Toyota Leaves a Bad Taste in my Mouth

SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
edited August 10, 2015 in Other Cool Shots
Too long a story for right now but while at a light house located in Fort Brag CA trying for a sunset shot with the light house I couldn't even try because Toyota had a permit to shoot a commercial featuring one of their new vehicles.

No problem I thought............I could watch the commercial shoot and get some pull backs. After taking the snap shot on the vehicle pposted here the driver began shouting I was allowed to photograph the vehicle.

I found the person in charge of the filming and he stated he preferred I didn't photograph the vehicle but it wasn't a super secret vehicle so I it was OK to photograph it.

I also asked about taking pull backs and discussed holding back and publication or showing of the images until after their commercial aired.

He said no I couldn't photograph the shoot. The driver got testy and shouted I couldn't photograph the vehicle and he was in charge. When I asked for his name he drove off.

We all know I could have stayed and shot anything I wanted. The lighthouse is on a public land and open to the public.

My intent was clear. I wanted to salvage something out of the trip and be cooperative not posting anything until after their unveiling.

I was able to talk to someone with some common sense and we discussed the issue with a park permit person included.

While at least being calm and respectful he was telling me I couldn't photograph their shoot. I explained I could shoot anything I want, and I would only leave of my own volition, and if they disagreed I offered them my cell phone to call 911. I was direct but respectful about my statements.

I also was able to his dismay explain he could be photographed anytime he was in a public place.

Any way I left on my own. Too tired to challenge these guys any more, plus all the working folks, grips etc really didn't' need more grief.

I am going to send Toyota a link to this post and see if there is any response.

Sam
i-QwLZsMZ-L.jpg

Comments

  • ThelensspotThelensspot Registered Users Posts: 2,041 Major grins
    edited July 29, 2015
    I would be very interested in the answer you receive Sam. My take on the circumstances is that you had a right to shoot anything you wanted. Will be a lesson learned if you find out differently.
    "Photography is partly art and partly science. Really good photography adds discipline, sacrifice and a never ending pursuit of photographic excellence"...ziggy53

  • EaracheEarache Registered Users Posts: 3,533 Major grins
    edited July 29, 2015
    Fantastic image Sam! Love the birds...
    They should have just offered to hire you. deal.gif
    Eric ~ Smugmug
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,171 moderator
    edited July 29, 2015
    Subscribed to this thread. I'd love to read their response. That looks like a 2016 RAV4. The rear bumper trim and the front grille is different in the 2015. Was that the only vehicle, or were there other new vehicles present?

    EDIT: Not a secret anymore...
    http://www.toyota.com/upcoming-vehicles/rav4hybrid
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited July 30, 2015
    David_S85 wrote: »
    Subscribed to this thread. I'd love to read their response. That looks like a 2016 RAV4. The rear bumper trim and the front grille is different in the 2015. Was that the only vehicle, or were there other new vehicles present?

    EDIT: Not a secret anymore...
    http://www.toyota.com/upcoming-vehicles/rav4hybrid

    This was the only vehicle. I just left my phone number this morning with someone supposedly in marketing. so I am waiting as well. I will not drop it until I have exhausted all reasonable avenues to contact someone with Toyota involved in marketing or PR.

    Sam
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited July 30, 2015
    I would be very interested in the answer you receive Sam. My take on the circumstances is that you had a right to shoot anything you wanted. Will be a lesson learned if you find out differently.

    I am but a lowly unwashed no name of a photographer. I doubt Toyota would recognize me or you, or any of us even if we gave them the most phenomenal car photo of the century. :cry:cry

    BUT!!!!! The Peoples Republic of California recognizes me as a professional. I have a big camera, and have the ability to sell images. ne_nau.gif Even if I didn't have the ability today I could have the ability someday. There might be intent to sell here.

    They want me (YOU TOO) to get a permit to photograph in any state park. It does not matter if others, (not deemed pros) have a big camera, small camera, cell phone, or that you are walking side by side with identical gear. ne_nau.gif

    This was also an item of discussion with the CA state park permit gal at the lighthouse and Toyota shoot.

    This will require a whole thread of it's own. I am getting info and data. Look for a post in the next couple of weeks.

    You will not believe what I am going to tell you.

    It would be easier to believe aliens landed on the White House lawn.

