I prefer simple colors and an accurate label.
Posted on 08/25/2013 7:52:24 AM PDT by BenLurkin
DETROIT (WWJ) – A local photographer is crying foul over an image that appears on a new set of public safety vehicles unveiled by the city.
Mayor Dave Bing handed over the keys to 15 new squad cars and 10 ambulances during a presentation downtown on Thursday.
Meantime, Bobby Alcott claims that a photo of the Detroit skyline featured on the vehicles is his under copyright — and that the Downtown Detroit Partnership did not purchase the image.
“I’m not trying to be mean about it. I’m not trying to be a jerk,” Bobby Alcott told WWJ Newsradio 950. ”I’m just saying it’s my property.
(Excerpt) Read more at detroit.cbslocal.com ...
how about a pack of wild dogs?
Too much truthful advertising could harm that city's reputation... couldn't it?
I prefer simple colors and an accurate label.
well there is a truth in advertsing law isnt there?
Might I offer a lovely SLOGAN to use in place of the graphics?
“We’re Detroit,..Trust Us About That”
The door handles look like UFO’s hovering over the city.
Just do a photo search of Detroit skyline and you’ll find thousands of nearly identical photos taken by thousands of different people.
If I had access to Roger Penske I would have told him that I would take the photo for $500 and signed all further rights over to him.
As far as the cars are concerned, I would have gone with a simple skyline silhouette.
"The vehicles were purchased with an $8 million donation from city business leaders — including Penske Corp. Chairman Roger Penske."
$320,000 per vehicle? I hope each one comes equipped with a RoboCop!
That is an excellent observation. A clever artist might sneak up and graffitti some death rays on those cars.
I agree.
His photo was evidently used.
That is not nothing, but it was not used in the actual production promotional materials.
The city would be wise to call him up, work out a mutually acceptable total and settle this.
even so, they stole his image to use for their mock-up. Why can’t or shouldn’t he still sue? Theft is theft.
It doesn’t make any difference if they used his image on the cars or on the mock-up. They used his image and did not pay for it. That is illegal. It’s a violation of copyright law. Photographers need to sue when their work is used without consent. Their work is being stolen. It’s just as if you worked for me for several hours and I refused to pay you.
Everything about this story is pathetic.
OT: Have you been called an “old soul” yet? I have, for thinking that a handshake is the only thing you need to make a deal final, and moreso because all involved parties are obligated to follow through and live up to the highest moral standards throughout.
We were born late.
All the city has to do is to get a pet judge to rule that the city skyline is an intrinsic property of the city and that the city itself owns the copyright to that skyline.
Works for me. It was his image that got the idea accepted.
If they used my picture to sell the idea of a good looking guy endorsing a product, then replaced it with some “Hollywood” stud, I would sue.
When the police drive the car do they have to do the Detroit lean?.
See if you can spot a caucasion in this pic. Is this downtown Detoit or has Africa moved out of third world country status.
What’s the point of this article? “Something bad happened, but, never mind, it didn’t.”
Fantastic news story, guys, really first-rate work.
Nice photo, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.