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?"

Comments

EULA

[gEvil (beta)]

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.

Re:EULA

[Sandbags]

Well, they DO have a right. The Ford emblem, vehicle design, and likenesses are registered trademarks of their company. Where they can't prevent you from printing pictures of your own vehicles for personal use, they CAN prevent an organization (in this case a car club) from printing, selling, (and thus profiting) from those images without their permission.

Even magazines doing reviews of vehicles need the permission of the maker in order to print the article (most have standing agreements). Newspapers can, for example, show a photo of a car wreck, but were they to runa review, they'd need permission to use the images, even if they were taken of vehicles owned by the paper.

This is not Ford saying "you can't take and print pictures of your car" It's just them saying "we're so concerned we're loosing money to the imports that we're going to sue you for trying to make even a few bucks from a fund raiser, unless you're interested in profit sharing that is..."

Re:EULA

[MightyMartian]

And thus yet another American industry is suing itself into extinction.

I think what the United States needs right about now is a virus that kills about 80% of all litigators. You still need a few for legitimate, rational affairs, but it's clear that American civilization is going to be crushed under the weight of sheer greed, stupidity and self-destructive self-interest.

Re:EULA

[plague3106]

No, I think Ford is going into extinction by making shitty cars.

Re:EULA

[ivan256]

Ford only has the right to prevent others form using their trademarks in an inaccurate or misleading manner. You are completely free to use Ford's marks to refer to Ford products and the Ford Motor Company itself. Even in a derogatory manner if it's true, or in a commercial manner as part of an original work. (For example, a book called "The History of the Ford Motor Company", or "Ford Cars from 1958-2008 in Photos")

The pictures of the cars are copyrighted to the person who took the picture.

The only thing Ford is in the right about here is that they are perfectly allowed to send cease and desist letters to anybody they'd like, and they can even file suit. They would almost certainly lose, though.

This works the same way with people too. A newspaper can sell 10,000 copies with the picture of (insert your favorite NFL football player here) on the front page if their photographer took the photo out on the street where he wasn't under any NFL ticket/press contract.

Re:EULA

[mmurphy000]

The original purpose of trademarks was for consumer protection. Specifically, it was to prevent consumers from being confused when buying products and services, so when they see a "Ford" branded car that they know it came from the Ford Motor Company.

That's why, for example, there is still a Domino's Pizza and a Domino's Sugar. Two firms independently have trademarks on "Domino's", but they're on two separate products (pizza and sugar). Consumers are unlikely to mistake a large pepperoni pizza for a pound of sugar, and vice versa.

If this club were making its own cars and trying to brand those as Ford using the Ford logo, or if the club were making its own cars and constructing them in the likeness of a Ford model, then trademark protection has merit — we don't want consumers mistaking Fords and pseudo-Fords. However, in this case, the club is selling a calendar. Ford is not in the calendar-making business, and it is difficult to imagine that a consumer will somehow mistake a calendar and a car.

Re:EULA

[paanta]

I'm going to loose the grammar police on you.

Re:EULA

[Daniel_Staal]

Just a comment: Trademark != Copyright. Allowed uses differ significantly.

Anyone can reproduce a trademark, without limit or exception, as long as one condition is met: It's use always refers to the trademark holder's product exclusively. You can show the Ford or Mustang logo all you want, as long as you are using the to refer to Ford Motor Company and it's Mustang automobile. Using them to refer to any other product, service, or company is however forbidden.

Copyrights are more general: You are not allowed to copy the image/text/etc. in question without permsission.

Now, in this case, it wouldn't surprise me if Ford had both a trademark and a copyright registered on the Mustang logo (and probably a copyright on the shape of the car itself, as well as...), but that's another issue.

Re:EULA

[holophrastic]

First, there is a huge difference between my taking that NFL picture and your local news media doing the same. Your country has all sorts of freedom of the press laws, to keep your other industries from screwing you over. It's your whole checks and balances thing. But if you're not a part of the press -- and you can't just declare yourself a reporter -- then you can't simply publish a photograph of anyone you see on the street.

Second, yeah, as a personal person, you can comment on your car. You can state anything that's true about your instance of that car. But you can't just make sweeping comments. You couldn't, for example, say that all Ford cars are green, just because yours is. Similarly, and for the exact same reason, you can't say that all Ford cars break, just because yours did. You're welcome to say that yours did, and say that it may be indicative of others.

