Azulwheels.com STOLE pics of my car!
Thread Starter
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 970
From: Near Pittsburgh, PA
Azulwheels.com STOLE pics of my car!
So I have been having problems with the clearcoat on my Azul Speedmesh wheels bubbling and flaking. The wheels are shown in the pic below:
I am working on having them warrantied. I went to the website to see if they had any warranty info there. Looked through the car gallery, and...umm...is that my car?
They looked through posts on this forum, found and saved pics of my car, and re-used them on their website without ever mentioning anything to me! What ____ers!
http://www.azulwheels.com/cargallery..._xb/index.html
They also stole pics of another member's car:
http://www.azulwheels.com/cargallery..._xd/index.html
All of the photos were taken from this thread:
https://www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=192717
I think I will be giving them a call tomorrow...
I am working on having them warrantied. I went to the website to see if they had any warranty info there. Looked through the car gallery, and...umm...is that my car?
They looked through posts on this forum, found and saved pics of my car, and re-used them on their website without ever mentioning anything to me! What ____ers!
http://www.azulwheels.com/cargallery..._xb/index.html
They also stole pics of another member's car:
http://www.azulwheels.com/cargallery..._xd/index.html
All of the photos were taken from this thread:
https://www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=192717
I think I will be giving them a call tomorrow...
Senior Member
OhioScions
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 420
From: Akron, OH
Originally Posted by sizzlinscion
Actualy they do need permission. Its his property.
He created a thread mentnioning their wheels.
It's not like the pictures were used in bad taste, but as a nice gesture.
Could a simple email, "Do you mind if we use your pics of your xB with our wheels on there?" could have sufficed, but there's no property or copywrites with an image that isn't watermarked.
Think about how many sites get images stolen from on a daily basis, regarding avatars, smilies, banners.
It's the internet.
Senior Member
SL Member
Team ScioNRG
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,337
Since there is no watermark or other indication of copyright they don't have to ask to use the pics legally. However, it is in good taste and public relations to do so particularly since they are using 9 pics.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 247
Reason #27 that I try to take pictures that don't give out too much information about where I'm located. I do not mind people liking my car enough to display it somewhere for others to enjoy but! on my terms. (untelling locations, hide plate #, etc.).
Hey you spend thousands on mods to give them to some punk who wants to take them away because they can say "Hey I know where that house is" and then they plan to rip you off. No Way!!
Hey you spend thousands on mods to give them to some punk who wants to take them away because they can say "Hey I know where that house is" and then they plan to rip you off. No Way!!
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 327
From: Sacramento, CA
The pics are his intellectual property. He gave ScionLife permission to display his pictures, not that site. He owns the pics and they are protected by copyright laws regardless of whether or not there is a watermark. This happens on Flickr all the time. Just because people post pictures on Flickr (w/out watermarks) does not give anyone else permission to steal them for commercial purposes. Sure, it happens, but it doesn't mean it's legal.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 852
From: Marysville, CA
umm no that gallery is a form of advertizing to them. you have to of had a release form signed for them to use the pictures. those pictures believe it or not will sell wheels.
Contact them ASAP with a lawyer and have them take the pictures off the sight or send you a release form or a deal to use the pictures. if you let people use them ir say nothing about it. people will do that all over the place.
Contact them ASAP with a lawyer and have them take the pictures off the sight or send you a release form or a deal to use the pictures. if you let people use them ir say nothing about it. people will do that all over the place.
Senior Member
SL Member
Team ScioNRG
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,337
Quoted from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
"§ 401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies1
(a) General Provisions. — Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
(b) Form of Notice. — If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements:
(1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright”, or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and
(2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and
(3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.
(c) Position of Notice. — The notice shall be affixed to the copies in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright. The Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, as examples, specific methods of affixation and positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy this requirement, but these specifications shall not be considered exhaustive.
(d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2)."
"§ 401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies1
(a) General Provisions. — Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
(b) Form of Notice. — If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements:
(1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright”, or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and
(2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and
(3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.
(c) Position of Notice. — The notice shall be affixed to the copies in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright. The Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, as examples, specific methods of affixation and positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy this requirement, but these specifications shall not be considered exhaustive.
(d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2)."
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 327
From: Sacramento, CA
I believe that has to do with registered copyrights, or is out of date - all work, written, photographed, etc. is automatically covered by copyright laws regardless of a watermark or copyright notice.
From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
Who Can Claim Copyright?
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
Notice of Copyright
The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.
Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.
The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.
Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 29
From: Keepataw Flats, IL
If you are feeling vicious and have a few spare bucks, I bet you could get a lawyer to bypass them entirely and file a DCMA takedown demand directly with their web host. Most hosts take those demands very seriously and will take down the website immediately.
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 12
From: Northern California
You, sir, are correct. The law says the copyright owner "MAY" (not "SHALL") put a notice on the copyrighted work, therefore it is optional.
Originally Posted by ScionicXTC
I believe that has to do with registered copyrights, or is out of date - all work, written, photographed, etc. is automatically covered by copyright laws regardless of a watermark or copyright notice.
From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
Who Can Claim Copyright?
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
Notice of Copyright
The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.
Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.
The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.
Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989.
