Scenario:  Photographer is asked by a local car club to bring some models along for some "spice" at a car show.  While wandering about, photographer and models are asked to take some pictures of a vehicle with the models.  This occurs with the full consent (and some direction) of the owner of the car.  The owner is given a business card with the photographer's name and number.

A couple a weeks later, the owner is emailed a link to a gallery of his photos, with an incredibly fair price list for prints (think super cheap wedding rates).  No reply.  Model likes a couple of 'em, though, and uses them from time to time on her site for self-promotion.

Years later, owner of car stumbles across model's site, calls her up and demands payment for the use of the car.  "How much?"  No answer, just feels "wronged".  "You'll be hearing from my attorney!" is his sign-off, along with referring to the model as a female dog.

Q: Is there such a thing as a "material release"?

She has since removed said photos as a courtesy (they weren't THAT great).

DB.

I am being punished and I am not allowed to tell you.

Yes and no...

A car is rarely unique enough to classify it as a work of sculptural art, but if it can be, then in order to produce an image of it you would have to get a license to reproduce the copyrighted work as part of your new work.

Also, copyright infringement, though having no legal bar to being enforced against someone not making money off the copyrighted image, is rarely litigated against those just using the copyrighted material for self promotion.

It is however always nice to give the owner a little note of appreciation in the mail, and perhaps go back and forth corresponding (and thus proving acceptance for arguments in the future such as this) on the uses you plan for the photos, and making sure that the owner of the car is okay with that.

Good meaningful question!  I don't know.

Well...there is such a thing as a property release if you plan on including those inanimate objects in a commercial shoot.....I use them all the time....but mostly for properties which end up in backround shots.....probably would apply to autos....

But if the car was only used in self promo.....and the model didn't make any money directly from it's image.....as in a car ad......shouldn't be a problem there.....

But in today's litigeous world people are always threatening to sue for one thing or another.....hoping you'll settle out of court.....it's a pretty standard tactic and used more with large companies with deep pockets wanting to avoid bad press......

I've had more than my share of "lawyers letters".......I just sent them back letting them know I'm out of work and broke.....and never heard from them again....lawyers only persue the smell of money......regardless of what a client might demand.....no money...no case

If the car was in a public event; No !
send  him a pic of  a naked model in the car !  that what he is pissed about!