Spy photo on private property

[Drew Phillips]

Another photographer I know took a photo of an unreleased car on a dealer's property. He knows they would be upset if he released the photos. Are there legal issues shooting a car on private property compared to public property?

[John Thawley]

I would guess it depends on how visible the car was. Did he have to trespass to take the photo?

The operative word is "reasonable." People are entitled to a "reasonable" amount of privacy. If Britney is out walking in public.. she's fair game. If she's lying by the pool in her backyard and you poke your lens through the bushes, that's a bit unreasonable.

So... I would think the same goes for the car. If it's sitting there and I can see it driving by... the car is out in public.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer... nor do I play one on TV.

[Stephan Bauer]

The car was in a dealership showroom

[John Thawley]

The car was in a dealership showroom
phhhh..... Game Over!

Unless the dealer specifically asked you not to take a picture... the car is on public display. I'd say all bets are off. You don't need to be a "spy" to spot a car in a dealer's showroom.

[Stephan Bauer]

phhhh..... Game Over!

Unless the dealer specifically asked you not to take a picture... the car is on public display. I'd say all bets are off. You don't need to be a "spy" to spot a car in a dealer's showroom.
Thats just the thing, They did ask me not to take pictures :confused: But I couldn't just not do that with what was standing infront of me. I have someone interesting in purchasing the pictures, Do you think a legel trouble can come of this?

[Jeff Wilson]

What car company allows unreleased product to be displayed in a showroom??? wow.

[Drew Phillips]

The car was built by the dealership.

[John Thawley]

Selling becomes another issue. I don't know... I mean, what's the big deal with the dealer? Doesn't he want to sell the car? If he doesn't want anyone to see it, why have it in the showroom.

None of this makes sense.

JT

[Mike Ditz]

I don't think we are getting the whole story. I don't think that car on display in a dealership would have much value as a spy photo. More details, maybe?:confused:
If you are in the dealership, and you take a picture of the top secret car that the dealership built after they asked you not to, then sold it to a magazine and you are pretty much at the mercy of the dealerships lawyer (what could be sleezier than a car dealership's lawyer?) because they have the right to publicize their product, not you. Even if you think that you are doing them a favor.

But that's why it's called spy photography, .:cool: call Brenda Priddy

[Paul Hansen]

If it's in a dealership showroom on public display, and simply is not known to the general public/magazines, I don't think there is any issue here. If anybody can walk in off the street and take a look at it, it's not really private, is it?

[Morgan J Segal]

It's private property, you were on their property (they had the right to throw you out,), the car was not out in the public (Unless you could have taken the photo from the street)
If they asked you not to take photos, you should have respected their request. If you go and sell the photos you are an A-hole IMO

[Jim Sykes]

I dont know if I'd go as far as calling you an A-hole, but I agree with Morgan to the extent that you were invited onto private property, into a private showroom and asked not to take photos. If you did, then you were violating your agreement to be on their property.

While in the end I dont know if you could be held legally in trouble, but I bet you would have to spend a pretty penny trying to defend yourself against it.

Now, if you can take the photo from public ground into the showroom, that is a whole different story.

[Mike Ditz]

It may or may not 'illegal' but it is certainly 'unethical'. And just think how difficult you are making it for the 'next' photographer that the company deals ("we asked the last guy not to take pictures of our secret Blastomatic 5000 but he did anyway...") with you really are not making a very good impression and are perpetuating the common image of the photographer as a jerk (or A-hole as Mo so eloquently put it) .

[Todd Spoth]

agreed with the above posts. you'd be givin photographers a bad name like bon jovi dude.

[Phil Royle]

It sounds to me like you really really really want to sell the photo. If you're determined to sell it regardless of what anyone here says, talk to the buyer and tell him exactly what happened, and how you were asked not to shoot a picture but did anyway. If the person you're selling to does this for a living, he'll probably have a better idea than us as to the legality of the issue. If he's not a pro, consider how much a lawsuit may cost you if you get sued for this.

Honestly, though, I also don't think the entire story is being told. This sounds like a dealership bolt-on car, like what Galpin does in LA. None of the cars that dealership pumps out are special, and nobody would be interested in buying a picture of a Mustang with $15k of crap glued to it -- especially when that car is readily accessible to everyone. Spy shots are worth money because it's hard to get those shots. This sounds like a shot anyone shopping for a car could get, making the image virtually worthless.

[Mike Ditz]

snip.. This sounds like a dealership bolt-on car, like what Galpin does in LA. None of the cars that dealership pumps out are special, and nobody would be interested in buying a picture of a Mustang with $15k of crap glued to it -- especially when that car is readily accessible to everyone. .


:rolleyes: Man, some of that crap that Galpin does is really pretty funny, I don't think they intended it to be however. they make the Pimp My Ride guys look subtle and classy.

[Drew Phillips]

I'll let Stephan fill you in with the rest of the story if he wants to.