    Sam

    PS: I really, really HATE to recommend this but if your in a CA state park and a ranger asked what your going to do with the images....LIE!!! You may be a 98% hobbyist, but if you so much as hint you ever sold an image you could be in for a surprise. Aint Goberment wonderful?

    Rant off:cry
  • willard3willard3 Registered Users Posts: 2,580 Major grins
    edited July 30, 2015
    If this goes to court, you will find that, if you are on public property, which the park is, you can foto anything you want.

    Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

    If Toyota wants privacy, they should hire a private site.
    It is better to die on you feet than to live on your knees.....Emiliano Zapata
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited July 30, 2015
    willard3 wrote: »
    If this goes to court, you will find that, if you are on public property, which the park is, you can foto anything you want.

    Been there, done that.

    If Toyota wants privacy, they should hire a private site.

    I am really sorry I posted anything about the CA state parks. This is a thread about Toyota. I diverged from that. My bad.

    It really wasn't so much they wanted to keep there little new vehicle under wraps but the way they handled it and their lack of understanding of citizen and photographers legal rights.

    Image is very important. That's why companies, like Toyota, spend a lot of time and money on commercials to present their products in the best light possible. They spend a lot of effort to promote their companies as the good guys. Proudly touting any charitable associations or money donated.

    I think equally important is how they interact on a one to one basis. Sure in this case I am only one no body, but the bad news in this little thing called the internet. :D

    Sam
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited July 30, 2015
    Quick up date...............I had a PR person return my call.

    I gave her a link to this post. But here is a kinda kink in all this. She works for a PR company and Toyota is her client. She does not work for Toyota. She claims the folks doing the shoot were subcontractors.

    She could not provide any names of anyone at Toyota.

    So I did get to speak with a subcontractor (the PR person) who stated to incident was with another subcontractor. To be fair she was trying but I am sure no one has ever raised a question like this. They don't train collage students with out of the box scenarios. :D

    My intent is to see what "TOYOTA'S" response in any is.

    Lets see what the results will be.:D

    Sam
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited August 3, 2015
    Update: The PR person sent a link to this post to Toyota and she said they would respond directly is they so chose.

    If you have any interest in photographers rights or how we are perceived and treated you may wish to leave a comment here for Toyota and other to see.

    No comments means no interest. No interest means no problem. No problem means no effort to look into and or respond. Why would Toyota or any organization public or private bother to address what they see as a non issue?

    You can help.

    Sam
  • ThelensspotThelensspot Registered Users Posts: 2,041 Major grins
    edited August 3, 2015
    Sam wrote: »


    ...I found the person in charge of the filming and he stated he preferred I didn't photograph the vehicle but it wasn't a super secret vehicle so I it was OK to photograph it.

    ...I also asked about taking pull backs and discussed holding back and publication or showing of the images until after their commercial aired.

    ...He said no I couldn't photograph the shoot. The driver got testy and shouted I couldn't photograph the vehicle and he was in charge. When I asked for his name he drove off.

    We all know I could have stayed and shot anything I wanted. The lighthouse is on a public land and open to the public.

    ... I explained I could shoot anything I want, and I would only leave of my own volition, and if they disagreed I offered them my cell phone to call 911. I was direct but respectful about my statements.

    ...I also was able to his dismay explain he could be photographed anytime he was in a public place.

    ...I am going to send Toyota a link to this post and see if there is any response.

    Sam

    Sam, I decided to look more closely at your initial description and reinforce in my mind why I think you had a perfect right to photograph the Toyota commercial shoot. In your own words you describe kindly indicating you would wait until the commercial aired before making public any pictures you obtained. On a side note, if you decided to publish the pictures beforehand what damage does that do to their commercial or their product? The number of people who would see the pictures is quite small compared to those who will most certainly view the official Toyota commercial as a first exposure to the product. Also, as you noted later in the thread, the car is already pictured for public viewing. The fact that they chose a public place and in an area accessible to the public (otherwise you wouldn't have seen it to begin with) suggest all the points you make above are valid.

