Automakers test prototype cars long before they’re available for sale but they face a problem. How do they test in public without the public seeing the upcoming car? Chevrolet pulled the wraps off of the Corvette ZR-1 early so that it could test in public.
Kia and Hyundai have what appears to be a very different approach. It sent a heavily camouflaged SUV out into the public with a super-special trick. On the side of the car, it told bystanders that they weren’t allowed to take pictures of the vehicle.
That’s right, forget all of the ways such a decree won’t hold up in court. Just don’t take pictures of it. With all of that in mind, here are some photos that they wouldn’t like people to take of what is likely the new Hyundai Palisade.
They come directly from Jorden LaVerrn, a graphic designer who happened upon this car at Pilot travel stop in Michigan. “Nobody in the vehicle spoke to me, I think they were just refueling the vehicle,” he tells The Autopian. That’s somewhat surprising given the almost aggressive nature of the sticker in the window.
“This car model is a trade secret of Hyundai/Kia Motors, Corp, unreleased to the public.
Attempts to take photographs of the interior/exterior of the model or its trial without any permission will thereby be regarded unlawful infringing the rights of Hyundai/Kia Motors, Corp and may be strictly penalized upon laws concerning Trade Secret Protection.”
How does that make sense if Hyundai drives the car into a public space? In short, it doesn’t. According to the ACLU, “When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view.” If a gas station isn’t a public space then we don’t know what is.
oops! pic.twitter.com/LX2NZK3Obu
— Jorden LaVearn (@LaVearn_) August 5, 2024
Essentially, nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a space so photography is legally allowed even if it’s of a trade secret. Whoever brought that trade secret out into a public space is responsible if someone takes a photo or video of it here in the United States.
We actually asked Hyundai and Kia about this and the two responses we received were somewhat comical. In the first, a spokesperson simply declined to comment. In my short writing career that’s a first for me. Typically a company just won’t respond at all.
In the second one, our esteemed Publisher Matt Hardigree texted another spokesperson about it and received the following response.
Yes, they sent the shrug emoji and nothing else.
Now, it’s certainly plausible that this sign is on the vehicle because it’s been hidden, under wraps, in a secret lair. In such a setting, it would indeed be illegal to photograph it and publish those photos. At a gas station, not so much. Anyway, here’s a video (which is like… thousands of images that appear to be moving) of what looks like almost an identical vehicle from Korea.
Finally, if you really really don’t want to see more of what the Palisade will look like for sure do not keep going because, spoiler alert, one was spotted without the big bulky camo recently. Notably, it still features the camo wrap but it’s on the sheet metal so we’re still getting a good look at the car itself. It too has a sticker in the rear windows that appears to look just like the one in Michigan.
Have you seen a Kia or Hyundai in public (this part is key!) with such a sticker on it? For sure take photos of it and send them to us.
The sign looks like it might appropriately apply to an employee or to a studio or plant visitor, while on the private grounds. Either of those categories of people would likely be bound by an NDA, and the stipulations on the sign are just repetitions of some points already in the NDA. So it seems to be just a sign that nobody bothers to remove when bringing the cars out in public (where they don’t apply), because why bother?
Living near the main Honda plant, you see test cars all the time. No one seems to care as long as you’re not in their way.
We sure this isn’t just someone in a new Santa Fe trying to cover up how awful the back end looks?
Having seen the recent crop of Korean imports get weirder and weirder in a not-good way, I have a suspicion about why they may not want photos taken…
Somewhat OT, but one of my favorite parts of working in an assembly plant is seeing the new models go down the line in full camo. After the bodies get painted, camo gets put on and it is the biggest mind fuck to see inside of the plant. As you get closer to a new model launch, you will see more of them get built as the tooling is getting the bugs worked out.
Oh, I am surprised this is news! Exactly one year ago I was visiting Death Valley and saw an entire parade of camouflaged Kia/Hyundai test vehicles. All of them had the same sign. I found it equally laughable back then. I will dig through my pictures to see if I have any worth sharing.
Better camouflage would be to put some fake Chinese car company name on it like Brilliant Shiny Frog Stalagmite
I can’t wait for the redesigned 2025 Brilliant Shiny Frog Stalagmite model, the Executive Happy Fork!
The Stalactite is the higher end model
Unfortunately customers keep getting them mixed up! So confusing – they just don’t know what’s up or down!
I love seeing camo on prototype school buses on a daily basis because you know people would never be able to tell if is a fucking giant ass yellow school bus.
They just don’t want to show off the next-gen rear seatbelts that work.
I’ve driven a few prototypes in camo (it’s only exciting the first time) and when people have come up and asked if they can take pictures I’ve always said “there’s literally nothing I can do to stop you, but thanks for asking, try not to get my face in your pictures”.
Mostly I think the camo attracts attention. If they just sent them out dirty with Vauxhall badges no one would look twice.
