Slashdot Mirror
Ford Claims Ownership Of Your Pictures
Mike Rogers writes "In a move that can only be described as 'Copyright Insanity', Ford Motor Company now claims that they hold the rights to any image of a Ford vehicle, even if it's a picture you took of your own car. The Black Mustang Club wanted to put together a calendar featuring member's cars and print it through CafePress, but an attorney from Ford nixed the project, stating that the calendar pics and 'anything with one of (member's) cars in it infringes on Ford's trademarks which include the use of images of their vehicles.' Does Ford have the right to prevent you from printing images of a car you own?"
Form Motor Company?
Does Ford have the right to prevent you from printing images of a car you own?
Hold on a moment. Let me get the EULA out of the glove box.
This guy's the limit!
Form motor company, where the cars are stylish.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." -Zapp Brannigan
And they wonder why their stock is in the toilet. They're trying to stop free marketing of their products. How dumb is that?
Developers: We can use your help.
Wow, this is bad. Just the other day I was wondering about IP rights in taking pictures of products, and if arguments about IP in pictures of other stuff carried over.
Now, imagine what it's like if you have to get permission to put *any* product in *any* picture.
I have no idea what legal grounds Ford has, but this MUST be prevented from spreading to pictures of products in general.
(Of course, Ford could just be trolling for easy cash because of that whole not-funding-workers'-pensions thing...)
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
they own the design of the car. but the photographer owns their picture.
I was going to use a car analogy to show how ridiculous this was...
Good luck with that there Ford...
Meanwhile, I'll do what I fricken want with my car.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
All your images are belong to us.
Bold moves indeed.
I did. Wouldn't want to gain the benefit of my ill gotten gains. No - better to send them all back to the CEO where they'll be safe. You should too.
Now, if they want to help pay maintenance and such, I might share it, but if I bought it, wouldn't it be mine? I mean certainly fair use applies here.
Means Police can no longer take pictures of Ford cars for photo enforcement either. Hooray!
Does Ford have the right to prevent you from printing images of a car you own?
You mean "Does Ford have the right to prevent you from selling images of a car you own?
And the answer should still be know. Just thought I'd clarify.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
IANAL, but this smells of Fair Use to me. It would surprise me if this keeps up for long.
$> man woman $> Segmentation fault. (Core dumped)
here is a copy of the letter that was alledgedly sent to another automotive club when they tried to publish calenders themselves. (I ripped this posting from BoingBoing...)
"Although you and your members may own the Ford automobile, you do not own the rights to the trade dress. Taking pictures of any Ford automobiles, placing them on products (i.e. calendar, mugs, t-shirts, etc.) and making them available to the public for sale is an infringement of Ford's intellectual property rights."
"Because of the cachet of the world-famous Ford name, thousands of independent businesses and people make a living from or pursue a hobby related to Ford products and services. Unfortunately, many of these businesses improperly attempt to affiliate themselves with Ford by using Ford trademarks and trade dress (for instance, the depictions or photographs of Ford's distinctively shaped vehicles) in advertising their products and services."
"If a business not affiliated with Ford uses any Ford trademark, whether through the use of photographs, depictions or silhouettes, or any confusingly similar variation thereof, without Ford's express, written consent, then that business is violating Federal and state trademarks laws."
"It is also not sufficient for a business to state that it is not affiliated with Ford but continue to use Ford trademarks without permission. The business is still misappropriating the goodwill and reputation developed by Ford, and attempting to capitalize on or profit from Ford's goodwill and reputation. Even with the best of intentions, unauthorized use of another company's trademark is against the law."
"At times Ford enthusiasts question why Ford is so adamant about policing it's trademarks and preventing unauthorized uses or infringements of them. It is quite common for someone who is using a trademark without permission to say, "I'm giving Ford free advertising, so why does Ford care?" Ford cares because it is important that Ford be able to exercise control over the quality of the product or service bearing Ford's trademarks."
"To protect the value of its trademarks, Ford is obligated to object to and pursue unauthorized uses of its trademarks and trade dress, even if the use of the trademark or trade dress does not appear offensive or objectionable."
I like microcars
. . . they are signed, consecutively numbered, and they only sell 200 of them. Which, considering we're talking about Ford, may well be the case.
Presumably then I own the copyright to my own image. Would this imply I could sue police for taking mug shots?
Ford's sales dropped below Toyota's in the US and now they make it even better by attacking their own customers. What could possibly go wrong?
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Best poke out my own eyes before it passes by, lest I accidentally "capture" an image of it on my retina, and thereby use my neurons to infringe on their "intellectual property"...
This definitely is the straw that breaks my back....I was looking at the Ford Fusion as our next car. Not anymore....
Ford you get to lose out on at least one sale.
To heck with suing. Just hurt em where it hurts....their profits.
Gorkman
As if we needed another one.
I've heard a lot of stupid claims over intellectual "property" before, but this one really takes the cake*.
(*used with permission from Duncan Hines, a subsidiary of Pinnacle Foods Group, LLC.)
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Here's a good list of people to start sending C&D's to. There's almost 150,000 images there, so that ought to keep you busy for a while.
In all fairness, since we're talking about cafepress, the actual question is:
Does Ford have the right to prevent you from selling printed images of a car you own?
From Motley Fool and other select websites...
"So far this year, Ford's North American business has lost more than $1.4 billion and the cash reserves dwindled to $19.6 billion from $21.8 billion in the third quarter, according to the company's financial report."
"The red ink in the third quarter included a $1.2 billion loss by the company's North American operations, the company reported. So far this year U.S. sales of Ford vehicles are down 1.3 percent, despite a massive discount program that helped clear inventory of unsold vehicles."
Hmmm...
1. Make cars deemed as inferior to their import counterparts
2. Use unions that add about $1500.00 overhead to each car in pensions and health care
3. ??????
4. Profit!
I am guessing number 3 should be "piss off those who actually bought our cars by refusing to let them take pictures of them".
Then again, I majored in engineering, not business.
Repant. Thy end is sheer.
This is interesting, it reminds me of the NFL with respect to radio and television broadcasts. When I worked for radio, we couldn't say "Super Bowl" nor any of the teams involved. We would have to say, "The Big Game" and "Green Bay" instead of the Packers.
In the end, I always thought it was strange taking pictures of your car like it was part of the family, but to each his own.
Would someone check the source on this to see if TFA is a ligit statemtent from Ford?
Didn't Ford just recently get bumped down to number 3 in the US for the first time in like 90 years or something. I would be more worried about my perception among young relatively affluent(read: tech savvy and more likely to get pissed about something like this)) individuals if I were in their position, a lot more than I'd be worried about a fan site producing a calendar of paying customers cars.
But hey, I'm not a big corporate executive genius, so maybe I'm not their target market.
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
If they have been marketing the product under that trademark of course they have a right
to defend their trademark otherwise Hyundai or Isuzu could name their next car a Mustang.
Having said that
I am with Bjarne on this one.
Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of the C++ programming language, claims that C++ is experiencing a revival and
that there is a backlash against newer programming languages such as Java and C#. "C++ is bigger than ever.
There are more than three million C++ programmers. Everywhere I look there has been an uprising
- more and more projects are using C++. A lot of teaching was going to Java, but more are teaching C++ again.
There has been a backlash.", said Stroustrup.
The blanket term "Intellectual Property" covers a wide range of laws that often cover the same basic concept (creating a system of ownership for ideas), but are implemented in very different ways. When discussing these laws, it's very important to be specific about what kind of IP is being discussed.
The summary makes it sound like Ford is claiming copyright on the pictures (which they almost certainly don't have the rights to). However, it seems that Ford is actually claiming trademark status on the car's design, and an image of that car would therefore infringe on that trademark.
Not only that, but the tags (the most abused feature on Slashdot) cite "patent", another set of IP laws which have nothing to do with anything here.
Not a typewriter
Well, IANAL, but I was a videojournalist for ABC News for a while. The law as we were taught it was that anything visible in the public forum does not need permission to be used. This, btw, includes exteriors of houses, anything visible from the street, and people walking down the street. So by my thought, since these cars were visible in public, they are fair game for anyone to take pictures of.. and once the picture is taken, the rights generally belong to the photographer or his/her agency (unless the club put in the contract that they will own the rights to those images).
I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
Ford didn't claim to own the picture, or to have any sort of copyright-related rights, they simply claimed rights to the their trademarks. Rights which they have, as granted by the USPTO. Such rights aren't even in dispute, as they are with many patents and some copyrights; most trademarks are entirely uncontroversial, and Ford's are no exception.
/. posting another intentionally misleading headline designed to make people rant about copyright/patent abuses, despite being totally unrelated to such issues -- definitely.
Should Ford be messing with their fan club over a trademark issue -- probably not. Do they have the right to prevent publication of a calendar containing their trademarks -- possibly, depending on how the trademarks are displayed and how the calendar is used. Is
If there is a lawsuit, Ford doesn't stand a chance. Fair use rules support the calendar publishers. Then again, in court, he with the deepest pockets often wins.
This is but the continuation of a sad trend. Now, when a model maker wants to sell a plastic scale model kit of a US military aircraft, the manufacturer (Boeing or MDD) requires royalties because the model uses the image of the aircraft.
Never mind that the US taxpayer has paid for the development and production of the aircraft (and how!). For example, you'd think that for the $80 or so that the average American adult paid for the V-22 development, they'd have the right to get a break on the 1:72 scale model.
The only consolation is that the model makers are generally foreign and that the royalties are levied on the worldwide market.
Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
The sight of a Ford makes me want to poke my eyes out too.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Well there was almost no information in the article, but sounds like this move could be described as "trademark insanity", which has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. (Except that either branch of law sometimes comes into conflict with the First Amendment.)
But either way the proper response to a letter like that is to send a copy to the press, and call up the reporter to make sure the article includes info about where readers can purchase the calendar.