    I think we have a classic example of over reaction to an individual (i.e. you) having a camera in a public arena and having every right to take any and all pictures you might have wanted to take. Having allowed you to take pictures freely would have in my opinion enhanced the Toyota image and indicated to others that they are extremely proud to have their product line made available for public consumption.
    "Photography is partly art and partly science. Really good photography adds discipline, sacrifice and a never ending pursuit of photographic excellence"...ziggy53

  • JonaBeth RussellJonaBeth Russell Registered Users Posts: 1,065 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2015
    The short and simple is the guy in the car acted like a wang, and believed he has the responsibility of keeping the car top secret. Plus, he probably didn't want anyone seeing what their professional filming setup looks like. Meh...not worth a ton of energy, since you could spend this time shooting more awesomeness, as you typically do.

    What is most important here is the fact that you had a DSLR in your hand and din't click it over to video so we cold also experience the outrageous conversations?! :)
  • ThelensspotThelensspot Registered Users Posts: 2,041 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2015
    ...Meh...not worth a ton of energy, since you could spend this time shooting more awesomeness, as you typically do.

    I respectfully disagree. It is the "not worth a ton of energy" approach which if individually adopted by all will result in our gradually losing our ability to freely shoot photography in more and more places. Keeping non-photog types in the know regarding our rights as photographers is an individual responsibility we all have. To react when those rights are inappropriately infringed upon perpetuates our ability to shoot "more awesomeness" in public places with fewer attempts at impingement of those legal rights. deal.gif JMHO.
    "Photography is partly art and partly science. Really good photography adds discipline, sacrifice and a never ending pursuit of photographic excellence"...ziggy53

  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2015
    The short and simple is the guy in the car acted like a wang, and believed he has the responsibility of keeping the car top secret. Plus, he probably didn't want anyone seeing what their professional filming setup looks like. Meh...not worth a ton of energy, since you could spend this time shooting more awesomeness, as you typically do.

    What is most important here is the fact that you had a DSLR in your hand and din't click it over to video so we cold also experience the outrageous conversations?! :)

    What???? You mean to tell me my 5D III will shoot video!!! Who knew?? :D

    PS: I should remember that. :D

    PPS: I wonder if I could make or find a cell phone cradle with a strap to hang the cell phone around my neck and get some video as well as voice?

    Sam
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2015
    I respectfully disagree. It is the "not worth a ton of energy" approach which if individually adopted by all will result in our gradually losing our ability to freely shoot photography in more and more places. Keeping non-photog types in the know regarding our rights as photographers is an individual responsibility we all have. To react when those rights are inappropriately infringed upon perpetuates our ability to shoot "more awesomeness" in public places with fewer attempts at impingement of those legal rights. deal.gif JMHO.

    While I do think you are correct, hence the purpose of this post.

    I am reluctant to take to task any one individual on this issue, but as a group you can see the lack of response seen here.

    We are fast becoming a nation of sheeple. Submit and obey.

    I am hearing the label "constitutionalists" being thrown around as if its a group of fanatical crazies.

    YET:

    The president of the United States makes the following oath:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Police Officer's Oath

    The widely used oath embraced by the International Association of Chiefs of Police reads, "On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency I serve."


    Shouldn't we all be "constitutionalists"?


    Sam
  • JonaBeth RussellJonaBeth Russell Registered Users Posts: 1,065 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2015
    In response to the above responses (lol that was fun), by "not worth the energy" I don't mean roll over and play dead. Personally, I'm all about conservation of our rights and privileges, and will quickly defend them. In this particular situation, however, the opportunity to teach that person a lesson has passed. The opportunity was there for the taking at the time of the incident, which would have been to politely disagree and continue shooting, as if his words were falling on deaf ears. Sure, conflict would have increased, but then the door is wide open for you to educate more than one person. Will that guy ever read this post? Hopefully, but most likely he's so self-absorbed with his own agenda that he'll never make the click to read these. For all of our own sake, I hope I'm wrong.

    This one person who gave Sam grief about shooting isn't going to single handedly remove our rights. We will do it ourselves by choosing to not exercise them amidst a challenge of such rights. It's the same concept as "I know I didn't have to let the police search my car, but it was easier to say yes, since I had nothing to worry about." Posting about it later would do nothing, standing up for your rights at the time does much more.