If you drive a car with Vauxhall badge in the US. Unless you you are only driving at really small town like La Sal (pop ~350). I bet you will get noticed, especially camera sensors are every where, so are car enthuisiasts. I think that’s one of the reasons why Priddy et co. get less important these days, there are just so many people who pay attention because of the Internet.
I’m sure there is a US equivalent brand that has released nothing but disappointment in years, I just don’t know which one it would be.
I took that as sarcasm, since it seems all the domestic manufacturers are doing their best to disappoint us
Not sarcasm, I’m British and don’t know US brands well enough to make jokes about them.
Now Captain Muppet makes sense.
I’d say Dodge, but fans of the brand are always so blinded and hopeful for the future of the brand.
Depends on what it is. Someone around here (Oklahoma City) has a red Saturn Astra 3-door with the Vauxhall badge swap, which I think is inappropriate because the Vauxhalls were RHD; they should have done an Opel badge swap.
It is a Ferrari test mule and it has fooled everybody so far!
Surprised no one has mentioned that the laws in Korea are different? They are just using the same sign, as seen in the video from Korea. Maybe the answer is lazy? Or, no one in the US wanted to take responsibility for removing it. So they didn’t.
I don’t see anything in those photos.
Am I doing this right?
OK folks, show’s over. Nothing to see here, show’s…Oh my god! A horrible plane crash! Hey everybody, get a load of this flaming wreckage!
I haven’t seen a Hyundai/Kia tester in the wild but I did see what looked like a BMW test mule once. I was in a random parking garage in DC and it was just sitting there. It had a bunch of camo and a manufacturer plate. I think it was the current 5 series before it broke cover. My wife had no idea why I was freaking out about it lol.
Anyway, are we sure this is a Palisade? As Andrew suggested this might be an EV. Hyundai is going to get their EV9 equivalent soon enough, and for whatever reason people seem to be buying the EV9 because I keep running into them. It’s a good looking car.
I also think the belt line looks a little weird. It looks like too little door/too much window to be a Palisade but due to EVs allowing for unconventional packaging I’d venture a guess that that’s what we’re looking at. Plus the Palisade/Telluride absolutely print money so I’d have to imagine that they’re going to be pretty conservative when it comes to redesigning them. The Koreans love to completely change the look of their cars between generations (and even for refreshes-the updated G70 looks like an entirely new car) but IMHO this is not a vehicle they should be getting too adventurous with.
I think there’s a muffler in the McDonalds shot, so likely not an EV9 equivalent.
If it is an EV, stopping in a fuel station is really deep cover 😉
Maybe that warning is meaningful in S. Korea?
AI English? “thereby be REGRADED unlawful”
Hm, Palisade, or IONIQ 7 mule?
Google Street View engineers to management: “uh Mountain View, we have a problem…”
In today’s Look At Me world, try the Don’t Look At Me approach to get more people to Look At Me!
Almost definitely a case of intentional Streisanding.
It is just Hyundai on their Worldwide Privacy Tour.
It’s “Don’t throw me into the briar patch” for the social media generation.
A few years back I was walking out of the ALDI in Ann Arbor and spotted an at that time not yet on the market new little Jeep. The guy driving it demanded that I not get on the ground to look under it while I was doing so on both sides. It was a point-and-laugh moment.
OT-ish question. I drove by General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton and there were signs all around the perimeter fence, forbidding photography… from the street.
Are the laws enforceable? Since I have no intent spending the rest of my days in Gitmo I did not intend to test them.
Usually only after the fact. In theory, security could detain you, but the odds of them catching you in the act are low. But if you get inside, take pics, and then get caught doing that (more likely), you can’t then say you didn’t know you couldn’t, as it was clearly stated even before you entered.
In the days before cameras on every single cell phone, it was easier to police for sure.
No, security can not detain you, if you’re shooting from public property.
There’s a sign on a section of I-81 not far from me adjacent to a big prison that has a sign, something like:
“No photography or videos allowed. Emergency stopping only.”
And I think…welp, does that constitute an emergency for me to pull over and stop my dashcams from running?
(I assume not.)
If you’re outside the fence you can take pics of anything going on inside. Hell, Christopher Doane once flew a helicopter over Warren Proving Grounds to get a photo of some cars. He’s still not in jail, so far as I know.
He’s not in jail. He’s my neighbor!
Doane, Jim Dunne, Hans Lehmann, Brenda Priddy, Nicholas Twork, the Paulina Brothers-these pros never let a little sticker bother them. They just took the picture and went on with life.
When the B-2 was first being rolled out, Aviation Week noticed that there were no flight restrictions, so they hired a plane and got some nice top down photos. The USAF was ticked off, but Aviation Week didn’t do anything wrong.
The best kind of correct is always technically correct. Aviation Week read the rules.. I read somewhere that’s why the B21 was first shown in a hanger.