I had Audi tell Cafe Press to take down a t-shirt with a likeness of two Audi cars on it -- which wasn't even a photograph, it was a drawing based on a photograph I owned.
Note, they don't have any legal foundation for doing it, but they all do it. Caroll Shelby learned that lesson ten years ago when he tried to block replica Cobras from being manufactured. He got to keep his name, but not the look (nevermind the look wasn't his anyway).
BMW and Porsche have done the same thing in the past and I expect that other automakers have as well.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
This is why the article's title is wrong. Ford doesn't own your pictures.
But then your pictures are not entirely your own either. Nobody, neither
you or Ford, has rights to the pictures (unless you both agree to some
sort of cross licensing lawyer-enriching scheme).
This is kind of like patents, where patents don't grant rights, they
just take them away. So it's posible to get into an IP (sic) gridlock
where nobody has any rights to something.
It simply seems to me that the simplest and most appropriate thing for Ford to do here would have been to provide all the necessary permission for them to proceed with their artistic work, or license it with a smallish fee if necessary.
That would have seemed like a win-win sort of thing. Free marketing, retention of their rights, etc.
It does seem that with trademarks you are indeed obligated to protect them or you may lose them. But I don't quite see why Fordwould have had to be so foolish about it.
Seriously folks, I think the real question here is why are people still buying these worthless pieces of colon refuse? Ford Engineering is an oxymoron. Buy a Toyota or a Honda, for Pete's sake--they are million-mile cars if you take good care of them.
Replace any part of the POS with a superior aftermarket part from the bargain bin at Kragen and replace all the Ford badges with Chevy ones. Fuck your trade dress.
Any one dumb enough to own a Ford, or an American car for that matter should be made to paid a special Darwin tax.
If you want to sell your photo of the (trademarked) "Hollywood Sign" or include it in a movie, you'll have to write a check to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce...
Same goes for a ton of famous landmarks.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
With lots of "Found On Road Dead" and "Mustang - the car the runs like a broken-down horse" photos showing crappy Ford products.
Then sue Ford for a declaratory judgment that said parody calender does not infringe on their precious IP rights.
And make sure to publicize the hell out of it.
Has someone patented "giving the finger" yet? I better not hit the Submit bu
Is this thing on? Hello?
apply to automobiles, not calendars.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
IANAL, but this seems like a slippery slope. Suppose you've extensively modified your Ford vehicle, so it looks much different than a stock model. Does Ford still claim to own the images of a design they aren't fully responsible for? If so, what about NASCAR? Do FOX and ESPN have to start paying a royalty to Ford because their broadcasts of NASCAR races show images of *heavily* modified Ford designs?
Like a couple others this pretty much kills any desire, low as it is, to buy a ford car. Now the only reason I'd buy one is because the prices are quite nice for them and I don't drive much. Granted the chances of mew having actually bought a ford were low before this but that is still better than zero (for ford that is).
If they contain images of Fords or any person who has not signed a release, right?
Anything you say will be held against you.
I used to work as a game programmer and one of the issues that came up is that in order to use any recognizable building design (for instance, if you based your game in Seattle and wanted to use the Space Needle as part of the landscape) you have to pay a licensing fee. The design is still copyrighted, and to use it in a commercial product amounts to infringement.
It seems like that's the issue here -- it's a calendar they were going to sell, right? At the very least, Cafe Press was going to make money from the sale. Seems like the legality is pretty clear there.
Now, whether Ford should exercise its rights in this instance is another issue, involving public relations and stuff like that. Seems like a bad move to me, but it's their choice.
I wonder if the loss revenue is directly related to the increases spending in the legal department where they apparently have to spend time tracking down all these trademark infringement cases.
They will have to change tactics and instead of stopping these people before they use such an image wait until after they have printed and distributed them. Then claim triple damages. What a cash cow that could be!
Does that mean it will be illegal to take a picture of me and my car when I run a red light or when I am speeding? Interesting marketing tactic. That would increase interest in Ford automobiles.
Load New Commander (Y/N)?
Grandparent poster didn't read the article, and neither did you.
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
With enough publicity in the right places, this could expose IP trolling for the absurdity it is. Stewart, Colbert, Leno, Letterman, listen up...
rj
At least, I know they do under Dutch law.
There was a rather infamous case a while back here in The Netherlands about photographs of a prominent bridge. The bridge's designer claimed his rights were violated by photographers using "his" bridge for commercial ends. I don't remember the exact details but I think a judge eventually sided with the designer.
Since this is clearly a commercial use of a certain design, namely the sale of a calendar featuring Ford's automobiles, Ford is probably within its rights to protest.
(Oh yeah, please note that IANAL)
Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
In Soviet Russia You own... Hang on a minute!
This isn't new behavior by Ford. Ford has been on the war path with blueoval.com for years. keeping in mind this was one of the premier fan sites. I belonged to a club called newedgecougar.org when they whole new edge design was the in thing (1999). We were smart enough to contact Ford before hand. The only reason I think they let us do it was to use us as a part of their marketing.
I've been down this road before. My sister was a dealer in collectible Barbie dolls. She wanted to do a calendar showing dolls in various settings. Mattel threw a fit. Ultimately, Mattel agreed that she could use pictures of things she owned (the dolls) but that she couldn't use the text "Mattel" or "Barbie" except in a small disclaimer. So the calendar got published as a "11.25-inch Fashion Doll" calendar. In the Barbie world, "11.25-inch Fashion Doll" is code for "Barbie."
I'd guess in the instant case the publication could happen if they eschewed the use of "Ford" or any model designation. Kinda defeats the purpose if you have to leave the word "Mustang" off a calendar of Mustangs, but there you go.
Campbell's Soup could have made a killing by suing him.
Ford is making a valid trademark claim, not a patent or copyright claim as the summary, tags, and category would suggest. Ford does not claim to own the pictures, and it is certainly not making a patent claim. What Ford is doing is claiming trademark and trade dress rights in its name, logo, and the stylistic features of its vehicles. Ford is alleging that the Club's calendar trades on the good will that people associate with the Ford name, logo, etc, which is not allowed under state and federal trademark laws.
Furthermore, trademark law requires trademark owners to respond to such acts of potential trademark infringement. If they do not so act, then later infringers may point to the inaction and claim that Ford has abandoned their trademark. Note that this is unlike copyright and patents, which give the rightsholder more discretion in pursuing individual cases.
None of this is to say that this is a good business decision. In its current financial state, Ford should be working with its few remaining fans to produce properly licensed calendars, shirts, etc that maintain Ford's intellectual property rights. That way, everybody wins. This sort of knee-jerk "shut 'em down" response does both the company and its fans a disservice in the long run.
The law enforcement does not sell your photo for profit.
Perhaps read the article?
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
Oh...that was easy...
Does the state need to pay money to Ford when they take a picture of my Mustang blowing through a toll?
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."
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Does this mean no more porn photo shoots in/on American cars without manufacturer permission? Clearly of less importance, do they also expect authors to get permission to use the name Ford or any of its car models in their published works?
...that I can only take pictures of nude people from now on?
A few years ago, Union Pacific was going to go after model train companies. They wanted a licensing fee for using their logo, but according to Model Railroader Magazine, "Mike Wolf, president and owner of MTH Electric Trains, has negotiated a new royalty-free licensing deal."
I can't see any other true reason. If I post a picture of my car they should see that as free marketing and let it be.
And - anyway - this may not work in other countries.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I'll just have to return to my previous hobby, taking pictures of Chevy trucks sporting a window sticker with Calvin peeing on the Ford logo.
Next stop is people who make clothes apply the same rule. In fact any photo that contains a manufactured product could be blocked. Go naked mannnnnnn.
Nude photography is on the rise because clothing stores say you can't print pictures of their products.
If your pictures feature any clothing from these stores please turn in your photos immediately or remove those articles before you say cheese.
One of my best friends owns a black mustang (Cobra SVT; technically), and I thought about buying a similar one next year, because my hybrid will be paid off. If Ford is going to pull crap like this, I think I'll look for another high performance sports car instead. Screw Ford.
BMC wasn't the only club hit by this. Us at Wisconsin Mustangs got the same canned letter from Cafepress (from Ford). Cafepress stated Ford claimed ownership of the photos I took for our 2008 Calendar as well. So, we moved our club store to printfection.com and had mpix.com take care of the calendar printing. So yeah, even more pissed of Mustangers here too!
Take plenty of bad photos of Ford cars and indicate that the photo is "property of Ford". They will then want to distance themselves from bad photos of their cars and find themselves in a bind.
:)
Note: have not thought this through with a lawyer, so approach with your own risk
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
...can't show pictures of traffic. Right. Whatever inexperienced pencilneck had this piece of cerebral flatulence will be put in their place....eventually. Ford does not have the infrastructure to manage such a wide scope of copyrighted material, unless they are changing their strategy to an SCO model.
This isn't a new article, this is small time operations going "oh the big bad company pooh poohed our idea they should be ashamed. Let's slam them by posting something negative!"
The "article" here is on a site called "AdRants." Good start huh? Then it links back directly to BMC's web page that tells you little except their side.
Basically, BMC (Black Mustang Club), created a calendar for it's members of, well, black mustangs! They then sent this to cafepress, who then sells it to BMC members.
Ford owns the rights to it's own trademarks, the Ford Logo and the mustang emblem. These are clearly displayed on the calendar, which you have to go a few links in to find. It's your car, and you can do what you want with it, but this is a specific "mustang" calendar and it makes clear references to the Mustang and Ford. Ford at least has some complaint. To untangle this will require a lawyer steeped in trademark law, which I am not.