Consider this whole calendar thing. Of course you can't publish a Ford calendar withour Ford's consent. Anyone buynig such a thing would consider it made by Ford. Confusion in the marketplace is one of the largest driving factors of this sort of copyright infringement. It's the one that says you can name your web-design company "Ford" but not your car company or model cars, or lego car-set company "Ford" because it's taken in one industry and not in the other.

You can't go out, and take photographs of your car, and then publish an ad, a billboard, a newspaper full-page spread, and a television commercial advertising your car as the best/worst.

You can't pretend, and make people believe, that you are Ford.

Oh, but in your country, you can make an obvious spoof/mockery of Ford commercials for comedic purposes.

Re:EULA

[reebmmm]

You are certainly right that trademark laws were originally developed for consumer protection purposes (a shortcut for identifying source).

However, you're probably not right about the selling calendar thing. My guess is that Ford or its licensees have produced Ford Mustang calendars. So my guess is that use of the Mustang marks for calendars is probably a category of good which they are already in the business of exploiting. The same thing for just about every other type of merchandise: t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.

Re:EULA

[Sancho]

Consider this whole calendar thing. Of course you can't publish a Ford calendar withour Ford's consent. Right. Luckily, this wasn't a Ford calendar. It was a BMC (Black Mustang Club) calendar.

Confusion in the marketplace is one of the largest driving factors of this sort of copyright infringement. You, like so many, have confused "trademark infringement" with "copyright infringement." Confusion is not an issue with copyright--it's an issue with trademark.

Luckily, trademark is what Ford is talking about, here.

You can't go out, and take photographs of your car, and then publish an ad, a billboard, a newspaper full-page spread, and a television commercial advertising your car as the best/worst. I wouldn't say that without advice from a lawyer. Certainly I can take a picture of something I own and publish it. I can publish that it broke down 3 times in the first month. I can publish lots of things, generally. The question here is largely whether or not the picture of a trademarked object (it strikes me as weird that an object can be trademarked) can be published. It seems reasonable to me that it could be.

You can't pretend, and make people believe, that you are Ford. From what I've seen of the calendar, they weren't trying to.

Similarly, and for the exact same reason, you can't say that all Ford cars break, just because yours did. That's not entirely true. Slander and libel laws are a little bit different for public figures (in the US.) There's a much, much higher burden of proof that there was a reckless disregard for the truth. You also have to convince the judge/jury that the average person would believe that the claims are true. It's not likely that the average person would believe that "All Ford cars break," though this is a bad example anyway because all cars break, eventually. Parts simply wear out.

Re:EULA

[merc]

Feel free to hop back into your time machine and join us in 2008.

Wrong automobile manufacturer, you're thinking of the De Lorean, not Ford.

Re:EULA

[dgatwood]

They're making money explicitly off the Ford name/products, which I'm sure is prohibited somehow.

Nope. Making money by selling pictures of somebody else's product or even their mark is not a trademark violation.

First, a trademark violation generally requires at minimum reasonable probability of confusion. To my knowledge, Ford doesn't sell calendars, so you might even be able to get away with starting the Ford Calendar Company, though the famous mark laws might still come back to bite you in the ass. However, if you are simply a company "My Calendars" selling a calendar called "Historical Fords" or some such, there is no possibility whatsoever that anyone would confuse your calendar with an automobile, as A. it is a calendar, and B. the use of the term "Ford" is ancillary and constitutes nominative fair use.

So basically, unless Ford is also a calendar company, they have no possibility of a case, and even if they do, they would still have to show that someone would have a reasonable chance of confusing your calendar with theirs. I'm fairly certain that calling it something like "Black Mustang Club Calendar 2008" would be sufficient to eliminate any possibility of such confusion.

IANALBIPOOSD.

Re:EULA

[caitsith01]

The only thing Ford is in the right about here is that they are perfectly allowed to send cease and desist letters to anybody they'd like, and they can even file suit. They would almost certainly lose, though.

Actually, in many jurisdictions it is an abuse of the court's processes to threaten legal proceedings when you know you have no basis to do so and with a collateral purpose (that is, not to assert genuine legal rights but to obtain some commercial or other advantage). I'd say this satisfies both of those criteria.

Re:EULA

[reboot246]

I heard that 90% of all Fords ever made are still on the road. The other 10% actually made it to where they were going. Gives new meaning to the term, "Fucked On Recent Deal".

Re:Form?

[bonkeydcow]

Yeah, you know, maker of the dustang!

Free Marketing

[truthsearch]

And they wonder why their stock is in the toilet. They're trying to stop free marketing of their products. How dumb is that?

Re:Free Marketing

[mosch]

The real problem here is the law. If Ford fails to go after this sort of violation, they lose the rights to go after other violations in the future.