20 year photojournalist who studied journalism law here: So long as you’re viewing something from public you can shoot anything you want. If its “viewable” from public space, than anyone can see it already, and there’s no “expectation of privacy”. You can legally shoot photos through someone’s open window if its easily viewable to the public. This happens in my field when there’s a hostage situation in front of a window viewable from the street, or if someone of news value walks past an open window. I’m not having a debate about whats in good taste, just the legality.
Now if you use a 1200mm lens to shoot through the crack of a set of curtains then the person inside the house would have an expectation of privacy that you’re invading, and that would be illegal.
The side conversation would be: do you have a police officer who knows the law well enough to enforce it properly? In my experience, rarely. They detain and have guns, so you just listen or get arrested. Each case is different and you pick your battles. I’ve had plenty of cops/firefighters try and tell me to stop shooting a news event (fire, car/plane crash) and when I state the law they leave you alone usually.. Ex: For a fire if you’re on an adjacent *private property* law enforcement can evacuate public space to make it easier for emergency workers to tend to the scene, but they cant force you off private property unless they’re evacuating the neighboring houses as well.. meaning they cant pick you out just because you’re taking photos if you have the permission of the land owner. We’re trained to be out of the way, never impede first responders, but get the photos.
I was once told there’s parts of (for example) DC where if you get pictures of certain non-descript buildings you might be told to delete them by an agent of some agencies, because they’re not actually just another office building. But I wouldn’t know how to prove that, nor have any desire to test it myself.
I was once asked by my publication to get photos of the entrance of a military base.. 45 min later the FBI called me at my office, had already chatted with my neighbors in person, and had a few followup questions. Nothing was deleted, they just wanted to know why I was taking photos, making sure I wasn’t planning anything. I assume any govt building viewable from public would have the same result, and they might treat regular civilians differently than a journalist, right or wrongly.
Now I’ve had police demand I delete photos in the aftermath of a drive-by shooting and I told them “sure”.. but of course I didn’t because they have no right. You can click one or two buttons and they have no way of knowing. They demanded I stop shooting, and I really didn’t need more photos and didn’t feel like spending the night in jail only to have them apologize after. Pick your battles.
Probably one thing to test this idea with some toothless policy enforced by, at best, corporate rent-a-cops with no real authority. Another thing on govt property with very polite gentlemen with earpieces in unmarked Crown Vics. They love being lectured on the law, right?
What’s your time worth to explore the limits of your rights?
I’m not sure the military respects civilian laws.
Better to steer clear of the submarines since it would take unpleasant years to prove yourself right.
OT as well…
When I was a kid, my divorced Dad would take us to the “summer house” he bought with my horrible step-mother. EVERY time we went (every other week, cause divorce) I would request my dad get in the right lane so I could see the current state of whatever sub was there.
(I’m 46 now, and still do it for myself)
WOW a 2 box 4 door SUV. Looks like a bold unprecedented breakthrough concept!
Just as a general question, do you pay for photos like this? Is it standard for auto media outlets to do so?
Would I pay for these? No. It’s not that interesting. If you had photos of the new Sasquatch Edition Ford Mustang I might be interested. Some outlets definitely pay for photos like this.
Yeah the question was meant to ask about a general policy toward photos of camouflaged or unreleased vehicles caught in the wild, but maybe I didn’t clip enough of the article in my quote. I wouldn’t pay for a picture of this Hyundai either.
I honestly have no idea how such things are handled in the business.
100% some PR stunt.
Exactly. Who would be interested in taking pics of yet another SUV? Well, now everyone is of this one because it’s “forbidden.” And don’t throw Br’er Rabbit into that briar patch.
More likely the wishful thinking of some clueless executive.
I imagine if it was a PR stunt the PR team would have an actual response to questions instead of a shrug emoji.
Just guerilla marketing deploying the Streisand effect for the clicks.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, especially where lawyers are involved.
Many years ago I worked at a social media company. We used to get invited to pre-release screenings of films, because the whole company was terminally online and the marketing teams knew they’d get a shitload of free publicity out of it.
Except for one film, on the way in, where the company confiscated all our phones and gave us what I can only describe as a “scared-straight” level lecture from their legal/security team about how if we even breathed a word about this film they’d sue the fuck out of us, and oh by the way they had ninjas in the corners with IR gear and if anyone even thought about sneaking a device in we’d be ejected from the building via the roof and into a pit of sharks.
It’s not even like the film was bad. It was fine. It opened the next week and did pretty well. The only reason on earth to pack a bunch of tech nerds in a room for a pre-screening was to get us to talk about it online, except I guess the lawyers didn’t get the message, so we got a screening and a lecture and they got nothing.
And that’s how we found out John Harrison was really Khan.
All they had to do to fix the whole dang movie would be track the camera in on a cryotube in the last scene and GCI Ricardo Montalban’s face on the occupant.
There are a lot of things they had to do to fix that train wreck of a movie.
Nah I think what Rivers said at the end of the article is right. It was probably while it was uncovered being shown to dealer managers or something. The sign is on the window and they didn’t bother taking it off/forgot when they took it out with camo.