As a photographer, I can tell you that's a violation of copyright.
Martin needs to put in a copyright notice on his website like:
"all photos are copyright ©2008 Martin Eberhard, any use/distribution without the expressed written consent of Martin Eberhard is strictly prohibited"
[ probably stick a fine of say $300K per violation ]
So, the above will give you legal contract which will be useful in pursuing damages. I know of somebody (fool, small company engaged in all sorts of illegal/unethical activity) who infringed on a photographer's photo (notorious for suing people), & got sued for $300K. I think it was settled for $30K. One photograph. Those morons infringed on me x2 (photo & video), so I guess I will be suing for $600k..maybe getting $60K. Another moron (wealthy famous guy, wife is a famous TV actress) stole 2 of my videos & wantonly posts web photos on forum posts. This guy is really gonna get it. I could actually buy a Roadster (& have extra left), by pursuing claims from this "collateral damage".
Putting photos on a website without a visual watermark gives some people (mistakenly), the impression that they can be used freely. I think this is what happened in this case. I just heard from someone, who claimed there is some thing floating around that says "any photo that's put on the web is free game". The whole Intellectual Property thing on digital media is in flux these days.
"develop it..PROTECT IT!"
-- S.H., unofficial legal counsel for my Jumplive.com multimedia project
Every company has a product, brand-name ("intellectual property") that needs to be protected.
"If you don't Control the Media..THE MEDIA WILL CONTROL YOU"
-- xx, as Champcar was failing (PR Dept totally dropped the ball)
This incident needs to be nipped-at-the-bud, otherwise other media will follow suit. There also needs to be an active media campaign (say with a
viral medium like iTunes video-podcasting) to combat the "false claims of Tesla founders"