OGR’s double standard rules –

I can't speak for all of the dealers but those that I have dealt with with respect to prototype photos have made sure they had permission to use the picture in their advertising.  Given the litigious nature of modern day communications I suspect any manufacturer who uses a prototype photo of any kind makes it a point to get permission for its use. 

You can just as easily post the internet link to a picture without repercussions.

I agree, zero tolerance is tough but I'm sure the size of their operation is such that having to pay someone for a violation of copyright could easily wipe them out. As others have noted, they faced this situation once and it is obvious they have no intention of facing it again.  It really comes down to one thing - regardless of the format of the picture - if you don't own the copyright then post a link. If there isn't a link then forget it.

YouTube allows the creators to prevent their videos from being embedded. It is a very simple toggle you can set for your videos. If it's not set, you can embed elsewhere, which I take as implied permission but maybe the laws say different.

. . . and I think it's that very uncertainty that fuels a lot of the recurring copyright trauma. Unless one is well versed in IP law, it's a real crap shoot trying to determine exactly where the line is sometimes. Some content creators (or their minions) have taken advantage of that uncertainty by alleging infringement even if recognized exceptions (such as fair use) might actually prevail. As an old-school title underwriter once told me, "Never insure into a lawsuit -- even if you eventually win, the cost and hassle will make you regret it!" Appropriate caution can easy bleed into paranoia, though, but it's hard to definitively argue with the snake-bit . . .