Have a number of commercial sites selling car related products and have recently been contacted by the likes of Toyota about some of the images we use. It would appear they feel they have the right to ask us to remove photos that they dont own and havent taken that have pictures of Toyota cars in them. They seem to think they have the right to request we remove any images that contain any Toyota vehicle. Just wondering if anyone else has had this kind or request and what the legal stand point is if anyone knows
1. Is it Toyota or some other entity? 2. In their request do they acknowledge not owning or taking the photos in question? I agree it would be odd for a major car company to demand removal of photos you have the right to just because they happen to have a Toyota car in them, unless the photos were somehow defamatory or otherwise causing them injury... but I would suspect they would have mentioned that in the request. I can see where someone would take a close up of a car logo and use that photo in a manner to make it appear they were operating some official site. I could see in a case like that were a photo they did not take or did not own could still violate their rights.
Toyota and Honda to date. Nothing has been said about ownership of image just about trade marks I believe so far. The concern seems to be the implied relationship between our site and the car manufacturers by using images showing the manufacturers vehicles. The issue with car logo's has been mentioned with shots that show the manufacturers emblem either in the interior or exterior of the cars. The question becomes at what point is that argument unreasonable. The reason being some of our sites sell car body panels and as a guide to assist people in picking the correct panel for the vehicle they own. we list the vehicle models and marks along with images to assist in the correct selection. Without the visual assistance the correct selection of a body panel or other such replacement part is much harder for the customer.
Without seeing the photos in question it is hard to answer this question. If you are just using random car shots that don't focus on their label it is hard to see their complaint. There was an appealate case out of the 9th District (west coast) where the name lexus was used in the domain, buy-a-lexus-now, in which the court said since the site was selling the lexus cars legitimately, Lexus could not complain. I think their is a lot of similarity with your issues. If you are getting letters you should not just ignore them, but rather, answer that you do not feel they are correct in their analysis of the situation.
Thanks for the info on case law. We are however a UK based site and im not sure how and if US / International cases would apply to an argument in UK law. Your comments do however very much interest me as we have had domain name issue for having the very same practice and as such took a couple of domain off line for fear of legal action. Here is an example of what concerns me currently with the use of images. I think it is unreasonable to declare an infringement on copyright or ownership of such images Thanks again
Everything looks okay on as far as the images on that page. I can't see what they would be complaining about. Of course, I don't know precisely what they complained of in their letters to you. I do agree with jaffe though, and I would respond that I do not agree their analysis that the images in question are being used improperly and if they disagree to please provide you with more information supporting their assertions. (I would take down that URL from this thread. There is no reason to post it publicly. You can just send it in a PM to attorney jaffe so he can give you his thoughts as well)
This is a civil matter there is no crime committed to be tried in crown court. The courts in UK are company’s they there to make money. A crown court is there to enforce the law of the land so can not make money.By responding back to letters you are falling in some sort of contract. If you did get a court letter then send it back saying NO CONTRACT as it does need your approval (your consent of contract)Lawyers make money from enforcing Acts and acts can only be forced with consent that’s your consent and it will cost you money one way or another as when you consent you get the ball rolling lawyer gets paid going to court you go court…. And so on and did you know if you agree to consent they can pass sentence without you in court. Why you may ask they can sentence you without you there because there is a case and you passed it to the court to decide (you concented).