The statement that Ford owns the images of your car is bogus, and was an obvious tantrum reaction to having Ford put a cease and desist on cafepress' desk. The letter that Ford sent to cafepress is not anywhere to be found in the chain of articles here, and without that, whining is pointless and childish, because Ford might have a point. Trademark law protects the little guy as well as the big guys so you can't complain that Ford is being a bully here without more facts presented.
Now there are plenty of grey areas here, legally. Can cafepress sell the calendar only to BMC? Can they sell it at cost only? What's the difference between selling pictures of your own car for $5, and selling a calendar? What's protected and what's not when you take pictures of property you own? Was a line crossed when you grouped 12 people's mustangs together and sold them to a specific group of people through an unaffiliated company? I'm not a lawyer, but the "article" fails to address any of that.
Sure, Ford is being heavy handed, all the big corporations are. But you should only skip to "pounding the desk" in legal terms after you'd pounded on the law and/or the facts first.
So there is no real news here, and Slashdot yet again lets it a crap article get in.
I hope the next post defines the legal points I could not uncover.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
When it's an open source company, we all toe the "defend the trademark to preserve the trademark" line, but when it's a mega-corporation, they're just being bland, litigious bastards? I just want to make sure I've got the dichotomy straight here.
It is one thing to broadcast things in the public view as part of the news etc.
It is another thing to market and sell a calendar of Ford cars.
Can you not see the difference there?
paintball
Sounds like they are getting strategy advice from the record industry. How about building decent cars that people want to buy. So that in twenty years there will be more calenders celebrating your products.
What gormless fool modded the parent offtopic? You might not agree with him, but he was not off topic. His post could be paraphrased down to 'Ford is losing money, and actions like this can only help contribute to that'. Seems on topic to me.
Oh hell, I'll just shoot photos of flowers from now on.
The problem with the first argement is there is a previous precident with magazines. While magazines like Car and Driver and Motortrend aquire permission to publish photos of their cars there are hundreds of amateur tuner magazines out there that do not. These magazines are usually only 30-40 pages, do not have a big circulation, and are quite cheap. A LOT of the major car forums out there have them. These tuner magazines usually have member's cars, and definetly a lot of pictures of them. I used to suscribe to RX Tuner (rx7forum.com's magazine), which is a tuner magazine for rotary based vehicles. Ford owns Mazda. This is just one example, I'm sure there are plenty more that are dedicated to the Mustang and the Focus.
While some of these magazines have probably aquired permission, there must be some that have not. If Ford did not pursue these in the allotted time, it likely means they have lost the right to take legal action against a calender.
I very much doubt this would stand up in court. Of course, that said, there is not much an army of corporate lawyers can't do these days.
I'd love to see Ford take on Google here.
"2. Use unions that add about $1500.00 overhead to each car in pensions and health care"
It's a bit more complicated than that isn't it? In other countries companies don't have the expense of health care. But that's really a political issue for the American people general.
"All your Ford are belong to us"
I think Google had better brace for a lawsuit... there are some pictures of Ford products clearly visible in Google Earth if you zoom in far enough...
Ford is *NOT* claiming they own anyone's pictures. What Ford is objecting to is taking pictures of their cars, putting them in a calendar, and then marketing and selling a calendar of FORD cars.
It's a bit of a grey area, but I can't say I see Ford being outside the realm of reasonableness here.
paintball
Actually, I was wondering, does Ford have a trademark on calendars?
By extension, Ford must be against, and not use, viral marketing.
....For Permission!! Quite simple really....
It's left blank because I have nothing to say to you punks!
Porsche claims this too and they are notorious for filing IP suits based on trademark infringement, etc.
The workaround? Slap a number on the car. Viola! Instant race car; it becomes YOUR trademark, and does not infringe on theirs.
Do the same with your Ford Rustang (Yes, I am ragging on the Mustang - with this kind of action Ford deserves it. As an aside I actually LIKE the Mustang), your Ford Lightning, or whatever it is you want to include in your own original artwork.
The number need not be intrusive. Just put a small Bill Elliot "94" on your classic Mustang. No more trademark infringement. Or, just digitally add it.
This is done all the time by specialty shops which work on Porsche products.
Note to Ford: Take a hike.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Guess I'd show a "profit" after selling a thousand of the buggers. Then I'd write them a check.
The law is not particularly unclear on this one. Ford is right, Black Mustang Club is wrong. You can read on for details if you want, but that's how this one comes down.
... art reproduction ... or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
... diagrams, models, and technical drawings.
... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
We start with 17 USC 101 (chapter 17, section 101 of the United States Code): A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a
Here, the Black Mustang Club (BMC) intends to make what is legally an art reproduction of Ford's artistic design.
OK, but, no, really? Yes, really. 17 USC 101 goes on to state: "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art
Here, the Mustang is a 3D word of applied art. It is also derived from Ford's diagrams, models, and technical drawings, so it is itself a derivative work. There are other ways to go at it, but the net-net is that Mustang is covered by 17 USC.
But it's a car! 17 USC cares nothing about that: Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.
That's legalese for "if you can separate the art from the function, say by taking an artistic pic of it and putting it on a calendar, it's covered."
OK, fine, but this is fair use, right? Wrong. 17 USC 107 is clear on this point: the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies
This is a pure commercial venture, end of story.
Ford is within its rights. As to whether it's out of its mind... that's not covered by 17 USC.
I'm pretty sure that standard doesn't apply to copyrights. For Trademarks I believe that is true though, because if your trademark becomes common language (like kleanex) it becomes more difficult to protect that trademark through lawsuits. That's why Google is trying to keep the word 'google' from becoming a verb.
The copyrights of the images belong to the photographers so Ford doesn't have any rights regarding the pictures. The cars belong to the photographers (or their lenders) so Ford doesn't have any rights to them. The only thing I can imagine is that Ford is claiming the appearance of the Ford and Mustang logos is an infringement on their trademark, and that the distinctive appearance of the Mustang is itself a trademark.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I couldn't post of picture of the car as part of a sales advertisement?
I call BS on much of this. Ford is likely overstepping its bounds.
Legally, they may indeed have that right. Laws are so screwed up and people get ridiculous when protecting that which they imagine to be their property.
But, even if they do have that right, they shouldn't. Fair use has been so marginalized that I wonder how you can sell pictures at all any more. How many public places can you take a picture of without capturing a piece of someone's advertising or a company logo, or a product sold by someone? I mean, SOMEONE made the furniture in my house. SOMEONE made the house that I live in. And every one of those people presumably has just as much right as Ford. I can't sell a picture of my own damn house if one is to believe these legal claims, because I didn't make most of the things inside it.
But this is exactly why I want to eliminate the ridiculous laws concerning imaginary property and I support the Pirate Party.
My current car is a Ford. My next car will not be.
So if the Google mobile snaps a shot going down the street and a Ford is in the frame they have to shoot it over or pay Ford to use it?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
PR group grades Ford on their customer relations,
: insert photo of wrecked Ford here :
All you have to do is make people afraid to buy your product for fear of getting sued, they are probably only going to buy at a serious discount.
In all seriousness, most icons which are perpetually in the public eye are protected from such restrictions - including the faces of famous people. Why would a car which can be commonly seen driving down the street be any different. Something tells me a decent lawyer could tear some serious holes in this case.
Lurking in the desert
The easiest way around this problem is to make a calendar of Black Mustang Club Members. Make sure the photo contains the Club member standing next to their vehicle. The vehicle would then only be a background item, as they are in the movies, and used only as a prop, since the title of the calendar clearly states: "Black Mustang Club Members".
The position of Ford is that pictures of the vehicle are been displayed prominently and the pictures are being sold in a calendar. So, what about buy-sell magazines you can buy up at the quickie mart with prominently displayed Fords? These are all in violation of Ford's IP also I guess.
FAQs are evil.
> 2. Use unions that add about $1500.00 overhead to each car in pensions and health care
I dunno. Adding $1500 to the cost of a new car is probably
worth having fewer working people without adequate health
insurance and ensuring that old geezers that used to be
auto workers don't have to live off of cat food.
It's not like this stuff just magically goes away because
Ford can suddenly get away with shafting their employees.
I buy cars that are worth buying. If Ford has to compete based on "cheap" then it sucks to be them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If Ford does have a legal standing (IANAL) the smart way to handle this is to talk to the group and help them find a legal way to publish the calendar. One would think that the group is doing this out of the love for their cars, and if Ford took the time to work with them I'm sure they could come to an agreement. This is where large companies lose touch with their customers. Instead of immediately sending the attack dogs, they should try an open dialog. This could also be a great PR move for the company because they can then inform more of their "fans" how to work with the company in showing their pride for their products. But I guess the Ford brass would not understand this while they drive around in their BMWs and Porsches, wondering how to spend that next bonus check.
Companies & cities have tried similar tactics with national landmarks and their buildings, to either gain a revenue stream or prevent anyone else from creating products that might compete with their own projects or be used in lawsuites or public criticism, but again all of them have been tossed out of court.
Copyright only protects their original works, and Trademark only protects their products from duplication or, neither prevent you from making pictures and selling them for profit.
Now, imagine what it's like if you have to get permission to put *any* product in *any* picture. In fact, over on Wikimedia Commons, there's an active discussion about whether or not to delete screenshots that show the Windows title bar.
In the 1990s the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland tried the same thing to protect any picture of its building, see http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/IP/trademark/rock_and_roll.htm for the verdict that was reached 10 years ago - almost to the date.
This would have been a major precedence, then, and could have meant that any movie or even TV series would have needed to pay royalties to all kinds of buildings... just for showing the skyline of, e.g. NYC.
Fortunately, it seems not to be so easy with trademarks, after all...
A recent Mythbusters episode involved airbags. The airbag-equipped steering wheels they used were obviously early 1990s Ford steering wheels. Duct tape over the Ford logos. I was assuming they were doing this to avoid criticism for seemingly positively or negatively endorsing Ford, but maybe they wanted to keep Ford's "property" off the cameras...
