Know-How Exchange : Other

A lot has happened since the dawn of the internet. One thing is that copyright infringement is now rife - images, tunes, videos, you name it. Somewhere it'll be free on the internet.

My thoughts are running a different way to just standing up and looking tough. Too many people have done that, spent loads of money, hired expensive attorneys - and achieved nothing.

Nothing at all. The images, tunes or videos are still there - or they pop up somewhere else.

It's a never ending game of cat and mouse - and these days there are so many mice that the poor cats are both over-worked and on strike demanding better pay and conditions.

Now you say that a vault manufacturer has used photos that were taken in the bank itself. Whatever the legal ins and outs are is irrelevant. These things need sorting out before you have any more tours, okay?

Now my thoughts are how can you use this abuse to your advantage? You have in effect fifty free ads online. Looking at it from this perspective, isn't it a great chance to show the banks aren't just fuddy-duddies who lean on lawyers at every possible turn? Could you somehow do a blow-back on the vault manufacturer's website using social media (thinking twitter and facebook - or pinterest as it's an image!). That way the abuse would be both clear and to your advantage.

What are your thoughts on this?

I am not sure this is a copyright issue. Copyright protects words, designs, creations, etc. I suspect this bank didn't design or create the vault. If the bank used the vault as part of their trademark (think Wells Fargo and the stagecoach), then it could be protected as a trademark. Or if the original manufacturer of the vault uses it as a trademark design, they (not the bank) could go after the new vault manufacturer (think the design of a Coke bottle).

I think this could be covered under contract law (as you are allowing people to access private property), but what would be needed is some sort of non-commercial clause when allowing people to take photos. Basically, people can take photos inside the bank for their personal use, but anyone wanting to use it for commercial reasons (like for use in an ad) would need to get a permit (which the bank could charge for, or just not allow). If you didn't have that clause in place (probably doesn't have to be a signed contract, but you should have posted notice or have the tour guides should say this when they say the no pics of customers rule), it is quite possible it is unenforceable right now for these pictures.

Of course, this brings the question - why the worry about the pictures? Why not instead try to get people to post what bank the pictures are from along with the picture to get the bank some additional recognition.

Same caveats - I am not a lawyer.

[I'm a marketer, not a lawyer]

Anybody can file a civil lawsuit to prove alleged damages caused by another party, but what could the legal and business consequences be? You ask, "Is there any legality to sending a “cease and desist” letter .." you don't need permission to send a letter, but what could the consequences be? Which is why you need a lawyer (in your state) to guide you through the process and advise you of your options.

I would be happy to refer you to a good copyright lawyer in Southern California (if this is a California venue matter). See my profile for my email address.

I am not a lawyer and what follows is NOT legal advice. That said, I have studied aspects of copyright. Here's my opinion:

Unless the bank paid a photographer to take photos of its vault, and unless that photographer signed over all his or her intellectual property rights to that image to the bank, and unless the bank CEOs can prove beyond all doubt that someone is using one of THE BANK's official images, they can bitch, moan, and whine all they want but they don't have a leg to stand on—not from a breach of copyright point of view because no copyright has been breached.

The owners of ALL FIFTY websites can use the image in question under the terms of "fair use", or under Creative Commons (if the work has been labeled as such by its creator), or even public domain (again, if the photographer has released the work into the public domain).

All this talk about the bank demanding images be removed from websites is utter bollocks. If the site owners live in the United States, their rights to display the image of the bank's vault are protected under the First Amendment UNLESS the bank can prove or plead that the publication of the image is in some way defamatory.