    Either way, on a global scale, I agree with you (Sam) 100%. Education needs to happen in the world of photography and the end-user. There's a huge movement over music rights, and the same should happen with photography. I'm proud to help represent such a movement.
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2015
    In response to the above responses (lol that was fun), by "not worth the energy" I don't mean roll over and play dead. Personally, I'm all about conservation of our rights and privileges, and will quickly defend them. In this particular situation, however, the opportunity to teach that person a lesson has passed. The opportunity was there for the taking at the time of the incident, which would have been to politely disagree and continue shooting, as if his words were falling on deaf ears. Sure, conflict would have increased, but then the door is wide open for you to educate more than one person. Will that guy ever read this post? Hopefully, but most likely he's so self-absorbed with his own agenda that he'll never make the click to read these. For all of our own sake, I hope I'm wrong.

    This one person who gave Sam grief about shooting isn't going to single handedly remove our rights. We will do it ourselves by choosing to not exercise them amidst a challenge of such rights. It's the same concept as "I know I didn't have to let the police search my car, but it was easier to say yes, since I had nothing to worry about." Posting about it later would do nothing, standing up for your rights at the time does much more.

    Either way, on a global scale, I agree with you (Sam) 100%. Education needs to happen in the world of photography and the end-user. There's a huge movement over music rights, and the same should happen with photography. I'm proud to help represent such a movement.

    I agree with your post and probably should have keep on shooting. Their opinion, statements did not really deter me, I we just too tired to continue.

    That said I know the folks at the shoot won't see this, but I have sent this link to Toyota and I am interested to see if they will respond. They can , if they choose, pass this info on to their subcontractors.

    Lack of response is also a good indicator of where Toyota stands with regard to pubic perception when it's on a small scale.

    It's kinda like a guy who only return the dropped wallet if others are looking.

    Sam
  • willard3willard3 Registered Users Posts: 2,580 Major grins
    edited August 7, 2015
    What is most important here is the fact that you had a DSLR in your hand and din't click it over to video so we cold also experience the outrageous conversations?! :)

    Stealing my thunder, JonaBeth.

    I am at the Erie canal frequently with my camera. A security type decided that I couldn't take fotos because he said so. I turned my camera on video to record the exchange and sent it to his boss (a lawyer) at the Canal authority.

    His boss made several deep lacerations in his nether regions mostly pointing out that the Canal was public property and that no one could be prevented from taking fotos on public property, not even by security personnel.

    Emiliano is right, it is better to die on you feet rather than live on your knees.
    It is better to die on you feet than to live on your knees.....Emiliano Zapata
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited August 9, 2015
    Imo, it'd be interesting to know where 'actual' Toyota involvement starts, rather than just the company hired to do this particular shoot.
    Did you get any sense / indication that there were any Toyota staff present?

    Maybe the bod who signed off this Honda ad (Oct 95) now works for Toyota :)

    pp
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited August 9, 2015
    puzzelpaul posted:

    Imo, it'd be interesting to know where 'actual' Toyota involvement starts, rather than just the company hired to do this particular shoot.
    Did you get any sense / indication that there were any Toyota staff present?

    Toyota's involvement stated with the add for their car. I have no way to verify if there was a Toyota employee there or not. Even if one identified themselves as a Toyota employee that would not be any kind of verification.

    Bottom like this was a Toyota shoot, it was identified as a Toyota shoot. The main subject was a Toyota vehicle.

    Toyota is responsible. If it was my company and someone made a complaint like this I would address it. It would appear Toyota is too big to worry about one guy and and any negative comments that have little national traction.

    Sam
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited August 10, 2015
    I'm not a lawyer and know s*d all about US law, (or Toyota's corporate structure) but I'd have thought there's a 'responsibility boundary issue' i
    here, maybe?

    Yes, it was a shoot, for and on behalf or Toyota.
    So, someone (in Toyota) decides they need a video of their new tin box with wheels.
    They green light the project to the bod (in Toyota) who's responsibility it is to get the video shot, and since they (presumably) don't have their own crew, organise a crew, possibly one they've used before, otherwise put it out to tender.
    Crew chosen (one way or another)
    Crew's head honchos meet with local Toyota bod to discuss (maybe with storyboard?) what Toyota want.
    Toyota bod asks if there are any problems re achieving this footage.
    Crew say no, leave it all to us, we'll get it sorted ... 'just a walk in the park' :) (sorry)

    Contract signed, stating that all issues associated with getting the final footage ... as accepted by Toyota ... to be the responsibility of the film crew, with clauses stating that getting 'any and all permissions are the crew's responsibility'

    If something like this took place, I could then imagine (at best?) you getting some sort of missive from Toyota, stating that they're sorry you were involved in a misunderstanding with an individual(s) working for a subcontractor on their behalf, but it was this subcons responsibility for the actions of its employees, not Toyota's.