BTW, I always get a good laugh when I see dealers selling things like "official" Chevy-logo trailer-hitch covers. They want me to pay to tote around their advertisement? Heck, first thing I did with my car (and my wife's) was remove the dealer decal from the back.
Look, I'm not defending Ford here - I think they've got their collective heads inserted into their nether orifices, and they're going down the RIAA's lemming cliff to be putting the hammer to their best customers - but let me give you an example of why it's not always so simple.
Here in Seattle, there's a famous, almost iconic piece of public art. It's free for anyone to visit, view, play on, and take pictures of. News organizations can report from events and show it in the background, or the foreground - no problem.
But that doesn't mean anyone can do anything with it they want, just because it's out in the open air - as a large shuttle-van company found out when they featured it prominently in their TV ads without asking nicely first. The original artist retained copyrights to the art, and the fact that it's visible in public didn't allow others to profit from that image without getting his approval first. Now, if people contact him in advance, he'll usually say yes at the cost of a case of beer (no kidding). Somehow I don't think the shuttle company got off so lightly, after the fact.
So: public art: news, yes; blatant commercial exploitation, no. Where something like having the same art in a commercial movie in the background of a scene would fall, I don't know (IANAL). But I do know that - like it or not - copyright questions aren't always ammenable to simple black-and-white answers.
Will dole come and get me for my fruit basket pics if I forget to remove the label? Assholes!
Hooray for capitalism!!
Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
I'm trying to remember...
How many American industries have sued themselves into extinction? I'm having trouble thinking of one.
And no, the recording industry doesn't count. They're still here, so they ain't extinct.
To be fair to Ford, it seems precedents set around the enforcement of Trademarks force them into this situation. IANAL, but if they don't protect their trademark on the look of the car in this innocent application, they are waiving all rights to that trademark when they need to enforce it in cases of malicious use.
That being said, they should have taken the approach that Second Life did in the past (see link below). Instead of just issuing a Cease and Desist letter stating that they did not authorize this use of their trademark, they could have sent a Permit and Proceed letter that explicitly authorized usage by the club. In this manner, they are protecting their trademark for the future, and not pissing off their best customers. Everyone wins. More companies should do this:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/31/0216258
It's unbridled hubris. Out of control brand extension.
These cars aren't copyrighted. They may contain patents, but the image of them doesn't violate a patent, as images can't be patented. This is not a grey area in the copyright law.
They are being totally unreasonable here. I'm reposting my own Ford pics on my sight the very next thing I do. I eagerly await a DCMA take-down message, for with it, gives me the federal nexus to demonstrate my injury to a federal judge. What hubris.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Agreed. Anyone who doesnt get it should reiterate over the perils of making a documentary in this day and age.
Ice Cream has no bones.
Actually, this has always been the case.
I'll preface this by saying that more freedom is always better, and I don't like Ford.
However, this is not really an oddball case at all. Ford, I'm fairly certain, registers all their designs as trademark(s), thereby enabling them to legally preclude an entity from reproducing said designs for their own commercial purposes. In fact, in order to maintain their trademark, Ford has to actively defend their trademark which is likely the reason for this action. IE, if they let this relatively harmless group operate outside of fair use, they have to let everyone do so (in other words, their trademark is no longer a trademark).
Although I wouldn't put it past them to try, they cannot stop you from taking pictures of your car to send to mom, put on your MySpace page or keep on your desk at work. They can't stop you from taking a picture of the car to put with your Auto Trader ad when you go to sell it.
They probably can't stop you from using photos of a car in a fine art piece for sale or display (artistic appropriation is a bit touchy, but is generally allowed by the courts).
They can't stop you from taking pictures of the car to accompany a news piece (for example, a photo of a Police Interceptor in flames or a photo of a Focus on the road for a review).
As for printing playing cards, calendars, posters, coffee mugs, etc. and selling them, for profit or not, they will do what they can to keep you from doing so. That is pretty much in-the-clear commercial appropriation, and is not allowed.
In other cases, usually the sports organization or the player him/herself owns the TM to their likeness to prevent me from going to an event, shooting pictures of the player and then selling prints/posters off my website. That doesn't mean that I don't still own the copyright to the photo, it just restricts what I can do to exercise my use of that photo. It doesn't stop me from publishing the photo as a news piece.
One could argue that if these are heavily modified cars, they are no longer identifiable as Ford's TM, and then the logo could be airbrushed out and the photo/calendar is probably a-ok.
The problem is that Ford is likely acting completely within their rights here, and unless this group has the cash to fight it in court, it's a case-closed event.
I'll reiterate that one of the pitfalls of trademark is that they have to be protected to be enforced, unlike (or at least less than) copyright. Some suit somewhere got wind of this and has no choice but to enforce their trademark to keep the trademark.
Nothing to see here...
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
The Ford Fusion is actually a very good car. It got a better reliability rating than the Camry which is a bit of a gold standard.
Also Ford owns a big chunk of Mazda.
Consumer reports actually gives a lot of Ford cars high marks.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Here's an example on VWVortex
Not an unusual thing in the automotive industry, perhaps.
Just replace all pictures of Ford vehicles with pictures of the equivalent Toyota model.
That should make Ford very happy
>Even magazines doing reviews of vehicles need the permission of the maker
That is incorrect. Chapter 17, section 107 of the United States code clearly states that "the fair use of a copyrighted work... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
Here, your example is perfectly on point with 17 USC 107. The review would be criticism, comment, and news reporting at a minimum, and arguably teaching.
>they CAN prevent an organization (in this case a car club) from printing, selling, (and thus profiting) from those images without their permission.
This is also incorrect, but not as egregiously. 17 USC 107 distinguishes commercial and noncommercial ventures as one of the factors in determining whether a particular use is fair use. However, in this case even the Red Cross (a nonprofit) could run afoul of the law by printing the calendar because of "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". That means that if they print a pic of the entire car, that fact counts against them. Speaking of factors that count against them, 17 USC 107(4) raises the consideration of "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Here, that means that Black Mustang Club is reducing the value of the design because nobody is going to buy a Black Mustang Club calendar and also buy a calendar from Ford. (Black Mustang Club would counter that they are raising the value of the Mustang by printing the calendar, but their claim is speculative whereas Ford's claim of reduction in the sale of Ford calendars is pretty solid. Judges don't like speculation.)
This is offtopic I know I know... But why on earth do people call their Porsche PorSha? I never understood this.
If you say the word Porsche in English the e is silent. And since I speak fluent German the e at the end is not an Sha, it is more like the e in wet or like the e in Good Day, eh. What I am wondering is how the e turned into a?
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
So if someone runs a red light in a Ford vehicle, can that person get the red-light-camera evidence thrown out as being an illegal photo in violation of Ford's trademarks?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
"O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is!
O brave new world
That has such people in't!"
Praise Ford!
We just need to create a pony-censoring plugin for Firefox and Internet Explorer. Here's how it would work.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
You can take a picture of yourself holding a Pepsi, in your Calvin Klein purple underwear, leaning up against a Delorian while holding a poster for Back to the Future and post it for sale and there is little that any of the companies involved can do to you legally other than make threats.
More companies DON'T do this because they would rather continue the fallacy that they actually have iron clad rights to everything.
The cars that Ford sells have protective cover. The cover was removed. The car looks completely different. Not to mention that it has visible scratches that Ford did not produce. Or are they claiming that all those scratches are also part of their brand?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Trademark law is designed to prevent brand confusion in the marketplace among similar products. If you try to sell a car that looks like a Ford and has the Ford emblem on it, you are in violation of trademark. However, selling a calendar with pictures of cars in it (unless, perhaps, they are all Fords, or you are reproducing the Ford logo on the front of the calendar as if it were an official Ford product) is most likely permissable.
Corporations have rapidly become increasingly aggressive about this sort of behavior, though, as they know very well that few people have pockets deep enough to challenge them in court. Ubisoft publishes an excellent flight sim which features every major aircraft of World War II in it...except for a handful of Grumman aircraft, because Grumman sent them cease and desist letters. I suspect the only rational for this was that, if they didn't, they somehow risked their trademark. I can't see them as construing any other benefit from the action, nor any other motive other than greed that has grown so ravenous they are blind to the fact that no small company could afford to pay the fees they demand. Many aircraft companies did this to the plastic model companies years ago, which is one reason you don't see resin model kits any more...their sales were too small to offset licensing fees demanded by the aircraft manufacturers.
Imagine what WILL be: We are not far from a future where it will be possible to manufacture almost any durable good from a machine if we can but visualize it using 3-D software tools. In a world where everyone can own their own replicator, who will control what is replicated?
This copyfight is just beginning...
I would not be happy about it, but I guess I can give them the right to complain about how I use pictures of my privately owned Ford vehicle in certain circumstances if I'm looking to make a profit based on the fact that the items are from their brand and represent the likeness of their brand that they've spent years crafting..
But what Ford really needs is someone at Ford re-thinking how they themselves use the pictures of their vehicles in search of profits!
God look at me, I'm just a man, but you tell me I'm not just a man, so hard to understand, after all, I'm just a man.
Sequence of events:
...
1. Ford claims trademark.
2. Members purchase cars with trademarked design and logos.
3. Members (presumably) modify cars to beyond factory specs.
4. Members document modifications with calendar.
5. Ford sues for trademark violations.
Implications for (as an example) iPhone hacking:
1. Apple claims trademark.
2. George Hotz purchases iPhone with trademarked design and logos.
3. George Hotz modifies iPhone to unlock it from the network.
4. George Hotz documents modifications with blog.
5.
Admittedly, George Hotz wasn't making money from his blog. But I think you understand the connection.
It means to free from bonds or restraints.
