cutting and pasting a photo rather than taking a picture of actual work)... that's a bad first impression for someone in the DETAIL business. Not someone that I would want monkeying around with my $27,000 car.

 

I sent the guy who is running the auction a question/comment via ebay as to why he used a picture of someone else's car that someone else had taken and here's the response I got...

From:"Steve Cole" <steve6058@mchsi.com>

The picture was taken at Car City Autos in Pensacola, FL. It was on a lot so I did not think they would care if I took a shot of it.

Steve

So I reponded, "Strange, his driveway doesn't look like a car lot" and attached the original picture. Wonder how he'll try to wriggle out of that.

 

And his driveway is in Michigan...

 

Also, the guy is so bad at chopping and using light, it actually looks like the right front fender had been bumped!

Anyway, would you really buy off a guy that used such a poor quality picture (after he had butchered it)? I know I wouldn't. First impressions count for everything!

 

It's so ovious with the reflections, shading or lighting that it's the same freakin car, mirrored. Sounded like that guy was reaching for an explanation.

 

That a terrible photoshop I wonder why he got rid of the stripe on the lower bumper

 

Guys, take a good look at the two pictures. The The E-bay photo the stripes do not lineup the same. Line the stripes to the fog lights, they do not intersect the fogs the same and they stop on top of front fascia. The pony is not centered. Windsheild washers are the same, only part that is right. Although it does look to be a copy it has a lot of misalignments. The orginal is much better.

 

Here's the latest reply from "Steve"
From: steve6058@mchsi.com

We may be talking about the wrong auction. You had referenced the 2005
Mustang
auction. It is a black car with silver 8" stripes. The background is
yellow.
There is not a driveway in the picture.

Steve


So I guess the car lot there in Pensacola is entirely bright yellow. Wow, I guess that really grabs people's eye as they drive down Pensacola Blvd.

 

hahaha why would he try to lie his way out of it

 

Look at the lighting and coloring on the hood, but think mirrored. The same colors on the hood are present in the same locations for both pics. They photoshoped the stripes from the bumper because their kit doesn't go all the way down. They also photoshoped the reflection of the trees from the hood.

 

Look at the reflection on the lower right side of the front bumper
(On the picture from e-bay), there appears to a red car or something
there, now look at the origional picture, the same object is reflecting
on the left side of the bumper.

The pictures are the same, the one from e-bay has just been "edited"

Also I believe if you contact e-bay with this information they will
pull the auction, I am pretty sure there have been posts on here
previously with the similiar situations.

 

I think its more than that. I don't know copyright or trademark law, but I would think it would have to be registered or something akin to that.

 

the mustang source logo was covering a little piece of the bumper, that's why they chopped a little bumper away...

And AAAAAHHHH where is the freakin antenna???????
One of the most funny things (i think, because the kept it there on the hood since '64½)...

Rien

 

Actually look at the reflected pony emblem on the bumper, its facing the wrong way, indicating the mirror of the original.

 

I mirrored the original and put them side by side.

 

I am sure that having a copyright logo or writing would make any court case a much simpler matter, but it is NOT required for a copyright to be in effect. All created material (music/paintings/writings/photographs) are the property of their creator and a copyright is implied, that is federal law. It is possible for the artist/creator to waive his inherent copyright protection by posting his work in some places but that waiver MUST be agreed to by an EULA.

 

I am sure that having a copyright logo or writing would make any court case a much simpler matter, but it is NOT required for a copyright to be in effect. All created material (music/paintings/writings/photographs) are the property of their creator and a copyright is implied, that is federal law. It is possible for the artist/creator to waive his inherent copyright protection by posting his work in some places but that waiver MUST be agreed to by an EULA.
[/b][/quote]

Except when it is posted in the public domain.

 

BZZZZT...wrong.

The internet is not a public domain, it is publicly accessible, but the CONTENT of just about every website ever made is copyrighted material unless it says otherwise. When I post a picture I took of my car I am allowing you to view it, but not steal it from my website and use it on your website.

The catch may be that when you post your copyrighted material to the cardomain website you waive your own rights as the creator of the material thus alleviating the cardomain folks from any infrigement. But that does not mean that any one else is entitled to use the material and call it their own, which is clearly what has happened here.

Plaigarism and copyright violations happen everywhere at all times, even more so on the intardnet, if it is done without any personal gain there's usually nothing to be done as far as prosecution, but if it is done for profit (even for a college paper/exam) people DO get sued for copyright infringement. This is clearly a case where a person has stolen the artwork of another and used it for the sake of making a profit, all he ebayer needs to do is obtain written permission from the photographer to use it and all is well/legal. heck, personally speaking I'd be flattered if someone wanted to use a picture I took in their advertising.

 

I think its more than that. I don't know copyright or trademark law, but I would think it would have to be registered or something akin to that.
[/b][/quote]

The creator/author has an automatic copyright in material when produced, however the copyright has to be registered to enforce it.

 

Who cares? Seriously, you guys are wasting your time.

Unless you really want to take this to court which you don't/won't, stop making a huge fuss over this.