Im not a lawyer (although I did stay at a holiday inn this year) but I am a photographer. They...
1) Used your photo for printed sales material aka, they indirectly profit from your photo because it is on a sales/promotional item.
2) The photo uses your trademark, again, without permission.
3) Im sure they have sold whatever products are in that brochure.
They would owe you a decent chunk of change.
It would also depend on where they got the photo from. I don't know what websites, but I remember reading in a photo mag about how some online photos share sites own your photos if you upload them to their site. It would be in the agreement thing that very few actually read (places like Instagram). They might have bought the photo somewhere as a stock picture. I don't know if this is the case, where they would have gotten permission if they did, who the original photographer is, etc. just something I remember reading about some online photos sharing sites.
Either way i think it is crappy.
It would also depend on where they got the photo from. I don't know what websites, but I remember reading in a photo mag about how some online photos share sites own your photos if you upload them to their site. It would be in the agreement thing that very few actually read (places like Instagram). They might have bought the photo somewhere as a stock picture. I don't know if this is the case, where they would have gotten permission if they did, who the original photographer is, etc. just something I remember reading about some online photos sharing sites.
Either way i think it is crappy.
The law is pretty clear with intellectual property. I have a right to take Eddie's photo that's plastered all over the internet, and show it to my friends, show it on a forum that I own (I don't, just an example), put it in my newspaper with a headline "Jeeping, the new crack," etc, and it would all fall under the protection of "editorial"...meaning, factual reporting of a photo. If I use it for advertising, that is an entirely different ballgame, and would be stealing if I did not consent/pay the owner, even if the photo is available on all the sharing sites. Not only is the photo owned by Eddie as intellectual property itself, WAYALIFE is a registered trademark, which makes his case even stronger. Try to publish an ad with the coca-cola logo in it, and see how fast your phone rings with a lawyer on the other end.
Well stated. Also to note is that Coca Cola and the likes have huge legal teams on retainer. Trademark litigation is less often pursued because the costs of said cases doesn't always benefit a small business or individual. I'm certain Eddie will be all over this when the time comes. But I think he also knows the SEMA show floor isn't the time nor place. They've clearly documented the trademark/intellectual property infringement.
Oh I know, just wanted to express my disgust as a fellow photog that a company would steal his photo, AND use it for profit. I hope Eddie has a friend attorney that can at least write a C&D letter, if not a damages letter as well. Companies like this have no morals...watch them blame it on some clerk, claiming "we didn't know." Mothafvcka, there is a banner on the damn windshield, would it not behoove you to check out if the wording is trademarked?
The only C&D should be them not doing any more SEMA builds.
I think Wayalife has a C&D letter on file. This isn't the first time this has happened.
The only C&D should be them not doing any more SEMA builds.