I had a similiar problem with cafepress back in 2000. I used to own the largest ford escort site on the net, and when we tried to print up a calendar and posters, we got bitch slapped by CafePress as well. After contacting cafepress they told me that I did not own the trademark to the vehicles in question and that they were not printing in order TO AVOID A POTENTIAL LAWSUIT.
I seriously doubt Ford contacted them. I had Ford.com IP addresses in my logs for YEARS without ever being contacted by Ford.
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
In related news... Dell, HP, and Apple are now fighting for rights to the photo I took of my three computers sitting side by side. To make matters worse, the following company's have joined in:
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:
So the trademark is protected only so far as it is used as an indicator of the source or sponsorship of the product. It is completely legal to take photographs of trademarked goods and to sell them. Andy Warhol's paintings anyone?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.
Actually, I was wondering, does Ford have a trademark on calendars?
Yes. Ford owns something like 30 live trademarks on calendars and related products, including the Mustang logo (Trademark Registration # 2034378), the Ford name (#1868251), the Ford logo (#1863708, and the Cobra name (#2246277). So this isn't a purely academic pursuit for them; they make money by licensing their trademarks to calendar producers. In fact, they even have a trademark on a "Ford Official Licensed Product" logo that is used on, among other things, calendars (#3310542, if you're curious).
Similar suits are killing the scale model industry along with massively overinflated licensing fees.
I had a longer post, but it got eaten by the server.
Dr E
Eric Aitala
www.f1m.com
The real question is why would anyone want to make additional visual reproductions of those fugly douche-bag containers anyway...
I thought they went out of business or merged with SCO or something like that.
You'll note I didn't say they should seek it out - I said Ford should have offered it, instead of trying to restricted them.
I agree that nobody should have to seek out such a thing. It's silly. But that's not what this is about. Nobody (not even ford - read their letter) is suggesting that it makes sense to restrict people from doing what this club is doing. Unfortunately Trademark law (not copyright - this has nothing to do with copyright law) FORCES them to take action here or lose the right in FUTURE CASES where it may indeed be unreasonable use of the trademark, and have nothing to do with users just taking pictures of their cars.
That's the point here.
All Ford has to do is send them a standard license agreement and charge them $1.00. Then the calendar guys are happy, the Ford lawyers have done their job protecting their trademark, and Ford Inc. gets free advertising.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm ...which may or may not shed more light...
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
They need to tell Ford to go pound sand. Then do some research. I wonder if Ford has either sued or had agreements with other car clubs and registries for things like Mustangs and Cobra's? I'm sure some of these clubs have raised money selling t-shirts, mugs, and other things bearing the likeness of Ford cars and trucks. Find 1+ that Ford hasn't sued and see how quickly they back pedal.
And you completely missed that the post you replied to refer to trademarks, not copyright. I have no idea whether they have any basis for suing, but copyright law certainly does not say anything about whether they have a valid claim for trademark infringement.
Magazine, TV, etc. reports and reviews usually fall under the 'Editorial Content' and is subject to 'Fair Use' of the copyright. If the calendar in question was was about modifications to Ford vehicles, and the vehicles themselves were a secondary subject, then perhaps they could get away with it.
js.
Jean-Sebastien Morisset, Sr. UNIX Administrator
What's selling the calendar, the trucks or the people? Sounds like it's the trucks. Therefore, Ford owns the rights. I know you people are freaking out about this, but 99% of you don't understand what you are buying. You are not buying the truck image, design, etc. If you want to make money from those elements, you have to pay the copyright holder.
This ought to do it: This car is not what you think it is.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Trademark law is designed to prevent brand confusion in the marketplace among similar products. If you try to sell a car that looks like a Ford and has the Ford emblem on it, you are in violation of trademark. However, selling a calendar with pictures of cars in it (unless, perhaps, they are all Fords, or you are reproducing the Ford logo on the front of the calendar as if it were an official Ford product) is most likely permissible.
That would be true if Ford did not own any trademarks on calendars. As I noted above, however, they own roughly 30 such trademarks and actively license them to calendar producers. A search on Amazon for 'ford mustang calendar' produces lots of results.
In a world where everyone can own their own replicator, who will control what is replicated?
In that case, patent rights will still be necessary to encourage people to invent new durable goods in the first place, and trademarks will still be necessary to ensure that one is getting goods (or, if you prefer, digital plans for goods) from a known, high-quality source.
If you extend copyright and/or trademark to Ford for let's say, the Mustang, then the theory of estoppel trumps Ford.
Here's why and how:
google image search this term: "ford mustang for sale". Look at the mind-boggling number of hits.
Now tell me the use of a pic of a Mustang in a for-sale ad is different than putting them into a calendar on a website.
It is not. It's an image, used for the gain of the advertiser. In one case, to sell a used or new Mustang. In the other case, to exemplify the characteristics of ownership of the car. No diff. Estoppel says that 80-90 years ago, Ford should have made a claim
Fie.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
If you take a picture of a copyrighted object such as a sculpture (and that's the main subject, not a small percentage of the image), that's considered a derivative work. They don't own your pictures, but you don't have complete copyright of them either. You can't make money off of them. I don't know if Ford copyrights their cars, but if they did then according to the law they would be correct in denying commercial access to the photographs. Yes, copyright law in general is nuts, but it's been this way for a long time so I don't see why the summary is so incredulous.
Is Ford going to push this same trademark issue with the company that takes the pictures of my car running the red light?
Because they are using photographs of Ford's Trademark styling and logo to make money of me!
You are referring to Copyright law. Ford is not claiming copyright, they are claiming trademark. Completely different. Whether they would win on copyright grounds is pretty doubtful, but trademark is a completely different ballgame. Trademark has nothing to do with 'derivative works' or 'pictoral, graphic, and sculptural works'. It concerns misleading consumer by using someone else's trademark to make people think you are them.
Hey people, stop pulling disparate snippets of IP law that you don't understand and making incorrect statements. Cite case law or a piece of US code that actually applies.
Years after years many people surely took photos of their cars and the manufacturer said nothing. Now out of the blue the manufacturer has a problem when someone thought of making some money with their pictures. So, all the manufacturer cares for is money. But since they never sought to protect their imaginary property before, they cannot claim it now.
No matter the current legal framework, it is not their property from an ethical point of view. When I buy a product, I own it. And I can open it and study it inside if I want, and I actually do this with all new gadgets and laptops I buy. Guess what I saw one time in a laptop from a major manufacturer? A notice like that you can't open or study this laptop as it contains proprietary copyrighted stuff. Ridiculous, I paid for it, so I own it, and I have the right to know how my machine works and check for myself whether the manufacturer built the machine in the right way. And how else am I going to change my CPU and RAM if I am not allowed to open it? Service sucks anyway, so who cares about warranties, I have really never used any techsupport or warranty and I'm not afraid to lose my warranty anyway. Interestingly in that laptop I also saw a hidden USB port which wasn't documented anywhere (all docs said it had 3 ports, but in reality it had a fourth in the internals, and when I found it I used it for a permanent flash drive internally in the laptop!). If I couldn't open my device, I wouldn't know it was there, and I wouldn't be able to make that my permanent boot drive (less noisy than the hdd).
Of course due to the current copyright dictatorship one may not be able to use the knowledge gained in any way or transmit it. But nobody should prevent users from studying their stuff. They bought it, they can study it. And since they bought it, they can also take and sell pictures of their stuff. The stuff you pay for is your property after you pay. So, I would advice manufacturers and *AAs to quit whining about their imaginary property and get to do business ethically.
"Guys, we're deep in the red, how do we make more money?"
"We could switch to using FedEx..."
"...shut up. Real ideas, people!"
"I know! We could sue our fan clubs so that the few people left who are stupid enough to buy our cars out of brand loyalty might look elsewhere!"
"BRILLIANT!"
If you can't find a real troll, just mod down whoever you don't agree with!
A large percentage of Mustang buyers comes from loyal Ford fans; families who for generations owned a Mustang and kids that dreamt of racing one since childhood. It is for these reasons that the Mustang brand stands out and retains its popularity. This is also why Ford should really consider the opportunity costs which exist from not receiving royalties for images of its logo, while reaping the benefits of Mustang clubs, mustang message boards and everything else imaginable. These collectives are breeding future Mustang drivers. Just think about the senior parking lot when you were in high school...
If you go to Disneyland and take pictures of Mickey and friends, that's not a problem - you create the photo, you own the copyright.
However, if you take that picture and slap it onto product (calendar, mug, tshirt, etc.) for SALE, then yes it violates Disney's TRADEMARK rights - they have the sole discretion to decide how they want to sell their brand.
Even though we may not like it, I'm pretty sure the parent post is correct. If a company owns a trademark for a product they have quite a bit of legal power to protect their product's likeness from being used for profit by other organizations. There are exceptions for parody and news but not too many others AFAIK.
I need to know something, what do you own these days? It seems that companies believe that they own every aspect of the product you own, including how you use it. If Ford can restrict people making a calandar of Ford cars what can other people do next? The U.S. car industry is in major trouble, you'd think they would be happy that people are buying their cars?
Actually they're the same after all. They're both equally bad for you - and part of the standard college kid diet.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Alaskan airlines, for the last few years, has claimed copywrite and trademark infringement on any photos of their aircraft, no matter if the photo in question was taken from public property. So this is not a new trend.
And thus yet another American industry is suing itself into extinction.
Reminds me of the unbelievably asshatted C&D that Fedex sent this guy - for posting pictures of his house decorated with Fedex boxes: http://www.fedexfurniture.com/couch.html
You can not buy better publicity that that at any price. I could imagine someone doing this deliberately for the Streisand effect, but that would require a lawyer with a sense of humor, a sense of irony, or even the slightest shred of humanity.