As such, American law is written such that they must either attack people who mean no harm, or lose the right to defend themselves in the future against actual harms.

This isn't Fords fault, it's the broken-ass laws of the United States.

Re:Free Marketing

[jedidiah]

Yes. This is Ford's fault.

They could choose another option: License their trademark for a pittance.

They don't have to "object". They can also "authorize".

Re:Free Marketing

[onecheapgeek]

But until the club actually agrees to and signs such a license, they must attack and prevent. Such is the nature of trademark law in the US.

Re:Free Marketing

[wytcld]

If it were sold as a Ford brand calendar, and if Ford sells calendars, then Ford has to enforce the ownership of its mark in the category of calendars. But if Ford is loyal to its core business, its car business, and if the calendar isn't marketed as "Ford brand," then Ford certainly doesn't lose its "Ford" trademark for cars, and doesn't even lose the Ford trademark for calendars. Ford need do nothing.

Write this one up to stupid lawyers who don't know jack about marketing and good will. Good will, by the way, is treated as a very real thing, a dollar-denominated asset, in business. Ford should hire other lawyers to sue these lawyers for the loss they have caused the corporation.

Dangerous precedent

[UbuntuDupe]

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...)

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Araxen]

There's are sculptures in Chicago in one of their parks that you can't take any pictures of as it's been deemed by the artist as infringing on his IP rights. /boggle

I don't know though if it's been tested in court yet though.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[SydShamino]

Fortunately this one has been easily solved years ago. Think about all of the movies that have, as background vehicles, a Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc., vehicle.

No, I'm not talking about the ones where the car is featured prominently (Transporter, Transformers, etc.) - in those the movie studio clearly got permission (or was paid prominently for their use). I'm talking about background vehicles. The studios do not and never have paid for their use when they were filmed on a public street. If Ford tries to press this, they'll have the movie studios pressing against them.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[ThePromenader]

A well-known and longstanding example of "copyright insanity" is the SNTE's claim over any picture taken of the Eiffel tower at night. When challenged, the "claim" didn't hold up in court... but as long as the claim is there, you have to legally challenge it to gain reason over it. Few can afford to do so, thus the "law" stands even today...

Re:Dangerous precedent

[nolife]

Yes but let's use yet another car analogy here, what if Ford.... oh wait.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[Osurak]

Sorry, you can no longer take pictures of yourself because you're wearing clothes, and a representation of those clothes falls under the IP rights of the brand/store you bought them from.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[That's Unpossible!]

What's it look like?

Re:Dangerous precedent

[samkass]

1. Ford is alleging Trademark violations, not Copyright, from what I've read. The distinction is pretty important when it comes to what rights you have to the pictures that you took (and therefore have copyright over).
2. If Ford doesn't defend their Trademarks, by law they lose them. Thus, the law compels companies to act like this, whether the companies like it or not.
3. There are exceptions in the law for works that are sufficiently derivative. If you're selling calendars of cars that look like they could have driven off the lot yesterday, that's obviously a violation of trademark even if you own the car-- you're clearly profiting directly from someone else's trademark. If the cars are heavily modified, though, they probably have a good case for the calendar.
4. Selling photography containing trademarks is definitely a tricky business, but the damage has long-since been done. Even worse, some folks have run into minor hot water when they replaced billboards in cityscapes with alternate billboards in television and photographs-- so NOT reproducing the trademark has also been problematic. It's definitely an area of law in need of refinement.

Re:Dangerous precedent

[sumdumass]

The original thread in the BMC post seems to be down at the moment. Probably another fool attempting to run a forum serving thousands from home seeing how it hasn't quite refusing the connection yet isn't producing anything usable.

But besides that, we don't know enough of the context here to make a rash and contextually opinionated stand. If the selling point of the calendar is because it has fords owned by members of the club, it would seem that the incidental inclusion of ford is prime to the marketing of the calender. If the calendar just prints club owners cars and other brands like GMC or Porsche might be included, then it wouldn't matter as much. And in so much as the marketing of the calendar plays a role in this too, if the market is club owners, then it is downplayed, if the market is everyone, then it is more important. But the real question and probably part of the real answer is how did ford find out about it?

I mean the calendar isn't printed yet, it had been sent to the printers who had a policy of not printing copyright and trademarked items. Most likely what happened here is a simple set of confusion. The printing company probably had an employee that noticed these were all ford cars, referred it to some legal department that didn't know anything about the intent or purpose of the calender who in turn contacted ford to see if it was ok to print the photos. So now ford, without the proper context, is informed that someone is attempting to make a calendar with their images and trademarks and logos in it and they are ordering it in bulk enough to make it a commercial venture. They most likely denied the printing out of a knee jerk reaction and sent a letter to the club which has contact information in it.

