Is This An Ethical Business Practice??

[peterbo3]

I have been getting a few phone calls from people I know asking why I am selling my boat. I have a Fisher 640, shown in my avatar, which Col Svensson built for me. I took delivery in early 2008. A quick look at Boatpoint produced the following.
First three pics are not great as I had problems transferring the page to a file. Had to print, then scan, then copy & upload.




This is not the exact pic in the ad as I did not keep every photo in my file. It was taken just before Drumbeat passed the houseboat.



These pics were not taken for advertising purposes. They were taken for my personal use on the day the boat was sea trialled. At no stage did Fisher Mk2
contact me & ask for permission to use them. They just photoshopped the boat name, faces & my Landcruiser plate & went for it. The same photos were on the Fisher Mk2 site, again without my permission.

Fisher Mk2 was using them to promote one of their boats.............one they do not have a pic of because they have not built a 640. They have also used pics of another Fisher 680 to promote their wares & they had to remove those also.

I contacted Fisher Mk2 today & told them to remove them. They did, but only because they did not have a leg to stand on. The "manager" to whom I spoke, Tony, did not give a rat's arse about his shoddy & underhand marketing.
Well Tony, lots of boaters read what is written here. But they love pictures to go with the story. The pics are up there. I am sure that readers will draw their own conclusions.

[krazyfisher]

I would not mind if I was asked but without being asked I would not be happy

[reddybayfisher]

Definitly should have asked for permission......there is that element that potential buyers want the boat in the photo....not a standard model....

A dog grooming company took a picture of my dog without permission & I was angry as it was my dog on the back of the bus advertisment and I had no idea.....they apologised and gave me a few free clips but I have not been back there....what else are they not telling me about?

[bluefin59]

Maybe someone here may be able to give you some legal advise but i think they would be fine having photo shopped everything but it just goes to show the lack of ethics these people have ,they seem to stoop to a new low every other week . matt

[murf]

Gday Peter

hows it going

yep they have gone down another notch in my book like Matt just said

still love your boat though

cheers Murf

[kingtin]

A simplification: Copyright lies with the person who took the pics and they should not be used without express permission from the photographer. A model release form is also required from any person's in the pics if the pics are to be used for financial gain. They should also not alter an original without express permission.

Clearly, Fisher mk 2 have adopted a dubious practice if they haven'y complied.

kev

[finga]

To be advertising a boat as your own product when it is not is pretty low.
Using someones property to advertise your business without permission is pretty low.
I'll leave it at that because I don't want to get angry.....
But as the rest have stated ....what do you expect from Fisher MkII??

Maybe a Mod can put this in the boating section where it belongs.....please!!

[devendiva]

What's all the talk about "What would you expect from Fisher Mk 2?

What else have they done recently to deserve all this negativity? I'm not sure if there is something else I don't know about but I picked up my new 600 Maxi from them late last year. They told me it was boat # 2. I asked them what all the other boats were there and in photos I had seen in the background of my photos during my build process to which they replied it was all the Fisher Mk 1 boats they had fixed under warranty or completed.

They reckon they had burnt a ton of money but they were committed to fixing and completing everything from Fisher Mk1.


So if anyone has any other REAL information to the contrary I would be interested in hearing it.

Chris

[peterbo3]

Hi Chris,
Would you say that this is an ethical business practice? Or did I just invent that story to stir things up??

[pog mo hoin]

It just seems like it is getting harder to be able to trust your hard earned, I mean all the drama with Fisher, now Seastorm, I mean whats next?

[Greg P]

I asked them what all the other boats were there and in photos I had seen in the background of my photos during my build process to which they replied it was all the Fisher Mk 1 boats they had fixed under warranty or completed.

They reckon they had burnt a ton of money but they were committed to fixing and completing everything from Fisher Mk1.

ROFL - they have to be kidding


My boat is on their web site and I have asked for it to be removed - Col S had permission to use it but not them.

[Chooksy]

I have agree with Greg P, a mate of mine has his boat photo still being used to advertise a model range, yet his boat was built and completed a long time before the take over.
His boat has never been back to Fisher for repairs or warrenty, and after chating to him earlier tonight, Col S had permission but not the new management.

Makes you wonder sometimes.

[Braddles]

Ethically, not really a sound business decision I would have thought.

Legally - a bit of a grey area. So long as a person is not appearing without consent, I can take a picture of any car or boat you own, in a public place, and put in in the courier mail if I want to. The photo of a material item, such as your boat, is actually owned by the photographer, regardless of who's boat it is!. The only exception to this, is if a police officer or The Court Seizes a photo under an Act... and you (may) loose the rights to that photo.

Where they may come unstuck is, if you took the pic - you own the copy right to it - and they are breaking the law by publishing this without your consent. If they took the pic, or had someone commissioned to take the pic (ie a prof photographer), then its theirs to do what they wish with it on the provision it has no identifying features (rego plates etc), and no person (minor or otherwise) is appearing unconsented.

If its your pic they have published, that would really P*ss me off too, and you may be entitled to financial compensation, if you should wish to pursue this avenue.

[Ando74]

Still waiting for mine to be removed, it also has me in the picture.

May have to chase a bit harder as others seem to have had theirs removed.

[finga]

What's all the talk about "What would you expect from Fisher Mk 2?

What else have they done recently to deserve all this negativity? I'm not sure if there is something else I don't know about but I picked up my new 600 Maxi from them late last year. They told me it was boat # 2. I asked them what all the other boats were there and in photos I had seen in the background of my photos during my build process to which they replied it was all the Fisher Mk 1 boats they had fixed under warranty or completed.

They reckon they had burnt a ton of money but they were committed to fixing and completing everything from Fisher Mk1.


So if anyone has any other REAL information to the contrary I would be interested in hearing it.

Chris

It's not just a matter of recently but through out the Fisher take-over saga.
Do a search for Fisher in the boating section and read the threads.
Some truths come out there like the shifting workshops, seemingly, over night with no notice.
Here's one
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/sho...t=fisher+boats
Here's just one other of many
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/sho...t=fisher+boats

The supporters of Fisher MkII will put up the favourable threads too I am sure just to keep the thing balanced.

And no...I am not a fan of Fisher MkII nor do I know anybody from Fisher MkI...The only way I know of Col and Nancy is that they lived a couple of doors from my aunty at Bribie
I just did not like the way things happened whether they be legal or not.