As someone who enjoys taking photos I buy a couple of photo mags a month ( no not that sort....) and two of them have an article this month on your legal rights (I am a UK citizen YMMV) and in the UK designs such as buildings and cars for example are designs under copyright.
Anyway have a look at http://copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p15_design_rights
After reading about the terrorist laws been used against random photographers/people I decide I had to join liberty http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ So my hobby has done some good.
Companies who weren't ruled by morons encouraged consumers to create calendars with their cars in it. The referred to this bizarre practice as "free advertising".
depictions or photographs of Ford's distinctively shaped vehicles So how about a calendar full of crashed ones?
I reckon Ford is dying because of their stupid lawyers...
I have been planning to do a similar calendar at my website http://www.ehmac.ca/ with members showing off their Apple computer setups. I wonder if Apple (Notorious for protecting their copyright) will go after me for using images of their computers?
Seems ludicrous to me that Ford would do that. Do they send cease and desist orders to every TV Show that has a Ford in the shot?
1) Find one of the three guys who's actually PROUD to own a Ford.
2) Piss in that guy's corn flakes.
3) ???
4) Profit. I believe *I* made more than Ford did last year...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
is defined by law, and even if Ford could win a very limited scope of case, I doubt that they would really want to wade into the hornet's nest of bad publicity something like this would generate, nor would they want to lose a case based on stupid lawsuits, because that would actually weaken, not strengthen, their trademark.
About all they can do reasonably would be to sue for trademark dilution if the image of a Ford vehicle were used in some sort of legally definable derogatory manner. Thoughts?
No wonder they're going down the drain. Perhaps if they employed fewer leech-like attorneys and more fuel efficiency engineers they'd still be competitive. But, perhaps not. Taking a page out of the RIAA playbook is never a good sign. Time to sell that Ford stock short, I think. Me? I drive a Japanese car, of course.
The possibilities go on and on.
Ford, you and your lawyers suck. That's what I can't stand about lawyers, 98% of them give the other 2% a bad name.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
I think what the United States needs right about now is a virus that kills about 80% of all litigators.
Fool!
How many times have you heard somebody say, "there ought to be a law!"
Well mark my words, if not for the litigators, there would be... and there would be police to enforce it also.
You think the RIAA is bad, just imagine if there was a police force for every type of dispute now covered by civil lawsuits. You'd have a police state for sure covering every human interaction where people or businesses could potentially have any sort of civil liability.
Imagine: Apartment Rental police, Cable Television Service Theft police, the Plumber Cut the Fiberoptic and so the Network is Down police, Neighbor's Tree Fell in my Yard police!
The civil court system is a genius. It keeps people and companies on good behavior not by a police force, but rather by using attornies as 21st centry bounty hunters. An the best part is that the guilty party pays the bounty.
A vote against civil lawsuits is a vot for 1984-style government overlords.
The popular web forum Rennlist was for years the Porschelist, until Porsche got their lawyers involved.
In more recent times, users had desired to make a calendar, with all of the proceeds going to charity. It was verboten by Porsche to include any logo or any image of the cars that included a full profile of the car, as the shape itself is a trademark.
The calendar went off, but several shots had to be redone to show a different angle or not include the Porsche logo.
I would think not, since it's a Honda...
Life would be easier if I had the source code.
FORD (Found On Road Dead)!
glad that I drive a dodge, so Heil Dodge!
.. He wants his porn back.....
... I'll have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster with a side of Plutonium Nyborg
There is one sure fire solution to this silliness. Sell any and all Ford vehicles; buy something else. Then send then their photos.
Mitakuye Oyasin: Translation from Lakota Sioux, "We are all related."
The legal issues in this case have been settled long ago. Ford holds the trademark on the image and likeness of its cars. The photographer hold the copyright on the pictures he took. For Ford to uphold its trademark, it has to contest all unlicensed use of its intellectual property.
All that being said there is an easy way to resolve this. I work for a company that sells aftermarket car parts. On our website, we wanted to use the Ford blue oval trademark image to guide people who were looking for Ford car parts. We asked Ford for a royalty-free license to use there trademark and were granted permission. We included mockups of how we were going to use it so their lawyers didn't freak. Everythings was businesslike and professional. Businesses do this all the time.
How soon we forget this nation was founded by lawyers.
Take a look at the US Constitution and tell me with a straight face it was written by farmers and silversmiths.
Most of the famous founders were attorneys and we are all much better off because of it.
Great...if we take this logic to it's end point you've pretty much declared that the only photograph anyone is allowed to sell are nude pictures taken in nature. Unless you make all the clothes and any objects in the photo yourself.
- as all the manufacturers of clothing will be able to object and prohibit photographs being sold with their products.
- all the background objects, buildings, props, etc. will likewise be objected too.
Come one everybody, let's enter into the 2nd American Slavery Period. When the mind and thought and idea became enslaved regardless of one's race.
Apple needs more free publicity? Watch a movie... see a mac in it... how much was paid for that spot? Watch slashdot for your free apple pub.
I don't want anybody to get me for the photo of my model T on the web...
KMA Ford
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
In the film "A Fish Called Wanda" someone comments on a girl whose name was Portia: "why would someone name their daughter after a car?"...
And speaking of fish and English language pronunciation, Bernard Shaw once remarked that the word fish could be spelled "goti": G as in laugh, O as in women, and TI as in action.
It's amazing to me that so many people are completely ignorant about Intellectual property laws. Not just the posters supporting ford, but the Mod's moding them up as insightful. Ford is claiming their Trademark extends to pictures of their products. This IS NOT SUPPORTED IN THE LAW. The only one that has intellectual property protection for a picture of a car is the photographer who owns the copyright on the photograph. The only exception to this is photographs of people, and only when used commercially (because a person in an commercial ad can be seen as endorsing the product/service which could affect said person).
Is it the media companies constant talk about Intellectual Property that has convinced all you ignorant posters that somehow a company has the right to the control how products are used or even pictures of products? It's absolutely astonishing that anyone would defend Ford in this matter as "protecting their rights". Well I guess they are protecting their made up rights which have no basis in the law. Maybe if all the corporations can convince Americans that this is the way the law is that congress will make it the law. Maybe, just maybe that is the ultimate goal. And with the confusion, fair rights and first sale doctrines along with freedom go out the window. Ignorance isn't an excuse, you should be ashamed.
FORD did not stop this process - CAFEPRESS did. All the BMC has to do is ask for permission from FORD and then send the approval letter to CAFEPRESS. Anyone who says anything different are a bunch of idiots.
I'm against being for anything.
Pix pls.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
It's "Domino's" Pizza and "Domino" Sugar.
Which only serves to further distinguish them.
Which is what trademark protection is for.
Ford need worry less about a picture of their car and more about their car actually operating as a car.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Have each owner write a review of their car - picture is now fair use
But no trademark on calendars that feature a car, just ones that use the word "Ford".
Yes, it is more complicated. It's more like:
"2. Laughably make pension promise that the union should know you won't be able to honor, and set aside no assets to pay for it, so that in the future, honoring the promises gores your profits, making UbuntuDupe suspicious you won't even be able to honor warrantees."
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
I think it is just plain brilliant for Ford to go after the only 10 Americans that don't think Ford sucks. I'm glad Ford is working so hard on changing their minds.
They could even use this catchy new slogan for free: Ford, working for a perfect 100% dislike amongst Americans!
Who owns the picture if it's an ordinary scene on a street, with Fords, GM cars, Toyotas, Hondas, etc in it?
Or do the automakers all destroy each other in a M.A.D. orgy of lawyer-rama?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
'Nuff said...at least from their perspective.
There is no gray area here. Imagine what photography would be like if this applied to *everything*. Photographers could not shoot interiors of homes without getting permission from the furniture makes, appliance manufacturers, or paint companies. You could not shoot a city streetscape without getting the permission of the makers of every visible sign, every shingle, every window. This is clearly insanity.
ron lussier / lenscraft / fine art giclee prints/ sausalito / ca
This really is a page right out of the RIAA lawyers handbook of how to collect litigious fees, irrespective of whether or not it is legal.
This very much is a show stopper now for Ford Motor company if the complainants decide to make this public. No self respecting American would be caught dead in something for which they give up some of their constitutionally protected rights to own.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Ford may *claim* the right to restrict likenesses of their trademark being used in calendars, etc. But, after years of these calendars being published without objection, they may have lost the right to complain. Given that automobile fan clubs have been around almost as long as automobiles, and that most of them have either the manufacturer's or car model's name as part of the organization's name, I'd say Ford is a bit late in voicing their objection. Mostly, because 99% of the images are of vehicles, and only 1% of the image is a barely recognizeable trademarked logo. Does Ford believe that every newspaper photo of a wrecked Ford requires their approval?
If it were my club, I'd find another printer. And sell the calendars myself through my web site. If Ford objects again, have your lawyer ask them why last year's calendar wasn't a problem for them.
And no, I don't think I do need Ford's permission to write a review of their vehicle. Assuming my review contains facts and clearly delineates my personal opinions, it's called free speech, and I don't need Ford's permission.
Terrific insight!
Can I print pictures of a book I own? Can I print pictures of source code of a licensed .NET application as exposed by Reflector?
Transamerica corp. has been saying for years that no one can photograph San Francisco because it's building is a trademark.
I have with me a bucket full of microscopic logos which I have copywritten, I am going to throw these logos on you and from here on out every picture with you in it is mine.
Is this thread then owned (or Pwned) by the Ford Motor Company?
Ford doesn't need the right. Unless you have $50 million to fight Ford in a legal battle, then ford wins automatically.
Msft does the same thing, that is what the scox-scam is all about. Msft does not like ibm, or anybody else, contributing to linux. So msft has made it clear that if you contribute to linux, you better be ready to spend $50 - $100 million defending yourself in a bogus lawsuit.