I mean how else would the club know that ford found out about the calender before it was printed and delivered and put a stop to it? I'm willing to bet that all that is needed is for the club to do is contact Ford Directly and explain the situation then get a waiver to present to the printing company. All the information we have so far is second hand relayed from a party being denied indirectly. It is the print shop that was denied and communicated with, not the BMC club. IT is more likely a misjudgment on the printing companies side in an attempt to cover their own ass. We have no assurances that anything presented to ford accurately reflects the situation outside someone wanted to print photos of their cars and logos.

no

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

they own the design of the car. but the photographer owns their picture.

Re:no

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It's not so simple. The calendar looks like it might be trading on Ford's trademarks. Put it this way, if the Mustang wasn't in a particular image, would anyone want to pay the same for the image?

Re:no

[MBCook]

As much as I want to dislike Ford for doing this, I'm with you. Shortly after reading this and realizing that the headline is sensationalized... I realized that the calendar is just like one Ford might sell only made by a third party who isn't paying Ford anything. No one cares that it's the something-something-car-club, they would be buying it for the images of the Mustang's design.

If I drew my own copies of my favorite Dilbert strips, could I sell a book of them? Seems like basically the same thing.

Now if the calendar has different cars (say it was 12 sports cars and the Mustang was just one) then I could see Ford being in the wrong. But the whole calendar seems to be taking advantage of them.

Huh

[pwnies]

I was going to use a car analogy to show how ridiculous this was...

Re:Huh

[Spc01]

Well yes. If i buy CD and lean this CD to a neighbour .. it's stealing and it's illegal so if music industry is doing this why not FORD ?

It's obvious!

[Pig Hogger]

All your images are belong to us.

heh heh

[427_ci_505]

Bold moves indeed.

email your illegal pictures back the CEO

[gelfling]

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.

Seems good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Means Police can no longer take pictures of Ford cars for photo enforcement either. Hooray!

Re:Seems good news

[tiedyejeremy]

They don't sell the image for profit, but they absolutely are using the images as a source of revenues. Where do we draw the line?

Wrong question.

[goldspider]

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.

Re:Wrong question.

[Traxxas]

If you are leasing that car from Ford or a Ford owned financing company then they do own 'your' car. You are mearly renting the car from them. If you got a loan and are buying the car then it is yours to do with as you please.

Ford's response

[microcars]

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."

Re:Ford's response

[calebt3]

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. There is obviously no goodwill here. And they're reputation at /. is now tanked, if it wasn't already.

Re:Ford's response

[kebes]

Ford's letter is quite well-written and even includes answers to genuine questions. However I think they are over-reaching beyond what the law allows. In particular, they claim:

"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."

IANAL, but my understanding of trademarks was that "likelihood of confusion" really was the central criterion. That is, you can indeed captialize on someone's else's reputation (e.g. you can publicly say "Ford company purchased product XYZ!" if that happens to be true), as long as you do not claim official endorsement. If you make it sufficiently clear that you are not affiliated with Ford, then you are not infringing their trademark. I can use the word "Ford" and I can use the Ford logo, as long as it is for legitimate purposes and there is no consumer confusion (e.g. in commentary, parody, etc.).

The use of wording like "depictions or photographs of Ford's distinctively shaped vehicles" (emphasis added) is similarly over-reaching. By that rationale, every product is distinctive and thus cannot be used in a commercial image.

In any case, I don't think trademark law was intended to provide the blanket power that Ford is grasping for (where they inherently own all commercial endeavors that happen to include a Ford product somewhere).

Re:Ford's response

[jackal40]

I wonder what Ford's response would be to the club in question making a calendar of the club member's Ford automobiles with "For Sale" signs on them? Granted, IANAL, but my understanding is this would be a legal, legitimate use of pictures of Ford vehicles. The method of distribution might be open to question, but I'd enjoy listening to that argument in court! Just my $0.02 worth, your mileage may vary.

Re:Ford's response

[VoidWraith]

The problem is that Ford has licensed other companies to produce calendars, coffee mugs, and the like, as they state in their letter. Since they are affiliated with these companies using their trademarks to make these things, having a non-affiliated company making a similar product creates confusion for the purchaser. Is it an authorized Ford calendar, or is it from a company that is not affiliated with Ford?

