Slashdot Mirror

It is on purpose, because windows are these.

I don't like marketing people preying on our language.

This is a trademark vs copyright issue. The question asked is a red herring. The actual question is "Does Ford have the right to block one from selling, for a profit, an image that includes their trademark?"

The answer is "Yes, they do have that right. They have to protect their trademark or they lose it."

This is a misconception. They do have the right to protect their trademark and they say the logo of the group is too similar to their trademark. Trademark is not however a right equivalent to copyright. The purpose of a trademark is to distinguish the products of an individual or business from others. It does not grant a copyright interest in pictures taken of the products, even if they include the trademark on them. These are the products of the company that bear the trademark, it is not confusing in the least. Read this odd case about the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame which trademarked their building design and the photographer that sold a poster of the building. The appeals court specifically noted this:

It is well established that "[t]here is no such thing as property in a trademark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed." United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97 (1918).

When we view the photograph in Gentile's poster, we do not readily recognize the design of the Museum's building as an indicator of source or sponsorship. What we see, rather, is a photograph of an accessible, well-known, public landmark. Stated somewhat differently, in Gentile's poster, the Museum's building strikes us not as a separate and distinct mark on the good, but, rather, as the good itself.

Thus without reading the complaint itself and the reasons Ford has we are left with only two conclusions. 1) they are completely brainlessly trying to infringe on the rights of the motor club 2) there is something more to the case of the mark of the club that is used to identify the source of the calendar is too similar to Ford's own mark. In the first case the summary is correct and Ford is wrong. In the second case the summary is misleading and Ford might be right.

It looks like one of these with a lot of plastic cladding stuck on.

pic u?

curvy sorry for the guest

curvy (arguably)

curvy

NOT curvy (IMO, yours may vary - more power if they do).

I can't honestly presume to know wether the artist's intent was to satire or not. Legality aside, I stand by my statement that the artist's output is a wholly seperate artwork and should be treated as such. This may not be the most valid or noteworthy artwork, but someday, an artist will create something beautiful and intelligent and thought-provoking, that the public may never be able to enjoy because the tools the artist used are copyrighted by a large company. In my opinion, art is not a product, and every effort should be made to make all artworks, regardless of their "quality" as available as possible.

I do agree that an artist's work should not be used to make money, however, I don't beleive that any artwork should be used to make money. There's a difference between selling a song for profit and selling it to fund an artist's survival and future work. An ARTIST does not create to make money. If you get into hip-hop for the $$$ and the booty and the ***BliNg***BlInG***, then what you are outputting is a product, not an artwork, regardless of your talent. And furthermore, you are not an artist, you are an entrepreneur.

That being said, if it is not illegal to use a Campbell's Soup can (a product) in your artwork, it should conversly not be illegal to use some record company's product in your artwork.

And listening to Tori Amos makes you worship satin!