    Would such a missive be acceptable to you?

    Personally, I think you should be taking a more high profile approach, if you're wanting to get this across to more people, rather than starting a thread in a little backwater of the net, that the masses of people won't read, with a range eye catching headlines.

    I also agree with other posters that making the point in some way or other - at the time - was probably a better option. Continuing to take shots at the time would've placed the emphasis on them wanting to contact you to sort things out / investigate your agenda etc ... rather than how it now is.

    I'm assuming that the comments re being allowed to shoot on public land - without any specific, named exceptions - is correct, of course.
    .
    pp
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited August 10, 2015
    I'm not a lawyer and know s*d all about US law, (or Toyota's corporate structure) but I'd have thought there's a 'responsibility boundary issue' i
    here, maybe?

    Yes, it was a shoot, for and on behalf or Toyota.
    So, someone (in Toyota) decides they need a video of their new tin box with wheels.
    They green light the project to the bod (in Toyota) who's responsibility it is to get the video shot, and since they (presumably) don't have their own crew, organise a crew, possibly one they've used before, otherwise put it out to tender.
    Crew chosen (one way or another)
    Crew's head honchos meet with local Toyota bod to discuss (maybe with storyboard?) what Toyota want.
    Toyota bod asks if there are any problems re achieving this footage.
    Crew say no, leave it all to us, we'll get it sorted ... 'just a walk in the park' :) (sorry)

    Contract signed, stating that all issues associated with getting the final footage ... as accepted by Toyota ... to be the responsibility of the film crew, with clauses stating that getting 'any and all permissions are the crew's responsibility'

    If something like this took place, I could then imagine (at best?) you getting some sort of missive from Toyota, stating that they're sorry you were involved in a misunderstanding with an individual(s) working for a subcontractor on their behalf, but it was this subcons responsibility for the actions of its employees, not Toyota's.

    Would such a missive be acceptable to you?

    Personally, I think you should be taking a more high profile approach, if you're wanting to get this across to more people, rather than starting a thread in a little backwater of the net, that the masses of people won't read, with a range eye catching headlines.

    I also agree with other posters that making the point in some way or other - at the time - was probably a better option. Continuing to take shots at the time would've placed the emphasis on them wanting to contact you to sort things out / investigate your agenda etc ... rather than how it now is.

    I'm assuming that the comments re being allowed to shoot on public land - without any specific, named exceptions - is correct, of course.
    .
    pp

    Thank you for your thoughts. Yes it would have been better if I had continued to shoot, but I didn't. My bad.

    At this point I am lamenting the fact that it is very difficult if not down right impossible to contact an actual Toyota employee. Also the the uncaring lack of concern for the Toyota name and reputation.

    Please note: I am not on a vendetta against Toyota, just stating my thoughts.

    I also didn't know that Digital Grin with world wide membership and viewing was a backwater operation. :cry

    Sam
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited August 10, 2015
    Sam wrote: »
    ...

    I also didn't know that Digital Grin with world wide membership and viewing was a backwater operation. :cry

    Sam

    Well, it depends - like most things in life - on one's pov.

    Yep, it's got a membership that's sniffing round the edge of 77k ... with bods from, as you indicate, from all around the world ... but I bet there's only a small subset who're active members, with my comment being based on what I read here, and having been an admin myself elsewhere on the net for 13+ yrs.

    As a small, fairly insignificant example of stirring / publicity etc, it seemed to work, since you commented on it ...

    Maybe if you'd been a dentist and taken a pot shot at the tin box (driver not inside) and got a nice loud bang as a result, you'd have got a bit more publicity?

    'Snapper stopped from taking pics by Toyota blows up their car in protest'

    (or more catchy version, written by proper copywriter) might have got picked up by the odd agency or two?

    You'd then have the problem of not only giving the actual facts to the media, but also ensuring they didn't twist said facts out of all recognition - something I've experienced several times at first hand :)

    For a tin box pic, btw, it's better than many ... prob because of the birds ...

    pp
Sign In or Register to comment.