Calendar 2011
- Thread starter gv1.3
- Start date
- Status
1990timeismoney
Member +
picture sent
gv1.3
Admin
Hi all,
we got a lot of entries but unfortunately many were tiny photos and could not be used
The calender is now available at the below address, well done to everyone that had their fantastic machine featured!
http://www.cafepress.com/toyotagtturbo.427311439
we got a lot of entries but unfortunately many were tiny photos and could not be used
The calender is now available at the below address, well done to everyone that had their fantastic machine featured!
http://www.cafepress.com/toyotagtturbo.427311439
gv1.3
Admin
Hi all, we have had to remove a photo of TM Developments car from the calendar due to a claim of ownership by a photographer. We have now replaced this with the latest picture of the month winner.
The new picture is fantastic and the loss of the other photo, whilst unfortunate for Dave, will not detract from the overall appeal of the calendar.
The new picture is fantastic and the loss of the other photo, whilst unfortunate for Dave, will not detract from the overall appeal of the calendar.
glanzanut
Lifer
Tanz
Lifer
I suppose it takes all sorts,but still could always be worse...
gv1.3
Admin
It is what it is guys, they offered us the option of purchasing the picture but we make little or nothing from the sale of the calendar and they were looking for an amount in the hundreds so we respectfully declined.
We did state when looking for submissions that they must be photos you own.
We did state when looking for submissions that they must be photos you own.
norwichphoto
Fresh Recruit
The amount given was what it would cost to license an image from an image agency such as Getty Images or Alamy for worldwide distribution rights. It was meant as a discussion starter, not as a discussion ender. Getty would have simply sent a bill for $ 2000 as a fine, followed by a court summons.
What I really objected to was the clause in the original things stating 'By sending the photos you agree that you own the photo and you release all rights of the picture to toyotagtturbo.com This is an unfair term.
All photographs are automatically copyrighted to the person who took them (with a few exceptions), and even if someone buys a photo (print or digital file), the overall copyright remains with the photographer, and that is me. Dave and Darren can use TSS images for their personal and TM Developments marketing, but they don't own the copyright, and hence can't give it away to TGTT.
Whilst I have not been active on TGTT for a while, I was on the old forum as toyotasera.co.uk, with many hundreds of postings, and I run the Toyota Sera Club. I am also a motorsport photographer so can see both points of view.
What I really objected to was the clause in the original things stating 'By sending the photos you agree that you own the photo and you release all rights of the picture to toyotagtturbo.com This is an unfair term.
All photographs are automatically copyrighted to the person who took them (with a few exceptions), and even if someone buys a photo (print or digital file), the overall copyright remains with the photographer, and that is me. Dave and Darren can use TSS images for their personal and TM Developments marketing, but they don't own the copyright, and hence can't give it away to TGTT.
Whilst I have not been active on TGTT for a while, I was on the old forum as toyotasera.co.uk, with many hundreds of postings, and I run the Toyota Sera Club. I am also a motorsport photographer so can see both points of view.
Last edited:
gv1.3
Admin
As I have informed you already via email, as a policy we do not pay for content regardless of if the initial figure you quoted was a discussion starter or ender.
I am well aware of how the laws work, I think your comment regarding Getty simply sending a bill followed by a summons are a little naive. Such matters are rarely so clear cut however we respect media rights as is extremely evident on this site and your photos have been removed as soon as we were informed the material was delivered to us in error.
I would recommend water marking and/or making it more clear to your customers the usage rights they have when purchasing your photos.
You view the term regarding releasing all rights as unfair, that is your opinion. It is then down to the individual to choose if they wish to submit their picture or not, if they choose to that is their decision and if they deem it fair that is their decision.
You need no introduction to me, I am well aware who you are, the previous site owner advised me.
I am well aware of how the laws work, I think your comment regarding Getty simply sending a bill followed by a summons are a little naive. Such matters are rarely so clear cut however we respect media rights as is extremely evident on this site and your photos have been removed as soon as we were informed the material was delivered to us in error.
I would recommend water marking and/or making it more clear to your customers the usage rights they have when purchasing your photos.
You view the term regarding releasing all rights as unfair, that is your opinion. It is then down to the individual to choose if they wish to submit their picture or not, if they choose to that is their decision and if they deem it fair that is their decision.
You need no introduction to me, I am well aware who you are, the previous site owner advised me.
Dave@TM-developments.com
Trader
Had I realised that we could not use photos of our own car that were purchased on discs from Norwich photography I would have saved some money and taken my own. I now have several DVD's of photos purchased from the official TSS photographer that I cannot use and are useless to me. Lesson learnt!!
- Status