This is just typical of how all corporations view their customers (cash batteries).
:)
You dont own what you buy, you liscense it. Thats the new mentality. You cant take a picture of yourself and print it, if you're wearing a hat that says ford on it
That is how crazy it is.
Ford has a right to keep you from making a profit from their trademark.
If you put pictures of a Ford online and there are ads on the page, you're infringing.
While this pointless argument goes on, Toyota continues to sell more cars. Banzai!
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
Four Old Rusty Doors?
Forcing Our Rights Downyourthroat...
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
its utter cobblers. Ford are so far up their own backsides that I am seriously considering not buying a Ford Focus in the near future and instead buying something else. Its a pity because the Focus is a great car in the UK.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
From now on, every Ford I take a picture of belongs to me.
Even a fool has a talent.
Maybe now the ford fans will say: "fsck ford! If that's the way the want to treat us!"
You know, I've seen absolutely no evidence presented in the linked article that indicates Ford contacted either the car club or Cafepress. Comments on the linked article indicate that Cafepress may have taken this step on their own. I'm withholding judgment until I see an email or letter reproduced on the club's web site.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
A calendar full of Mustangs and fanbois? This sounds like a terrible idea. I'd rather buy a calendar full of station wagons and trolls.
I think these boys have just managed to get themselves in line for a VERY large lawsuit. I have no idea which corporate idiot dreamt that up, but if they have been sending out letters they've dug themselves a rather deep hole, and not just from a PR point of view. Knowing corporate idiocy they will continue digging until they hit bedrock, then order in the dynamite to go deeper once more.
Thankfully it's Ford. I mean, if it was Ferrari or something I'd care, but Ford?
Ab-so-lu-te-ly, totally, completely insane. I thought I'd seen everything now, but this is award winning stupidity. This may not be bettered, not just in 2008 but possibly this decade (well, OK maybe by another Sony rootkit or RIAA, but those are easy targets. This is in a stupidity class of its own).
Applause guys. Could we have the names of the clowns who dreamt this up so we could avoid accidentally employing them? Thanks.
Insert
It depends on how the calendar is being marketed. If it's a "Ford Calendar" then they have every right to say no, it's their brand and their trademark. What if it was a collection of Fords in fatal accidents? Or a calendar of Linux or Mac machines during a (rare) crash next to Windows machines running 27 different proc-intensive apps? Somebody would cry foul on that, and why? Because you're misrepresenting them.
If they're using the name "Ford" or making a point of Ford's trademark, they need to ask Ford.
Anyone want to buy my Slashdot calendar featuring all of their graphics, logos and masthead? Boring, yes, but a breach of copyright. Why so many users rant on about the "unfairness" of copyright whilst saying how brilliant FOSS is escapes me. IP is IP. The FOSS guys are nice enough to give it away, and should be applauded, but I bet a large chunk of them also get paid for code and would get upset if you hacked their machine and sold it yourself.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Ok, let's stop taking pictures of Fords... that means they can't be posted in Auto Trader, and folk can't take pictures of them at Auto Shows. Over time, people will stop buying Ford vehicles because no one will know what they look like. Well into the future, there will be stories of a mythical car manufacturer named Frod or something, but no-one really knows about it for sure, since there are no images of the cars they supposedly made. Taking yourself out of the public eye when you're trying to sell a product en mass is pure silliness. I'm sure the Ford sales droids are taking this guy for a long walk off a short plank, as we speak...
This is getting out of control. I wonder how much of this people will take before saying enough is enough and quit buying products from companies like this. Until we do they will keep pushing back on us.
Could your mom sue you for selling photos of yourself, because she made you?
"a lawyer with a sense of humor, a sense of irony, or even the slightest shred of humanity."
I think most State Bar Associations has rules against these qualities, but I'm not sure.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Shouldn't Ford be worrying more about dropping to #3 in sales (behind GM and Toyota) then worrying about a stupid calendar? GET YOUR PRIORITIES TOGETHER, STUPID FORD!!!
So they want to have copyright to stuff they dont produce - then produce something they dont want.
Take a truly distasteful photo featuring a Ford - I'm sure I dont have to give hints.
Post it somewhere.
Then complain to everyone about Ford being the copyright holder to online filth.
Do we expect them to fight for this, once they realise they have no control over what their claiming ?
Problem fixed.
It's not the depth of the water thats the problem. It's the current that kills you.
Flipping Over Results in Death
Fast Only Rolling Downhill
all that said I actually like Ford, for an American car company...
Yo' mamma may object though. I'm pretty sure she owns the rights to your ass.
On the other hand, I believe the world would only benefit from such piccies. Go on girls, make a statement. And don't forget that "nature" also means donkeys and cucumbers.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
It isn't as if you put it on the car yourself. Car manufacturers don't give you an option not to have the logo on your car. Following their line of thinking, they should pay you for advertising their logo for them.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
If so, anyone with a fancy Ford vehicle all prettied up in games like Forza Motorsport 2 won't ever get a chance to show off their work to others without running afoul of Ford's copyrights.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Note to all auto dealers selling new or used Ford vehicles. You may no longer post images of our vehicles in your online inventory or in news print. We own these images. You may have your daughters first grade class draw images and post them instead.
You are also free to sell vehicles from our competition as we will never own them.
...wearing that Armani suit without Georgio Armani's permission then?
Seems like the same thing.
Kevin
You cant take a picture of yourself and print it, if you're wearing a hat that says ford on it
Then don't wear a hat with Ford on it. Wear one with Toyota on it instead.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Ford is just out of it's FUCKING mind.
Next thing you'll know they'll want to copyright the pyramids....oh, wait.
Now that Ford is about to go out of business and trying anything it can to make money, it's time for them to move to Santa Cruz & start suing everyone. They'll have to pay their factory workers $500,000 to afford apartments in Santa Cruz & they'll have to delist their stock, of course.
They probably can't stop you from using photos of a car in a fine art piece for sale or display (artistic appropriation is a bit touchy, but is generally allowed by the courts).
And there you have it! What is an illustrated calendar but a fine art piece? If Ford had a lick of sense they'd license the calendar for their own use and give one away with every test drive. The club and FoMoCo are singing the same song: "Mustangs are cool cars! Don't you wish this was yours?"
Sounds like Ford needs to fire an attorney. Then, they can blame him (or her). That's the only way I can see for them to recover from this PR disaster.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Trying to weasel your way to profitability through litigation instead of innovation never works. SCO is a classic example. Apple might be a better one i.e. trying to copyright look-and-feel but later coming up with iPods.
I used to work for a major game publisher. We made a number of games that featured 3d models of real-world vehicles. When the question came up whether we could be sued for "trade dress" or similar, we sent the question off to the company's legal team. The reply we got from them was that it was ok to use the car models as long as there were no visible trademarks (i.e. no brands or logos), because we didn't have the rights to re-create them digitally.
Where the "trade dress" argument fails in this case is that there is no misrepresentation of the product in question. It would be infringement if the cars were being presented as Fords but were actually counterfeits. Or if they were Fords, but being presented as Pontiacs. That they are, in fact, Ford vehicles, and claimed accurately as such, seems to give no leg to stand on with regard to a trade dress complaint. In any case, the actual product is a calendar. If they take objection to a calendar of Ford cars, the only thing they could protest is confusing the customer by making him/her believe that the calendar is a Ford product. As long as the calendar's name is titled appropriately, i.e. NOT "Official Ford calendar", they should be ok. Of course, that's not a guarantee that Ford won't bring a lawsuit, so they still have to measure the potential cost of going to court vs. allowing Ford to bully them.
Bottom line, though, is that Ford wants them to buy a license for printing the calendar.
Probably not that new a thing anyways. Ever look at cars in ads or even on TV? A lot of them are de-badged, even though it's obvious as to what make & model it is by the shape. Probably for the same reason...
But to go after a club that specifically likes your cars... Meh... I guess "Ford-flake" isn't just to describe what happens to their clear coat after 5 years, but could also apply to their over-zealous legal department.
There is no hard-and-fast rule that tells you what are the permissible uses of a trademark, a copyrighted work, or the image or likeness of a person. There's a family of statutes (i.e., laws passed by legislature) and case law (court decisions about specific cases in the past, that establish precedent about how future cases ought to be decided).
In this case, you have an argument that this is a permissible use of a photo of a Scion xB, because the value of the photo is the fact that it depicts that one particular, heavily modified vehicle. Does this argument mean that the use is permissible? That's a question for a judge to decide, and the way you convince a judge is by having your lawyer persuasively fit this argument within the context of relevant statutes and precedents.
This is why serious non-lawyers will disclaim their legal opinions with "IANAL," and why there are so many disclaimers that "X does not constitute legal advice"; when law proceeds by the adjudication of individual cases by appeal to precedent, it's not a question of "what does the law say" but of "how is this one specific case likely to be decided, given precedent," and that may require a lot of research.
You're confusing two things:
Trivial example: I can take a recognizable photo of you in a public place, and by doing so, I have automatic copyright on that photo. However, even though I own the copyright on that photo, I may well not have the right put that photo in an ad for the American Nazi Pinko Party without your permission, much less if I caption it with "Hi, my name is postbigbang, and I endorse the American Nazi Pinko Party."
What makes you think that the body of law in question, which you clearly fail to understand, forbids any of this?
If I own a VW, of course I can put whatever the hell grilles I want on it (that I've otherwise legally acquired). I can take a photo of the modified car. I can transfer copyright of the photo, and I can be paid for that. There are a lot of uses people can make of that photo without infringing on any trademarks. Things only start getting legally suspect when somebody sells photos of the car, and the only value the photos have seems to be derived from the fact that they depict those trademarks.
Though even in that case, you can argue that your photos of VWs with BMW grilles have serious artistic merit. For example, this work of art is a fair use of the Campbell's Soup trademark.