If you bought a Ford calendar and found it to be terrible, or unflattering of their vehicles, or something like that, at least a little of that dislike would be carried over to Ford. That's why they want to control it.

Boycotting Ford....

[Chanc_Gorkon]

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.

Re:Boycotting Ford....

[deft]

Profits?

We're talking about ford, right?

I think you mean hit them with more losses.

Reason number 312 not to buy a Ford.......

[edwardpickman]

As if we needed another one.

Stupid

[Digital Vomit]

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.)

Be More Specific

[hardburn]

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.

Public View

[airos4]

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).

Just GIVE THE PERMISSION !!!

[ChromaticDragon]

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.

Re:This is a Joke, Right?

[falcon5768]

the statement AND the claim are both legit and legal. This is a problem photographers have had to deal with for decades LONG before copyright claims went nutso. Basically since the Mustang is iconic, and since there is a lot of licensing involved with it, Ford is fully within their rights to tell someone they cant make their own calender to sell to people using their car, not without paying Ford a licensing fee.

This is no different than Architects who prevent people from publishing books with photos of their latest building designs. While it seems silly its completely legal and has been enforced for decades at this point.

Ford's trademarks...

[msauve]

apply to automobiles, not calendars.

copyrighted designs in commercial media

[jone_stone]

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.

Re:Fair Use

[Mesa MIke]

Fair Use applies to copyright. This is a trademark issue.

Running a red light

[Sunshinerat]

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.

Re:Running a red light

[careysb]

Or, can the insurance adjuster take a photo of your car after a wreck?

Thank you, Ford

[Deadstick]

With enough publicity in the right places, this could expose IP trolling for the absurdity it is. Stewart, Colbert, Leno, Letterman, listen up...

rj

Barbie, too

[BenEnglishAtHome]

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.

This is about Trademarks, not Patents or Copyright

[Grond]

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.

Just Boycott Ford!

[numbsafari]

Oh...that was easy...

Re:Just Boycott Ford!

[Aqua_boy17]

Staples just called. You'll need to retract your 'That was easy' post.

An answer.

[DaveV1.0]

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?"

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."

Oh well

[greg1104]

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.

Whisper down the lane bullshit

[hellfire]

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.

Re:Form?

[Smallpond]

So the answer to the copyright question will depend on whether Form is using Get or Post?

Re:Form motor company....Hooray!

[king-manic]

I thought "at Ford, quality is job 1?" Maybe they should change their motto: "At ford, quality is an afterthought. Looks and stylishness are job 1! Oh and litigation is job 2!"/quote>

I'd argue it's:
"At ford, quality and style is an accident. Desperately trying to stay afloat is job 1! Oh and litigation is job 2!"

Re:Form?

[palegray.net]

Also widely known as the Ford "Crustang", "Rustang", "Mustake", and "My Little Pony" where I come from.

Who cares about a typo when the HEADLINE is wrong?

[raehl]

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.

Porsche does this too

[kimvette]

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.

Ford is full of it

[Charcharodon]

Ford does not have the right to restrict the taking of or the sale of any photos of their products. Neither copyright or trademarks give them that kind of power. You might be on thin ice if you tried to sell an "Official Ford" Mustang calender, but a Mustang Club selling a calendar of their members rides is completely legit.

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.

More subtle than that, however....

[thatseattleguy]

Most folks are missing the vital distinction here between commercially _selling_ something (with an image being a prominent portion of the value of that sale), and merely owning - or reporting on - or privately sharing - that same image.

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.

/thatseattleguy/

people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[postbigbang]

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.

Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[Pluvius]

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.

There are three main types of intellectual property. You forgot the one that's relevant to this case.

Rob

Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[reebmmm]

Let's be careful about what we're talking about. People like the parent and the OP are mighty confused about their intellectual property law. A quick refresher:

Copyright = an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.
Trademark = any device that associates a good with the source of that good.

Ford has LOTS of trademarks when I search for "Mustang" at the PTO. Since a trademark could arguably cover the look of the Mustang (I did not go through the huge list), they could either have federal trademark protection in the look. Even if there weren't a federal mark, Ford probably has common law rights in a trademark for the look.

This, though, has NOTHING to do with the ownership of the photographs. The copyrights to the photographs will belong to the photographers. This does not mean that the copyright owner can use the photographs for whatever purpose they want. There may be other intervening laws (privacy, publicity, decency, trademark, etc.). By way of example, if I took a picture of a Gucci logo I would own the photograph (if it met the criteria for copyright), but I can't freely paste that picture on to a purse and claim a defense of "well I own copyright."

So the real question here is, is whether the use of Ford's trademark (perhaps even more than one) covering the Mustang infringed by the sale of the calendar. The test is whether such a use is likely to cause confusion as to the source of the calendar. And, frankly, it seems pretty clear that it could: if you saw a calendar, you'd probably think that either Ford or Ford's authorized licensee put out the calendar. So you have a trademark infringement. The only question then is whether there is fair use here, and I don't see it.

Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[reebmmm]

Not true. Not unless you're using the photos of those cars in commerce as a trademark. Simply taking pictures doesn't infringe anyone's trademark. Taking picture of Ford Cars to sell a calendar about Ford Cars very well may.

Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[jimbojw]

I'm reposting my own Ford pics on my sight the very next thing I do.

Some marketing exec at Ford: "HaHA! Our brilliant plan to get free advertising on obscure blog sites is beginning to unfold! Ford FTW!"

Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[drakaan]

Trademark isn't relevant either.

Trademarks exist in order to prevent one company from marketing something that appears to be a product of another company.

There are two potential trademarks at issue. One is "Ford", and the other is "Mustang".

The creators of the calendar are not selling Ford calendars, nor are they using a trademark in a way that would be likely to make a purchaser of the calendar believe that Ford Motor Company created the calendar.

The creators of the calendar are also not selling Mustang calendars, nor are they using the trademark in a way that would be likely to make a purchaser of the calendar believe that the owner of the Mustang trademark (the Ford Motor Company) created the calendar.

The calendar is clearly associated with "BMC" (aka, the "Black Mustang Club"), and the Club's title did not apparently raise the ire of Ford's trademark lawyers (as it shouldn't have). If they were taking pictures of cars on Ford dealership lots, then maybe Ford would have a point on copyright, since they nominally own the vehicles on those lots, but not on trademark, at least not as the calendar is currently composed.

Yes, the OP failed to mention trademark, but that doesn't make Ford's move any less bone-headed. Ignoring the fact that they are alienating a group of people who are (or were, at least) fans of one of the company's cars, they are opening themselves up to countersuit, and a whole bunch of bad PR...all over a fan calendar. The lack of immediate reaction from their PR department (legal did WHAT??? Our bad...go ahead and print the calendar...Chevy sucks!) is staggering.

Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[Pluvius]

The creators of the calendar are also not selling Mustang calendars

It's pretty clear that they are, actually, since the pictures in it are all of Mustangs.

Ignoring the fact that they are alienating a group of people who are (or were, at least) fans of one of the company's cars, they are opening themselves up to countersuit, and a whole bunch of bad PR...all over a fan calendar.

If they didn't, they'd run the risk of losing their trademark protection, which would be far worse.

Rob

Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[Anonymous Coward]

If they didn't, they'd run the risk of losing their trademark protection, which would be far worse.

So give them a free license for it instead of alienating them. Then the illusion of trademark protection remains and the Mustang fans get to publish a calendar.

Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[thdexter]

Yeah, you're pretty much right on. They can publish their calendar without having to license anything at all or get any permission from Ford, so long as they don't market it with Ford's corporate logo and the Mustang logo. An analogy that occurs to me is third-party iPod or Nintendo (etc.) stuff: they can include pictures of the Wii, or the iPod, on their packaging, and they can say "Compatible with Nintendo Wii" or "Works with the Apple iPod," they just can't use the Apple logo or the Nintendo font and red oval. So long as it's clear that it isn't Ford creating or selling this calendar, the group has very broad rights.

Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[ediron2]

No, they can retain trademark by granting permission for limited, revocable use to the BMC. Problem solved. Sane, fan-friendly, and still guards trademark. How freakin' hard is THAT?

Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[Stephen Samuel]

The creators of the calendar are not selling Ford calendars, nor are they using a trademark in a way that would be likely to make a purchaser of the calendar believe that Ford Motor Company created the calendar. I think that what you meant to say is: "They're selling calendars, not Fords".

If these guys were selling japanese made cars under the hoods of pseudo-fords, then they'd be violating Fords trademarks. Other than that, I think that Ford's legal department has been drinking too much left-over rum/eggnog since the new year, and their PR department is still suffering a holiday hangover.. not realizing what's happening yet.

Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics

[nguy]

It's pretty clear that they are, actually, since the pictures in it are all of Mustangs.

The calendar isn't being sold under the "Ford Mustang" trademark, therefore it doesn't violate the trademark. The fact that it contains trademarked objects does not change that fact.

If they didn't, they'd run the risk of losing their trademark protection, which would be far worse.