Are you adequate?
[If Ford does not cruhez the illgalz pictures] they'd run the risk of losing their trademark protection, which would be far worse.
Yes, we all know how important pictures and other branding revenues are to a company like Ford that can't sell cars. Next week, bake sales.
Do you really think that other people will be able to market cars with Ford written on the hood because they did not keep a group from making a calendar? I doubt it.
The GP clearly understands trade mark and business. If Ford keeps up nonsense like this no one will want to use their marks. That kind of damage is irreparable.
Which reminds me, wasn't there a story here on /. about some company taking photos of everyone's house then selling that info to banks and insurance companies?
But... the future refused to change.
I don't know. I understand the concept of trademarking distinctive logos and intellectual property, but with sluggish american auto sales, is the best strategy really pissing off ford fanatics?
I'm sure mazda or toyota wouldn't mind someone who pays upwards of 16k putting out a calender of pictures they took of the cars (hey: money for the purchase + free advertising = win)....and more than likely, a few of those guys will be driving imports when they finish paying off the overpriced pile that is ford.
oh well, maybe this will be used to justify plummeting stock in a future quarter.....
A later version of the KFC article on snopes makes no mention of Kentucky trademarking their name. Additionally, the wikipedia page on KFC mentions that the trademarking of the name Kentucky has been debunked.
"Hey Albert, Good luck exploring the infinite abyss."
I don't think you get it, I can't take pictures of 12 tattooed people in Nike clothing and sell a Nike calendar. I can take the same 12 pictures of the same 12 tattooed people in the same Nike clothing and sell a tattoo calendar, do you get it now?
I've spent a few minutes searching around and I haven't found evidence that Ford has actually taken any action. The site says that Cafepress told them that a "Susette van der Beek" representing Ford told them they were infringing. At this point this is hearsay. Google only finds this name in connection with this story, and Zaba search and other searches haven't found any matches. Does this person exist? What law firm?
If this is NOT reasonable use we are on a very slippery slope. Take a picture in front of your house, and an architect may have the rights. Take a picture in a park and the landscape gardeners may own the rights. We are headed for exactly what the copyright holders want, the same situation for artwork that exists in software patents. Almost any picture of photo will infringe a copyright, so artists have to work for companies that have bilateral agreements. Everything becomes corporate and there is no room for an individual to create or express anything.
BTW, Ford, are they still around? They're starting to make that desperate sound of a company about to fold. This kind of stuff reminds of SCO.
It's a simple syllogism, really. (And yes, pedants of the world, I do know that it's not a formally correct syllogism).
1. I want to take pictures of my car (and publish them if I feel like it).
2. Ford objects to my doing that if my car is a Ford.
3. Therefore, I should make sure that my car is not a Ford.
Way to whip up sales, people!
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Mattel decided on a similar course of stupidity a few years ago.
They sued an artist that used Mattel Barbie dolls in recreations of famous artwork, and ultimately forced him to "black-out" the doll portion of the images.
They also sued MCA records for the Aqua song "Barbie Girl", but lost that case.
Some highlights of their exploits can be found at the ACLU News website (no reg required):
http://www.aclu-sc.org/News/Releases/2000/100174/
So, point of /. etiquette here...
Since we're actually talking about cars for once, does this mean that we're now obligated to make some type of computer manufacturer analogy?
This lawyer http://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm has some information on photographers' rights (including a nice summary pdf) and probably also info relevant to the case at hand.
Did I buy my car from Ford or did I license it?
Sounds like Ford's lawyers could stand to read Richard Stallman's recent essay on how many folks are confused by this newfangled term "Intellectual Property" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html)
One not-so-extreme extrapolation of their viewpoint would get any city with traffic cameras into trouble. As soon as they introduced the photo of a speeding motorist as evidence, they would be violating copyright, according to Ford.
Lastly, there is quite a difference between copyright, which is granted automatically upon creation of the work, and trademark, which applies to specific images, artwork or other expressions, and must be registered on an item-by-item basis.
One wonders if Ford has taken the trouble (and suffered the expense) of registering each and every single vehicle they have ever produced with the USPTO.
Jim Beam whiskey got Beamish stout to change their name in the US. How could anyone mistake whiskey for beer?
I heard something similar going on with the electronic music composer Wendy Carlos. Some group of individuals claim ownership to all of Carlos' IP including album art and are going like bloody maniacs after anyone selling her stuff, as in selling used CD's on ebay and using the album art pictures to help make the sale. Effing creepy.
The article states that Ford claimed ownership of all pictures taken of Ford vehicles in addition to the Black Mustang Club logo.
I'm curious. If Ford is able to stop people from taking photos of their vehicles and selling them in a for profit calender what's to keep them from expanding upon this in other media? What next? People won't be able to draw a picture of a Mustang in a comic book? You can't produce any TV shows with Fords in them? If this is enforced successfully and Ford then comes about with a licensing scheme I wouldn't be surprised if them try to require licensing from all media channels. How many shows have Fords in them? Just a thought.
It is well settled in copyright law that sculptures are protected: it probably would be infringement, for example, to take a picture of a recent sculpture through a window from the outside of a building, even if it were visible from the street. Although I haven't researched the question, I'm sure that the form of a car would be protected like a sculpture in U.S. copyright law.
In your activities as a videojournalist, your reproductions of cars on the street would most likely not have been infringement because the way in which they were used had only minimal impacts on the commercial interests of the auto-makers. Your story would have had only minimal impacts on the auto-maker's interests in it's works as sculpture.
In the instant case, the activities of the Mustang fan club would impact Ford's ability to sell its own calendar, and thus the impacts are (at least theoretically) not sufficiently minimal. Furthermore, the fan club would be making money on the calendar, and thus that publication would probably not be a 'fair use'.
Now, if the fan club where to modify the theme/focus of the calendar, say to sexy bodies on/around the Mustangs or Mustangs under the wrecking ball, the use of the Mustang form might only be incidental and might not constitute infringement. It's an interesting question...
of your clothes will also forbid to publish your personal photo, unless you are naked. So all of us should become nudists. Wow !
Thats right. That is why Microsoft created their Made for Windows trademarked thingy. Since anyone can say something was made for Windows on their own, but they can not display that MS owned label without express approval of Microsoft.
This is just Ford lawyers trying to make some work for themselves.
Actually, people have said exactly that about buildings and won in court, at least once ! It's very hard to know where to draw the copyright line.
It is easier to see with sculptures; If you take a picture of a sculpture, is it a derivative work of the sculpture ? You can definitely make the case that it is, and so the derivative work is subject to copyright descriptions. Same goes with buildings or cars. It sucks, but it is a reasonable interpretation of copyright laws.
This is nothing more than making a threat and seeing if the other side flinches. If they do, bonus, one more sucker giving up their rights that they are legally entitled to.
Respectfully, you are mistaken. It has nothing to do with whether or not they would win or lose in court. It has to do with whether or not they actively object to unauthorized uses of their Trademark.
Refer to the half dozen other threads that re-iterate this same point. They have a more comprehensive discussion of this, and a good detailing of how this came to be.
I'm not arguing that this makes any sense, or that it is a good thing. I'm just pointing out that it is the current situation.
That is incorrect. Chapter 17, section 107 of the United States code clearly states that "the fair use of a copyrighted work... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
Where does the term "trademark" appear in that text?
While I think there is plenty of precedent for allowing the use of trademarks in journalism and in works of art (and therefore GP is wrong), I don't think the code you cited applies here.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
The company in question certainly does not get this kind of publicity for the product they produce. Might as well get bad publicity as opposed to none at all. Next they'll hire Britney as a spokeswoman to urge young drivers to stay sober.
Hope is the currency of fools
Although the poster referred directly to trademark, the sorts of things he discussed are typically covered under copyright law. Trademark exists to prevent confusion among consumers about the source or quality of goods. In the cases he discussed, the use of the material would not have caused confusion. In fact, those uses would have reinforced the correct notion of the origin of the goods discussed.
;-)
Copyright law, on the other hand, exists to give the author or creator of a creative work the right to control its use and dissemination. The portion of the original post on which I commented seemed to be primarily concerned with those things and so I gave the poster the benefit of the doubt and presumed that he meant to switch the topic to copyright but did not explicitly say so. If I was wrong then please treat my post as if I had first told the poster that he was wrong to ascribe those things to trademark law and then gone on to tell him that he was also wrong under copyright.
I'm in a mood for a fight. Anybody in Tasmania, Australia, got a schmick Mustang they'll let me photograph? I'll post on the web and send out a spam with a link labelled goatse, but actually goes to my flickr photo page ;-)
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
Wait a second; you were responding to this comment: Even magazines doing reviews of vehicles need the permission of the maker.
;-)
Cars aren't copyrighted. The mention of a car in a review of that car has nothing to do with controlling the car's "use and dissemination".
While there is a concept of fair us in trademark law, which does apply here, you won't find it in a section of the civil code that deals with copyrights.
If I was wrong then please treat my post as if I had first told the poster that he was wrong to ascribe those things to trademark law and then gone on to tell him that he was also wrong under copyright.
If I parsed that request correctly, there's no need to tell the poster that he's wrong under copyright because I can't see any way that he could have been talking about copyright. You just needed to point out that he was wrong under trademark law, because there is a distinct fair use doctrine for trademarks.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Clothes also have brand name.
Does that mean that I cannot take a picture of someone wearing clothes?
Attorneys are fucking scum asses. I'm so peed at them I can't spell. SCUM I tell you and stupid scum. They only thing that makes me madder is the Neoturdblossoms.
That would just be the latest Ford insult. They've been building sub-par cars for years. I wonder if they're worried that the flash from the camera might make the paint peel?
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
Matel/Barbie tried this and lost at trial and on appeal
I thought just one was equally bad for you.