No, they don't run the risk of losing the trademark. And even under your hare-brained interpretation, at most, they'd risk losing the "Ford Mustang" trademark for calendars, not cars.

Photographer here...

[photomonkey]

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...

Re:EULA; you are incorrect

[OSPolicy]

>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.)

OT: Explain Porsha...

[SerpentMage]

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?

Re:OT: Explain Porsha...

[i.r.id10t]

In one of my '60s vintage Porsche Panorama mags (magazine from the PCA) there is a quote from Ferry along the lines of "I don't care how they pronounce my family name, as long as they buy my cars"

FWIW, I learned that it is more of an "uh" sound than a "ah" sound...

Re:OT: Explain Porsha...

[halber_mensch]

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?

The same way "Danke schön" became "Donkah shane", Frankenstein became "Frankensteen", and "Weimaraner" became "Whymeriner", Americans love above all else to butcher a language. And that ain't irregardless of nobody y'all.

That's fine

[mdonley]

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!

Join the Ford Boycott!!!!

Click here for an offensive sample of their advertising dollars at work...

YANAL

[jgoemat]

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Scale models...

[aitala]

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

As requested.

[palegray.net]

This ought to do it: This car is not what you think it is.

Nope.

[postbigbang]

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.

Re:Nope.

[reebmmm]

First, what you're describing isn't an estoppel, it'd be a laches defense.

Second, nothing stops someone from using the name Ford or Ford Mustang nomatively. You don't have to refer to the company as "That car company with the blue oval logo that sells the pony car named after a wild horse."

Third, not every use is going to be unlicensed. Many of those hits are probably dealerships.

Fourth, to the used cars, remember the question is whether a consumer is likely to be confused as to the source of the product. If you're calling a ford mustang a ford mustang, you're probably safe. If you're trying to sell a Datsun as a mustang, you've got a different problem.

Finally, NONE of this has to do with the case here. Using Ford's marks to sell a calendar is VERY different than using Ford's marks to sell a Ford car that you was lawfully acquired.

Re:Nope.

[merc]

Sigh... so much for the days when the average slashdot user wasn't a lawyer ;-)

Re:Nope.

[reebmmm]

Here's how they're different:

On the one hand you are selling the actual good (the car itself) that you legally acquired from Ford under the name that you purchased it. So an ad saying "Buy my Ford Mustang" is safe so long as it's a Ford Mustang. Even taking a picture of the Ford you're selling will likely be safe.

On the other hand, you're selling a different good (a calendar) using the mark owned by Ford.

As I've now said in a bunch of posts, the issues are: 1) was the use of the marks on the calendar a use in commerce; and 2) is the use likely to cause confusion.

The answer to the first question is very clearly yes--they are/were SELLING a calendar by exploiting the the Ford marks. In some sense, it doesn't make sense for them to do it any other way.

The second answer also seems to be likely "yes." A consumer picking up the calendar about Ford Mustangs might think that the goods originated with Ford or someone authorized to use.

Re:Nope.

[postbigbang]

Let's say I go out and buy a Scion xB. It's square boxy vehicle like the Honda Element. Then I fiberglass it up, making it round, but don't take off the xB or Scion logo. It's my addition to the 'work' of that vehicle.

I take a picture of it, like a million modders the world over might do, and post it, because I'm proud of my work. Let's say someone takes notice of it, and wants to include it in their calendar. Think of all the van and old pickup truck modders, the VW modders, and so on. Someone makes a buck from the calendar; after all, calendar makers aren't a not for profit group.

Or let's say I like old Jags and put together an old Jag calendar. Or perhaps a nice picture book of old Jensens, or Harleys or whatever.

It's not up to any of the aforementioned brand/trademark owners to claim anything. They ought to be blessed that we bought their pieces of crap to begin with. Invoking image ownership is a sure ticket to hell. I own the vehicle; I took the photo, and I'll do whatever I want to do with the photo, without the onus of some vendor's spin control hanging over me. It's mine, baby, no one else's.

Should a vendor cite a vendor for infringement of a trademark or marque (think of putting a Bentley grill on a BMW--whoops-- BMW owns Bentley so a Rolls grill on a Subaru) and there might be some contention were it to be problem.... then what of the Rolls grills that were put on VWs as an aftermarket add-on? I see them around now and again.

To reiterate: I own this stuff, and do what I want with it. If someone buys my image, so much the better. That trademark law should extend to contours is hilarious, but probably has been tested by some idiot judge somewhere. That Nike swoosh looks just like a check mark to me. Hmmmmm. These bonds are tenuous at best. Ford overstepped them with a big foot. Oh wait......

Re:Nope.

[tic!lock]

What's even funnier is that none of them seem to agree on whether it's legal or not. :)

  (As a part time photographer who sells his pictures I have an interest in this, and *my* lawyer tells me that as long as there isn't any brand confusion - that is, as long as I'm not selling my pictures as "official" photographs, I have nothing to worry about. I'm currently going round and round with the local city council over the same issue, ie photographs of historical city landmarks which the city seems to think they have the rights to limit photographs of. They even have that printed on the landmark info posts. Sigh. Can anyone point me to relevant cases? )

tic

Re:Suing into extinction

[trolltalk.com]

"How many American industries have sued themselves into extinction? I'm having trouble thinking of one."

Gee, you must be new here. How about those guys who used to say they "owned Unix"?

You know, the SCOundrels, those litigious bastards who are in voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy, because otherwise they'd already be in Chapter 7?

What I want to know...

[darkcmd]

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?

The Fedex Incident

[seanadams.com]

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.

In other news...

[CF4L]

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".

Ford's Business Plan?

[Greyfox]

So, apparently, Ford's business plan is to:

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...

This Issue has been settled before

[byteherder]

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.

Re:Who cares about a typo when the HEADLINE is wro

[PortHaven]

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.

Fish

[mangu]

But why on earth do people call their Porsche PorSha?

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.

Mod's modded people up for that?

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Not really.

[edwdig]

Last time I looked (a few years ago), Consumer Reports reliability ratings were focused on the first few years of owning the car. Essentially, the warranty period. I'm much more interested in the reliability after the warranty period ends.

If you carefully think about it...

[jskline]

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.

Re:Hypocrites

[Alain Williams]

Yes we will act to preserve a trademark iff someone tries to pass something off as if it were Firefox/... If they want to write a book about it, complete with screen shots, no one will complain.

It's all about the "chilling effect"

[walterbyrd]

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.

Quality Customer Care - So much for brand loyalty.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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.

Re:Form?

[Divebus]

Here's a fix: Make the Ford dealer remove all brand marks from any car you buy, or make them pay for the advertising space.

What was ford, again?

[dotancohen]

Four Old Rusty Doors?
Forcing Our Rights Downyourthroat...

Re:Even more clearly...

[schwanerhill]

It's "Domino's" Pizza and "Domino" Sugar.
Which only serves to further distinguish them.

No, that's not relevant. I can't go out and start a pizza company called "Domino Pizza" or a sugar company called "Domino's" -- the names are close enough so that they could be reasonably confused.

There are a number of other examples -- Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets comes to mind -- where the names of two non-competing companies really are identical and both trademarked. (Apple, Inc., formerly Apple Computer, and Apple Records is another example, but that's a different barrel of wax.)

Unreasonable restriction of trade

[cheros]

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.

Sounds Like Ford Needs To

[YetAnotherBob]

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.

Re:Form?

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

Full Of Rust and Dents
Found On Roadside Dead
there are a lot more, but I cannot remember them.

BTW. Ford Falcon for sale. Excellent condition. immaculate paintwork. Sorry, I have no pics, Ford's lawyer took them all away.

Your argument has a fundamental problem

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

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).

Let's say I go out and buy a Scion xB. It's square boxy vehicle like the Honda Element. Then I fiberglass it up, making it round, but don't take off the xB or Scion logo. It's my addition to the 'work' of that vehicle. I take a picture of it, like a million modders the world over might do, and post it, because I'm proud of my work. Let's say someone takes notice of it, and wants to include it in their calendar. Think of all the van and old pickup truck modders, the VW modders, and so on. Someone makes a buck from the calendar; after all, calendar makers aren't a not for profit group.

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.

Invoking image ownership is a sure ticket to hell. I own the vehicle; I took the photo, and I'll do whatever I want to do with the photo, without the onus of some vendor's spin control hanging over me. It's mine, baby, no one else's.

You're confusing two things:

1. Your copyright over any photos that you take.
2. The rights of other parties to control the uses to which their trademarks, their likeness, or the likeness of their products or copyrighted works are put to use.

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."

Should a vendor cite a vendor for infringement of a trademark or marque (think of putting a Bentley grill on a BMW--whoops-- BMW owns Bentley so a Rolls grill on a Subaru) and there might be some contention were it to be problem.... then what of the Rolls grills that were put on VWs as an aftermarket add-on? I see them around now and again.

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.

Photographers rights

[thinkahead]

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.