Slashdot Mirror
Toyota Demands Removal of Fan Wallpapers
An anonymous reader writes "TorrentFreak reports that Toyota's lawyers have recently contacted computer wallpaper site Desktop Nexus in a blatant example of DMCA abuse. Toyota issued a blanket request to demand the immediate removal of all member-uploaded wallpapers featuring a Toyota, Lexus, or Scion vehicle (citing copyright violation), regardless of whether Toyota legally holds the copyright to the photos or not. When site owner Harry Maugans requested clarification on exactly which wallpapers were copyrighted by Toyota, he was told that for them to cite specifics (in order to file proper DMCA Takedown Notices), they would invoice Desktop Nexus for their labor."
why do these things always happen like come on its a car. do you see these guys confiscating all pictures of their cars that you take on the high way. i think not.
Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
So what if I take a picture of my own car and use it as my wallpaper?
damn just be happy that your customers are sooo happy with your products that they celebrate it with making a wallpaper to put on their computers. i bet that toyota's lawyers are summers eve fanboi's
SCREW FLANDERS
In a related move, Toyoda has also served a DMCA take down notice to slashdot, demanding that all car related analogies be removed from comments by slashdot members.
All you're doing is taking down free advertisements all around the world and giving yourself a bad name...
http://cars.desktopnexus.com/cat/toyota/
Does that mean all the speeding camera are illegal ?
Is any more evidence required for average people to avoid these 'too large for their own common sense' companies?
Directly attacking the fans who are providing free advertising of your product is about as stupid as it gets.
Ignore the notice. It's clearly not properly formed, and should provide great evidence, should Toyota decide to start suing this guy.
~ C.
I remember reading about similar "cases" in the past, although they were not DMCA related. Anyway, the courts threw out the plaintiffs because the items being photographed were not considered "art". Despite what Toyota thinks, a mass-produced automobile is not art. It wasn't created as art. It is not unique. And it wasn't sold as art.
Toyota could only be right if the images they specify were TAKEN BY TOYOTA. And that could be difficult to prove. If they claim ALL the images on the site belong to them and the operators of the site KNOW that some/all/most of the pictures were not taken by Toyota, then I think the whole request is bogus.
Yet another example of abuse of the legal system. If it ever makes it to court, I would hope the site operators counter-sue and win BIG. But I think that is the whole point- such cases rarely make it to court, big businesses just use the DMCA as a weapon to scare smaller entities into complying.
" When site owner Harry Maugans requested clarification on exactly which wallpapers were copyrighted by Toyota, he was told that for them to cite specifics (in order to file proper DMCA Takedown Notices), they would invoice Desktop Nexus for their labor.""
And then he invoices Toyota for complying with each and everyone of them to the tune of the same dollar amount their bill is. Two can play this game.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Invoice Toyota for your labor for the takedown.
...oh wait... this is about cars. Now how can I make a traditional parallel with cars when this is already about cars?
Damn the luck.
Obviously. But if this ever got as far as a court system. "But I'm doing free advertising for you" wouldn't be the successful argument that gets the case dismissed. To put it bluntly "Who asked you to?" would be the courts question. From a marketing standpoint you have a point. From a legal basis no.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
The article referenced in the main post is light on details, but this is probably not a copyright notice. It is more likely a trademark notice and/or a trade dress notice. The same issue has been discussed back in January in a post about article Ford calendars. Back then, the calendar was for fund raising for a not for profit entity,and there may have been an argument that there was a loophole in trademark law. In this case, the images are being distributed for profit (the site caries advertising). If it is not copyright, then a DMCA notice would not be appropriate and a more general lawsuit would be the only remedy.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
If they receive a proper DMCA notice and remove the offending files then they have no further liability under the law. Toyota is blowing smoke; this is just a typical lawyer scare tactic that has no basis in law.
Actually, Toyota could be the one billed should Desktop Nexus comply. By demanding that Desktop Nexus identify for Toyota the offending files, one might argue that Toyota was hiring them as a contractor to fulfill Toyota's obligation under the DMCA. To cover themselves, Desktop Nexus should send a proposal to Toyota offering to identify and remove the offending photos, to the best of their ability (thus not guaranteeing to find them all), for, say, $1000 each.
Just because somebody sends you an invoice doesn't mean that you have to pay it.
This, in fact, is a common scam technique, where somebody will send to a small business some sort of random invoice (sometimes to larger businesses) demanding payment for some random "service" that has been provided.
They (Toyota) should know full well that if they actually take legal action to collect on these invoices, that they would be thrown out of court.
But of course that does mean you have to appear in court (often not in a convenient venue) and defend why you have refused to pay on the bill if you are refusing payment.... and you have to give formal notice to the person submitting the invoice that you dispute the terms of service.
Still, if I were running this website, I would refuse payment as the DCMA is quite clear about what the law is here in terms of legal requirements to take down photos or "copyrighted content".
At the same time, who "owns the copyright" on a picture of a Lexis or other vehicle is something that can be debated in court. Yes, the photographer who made the image in the first place has rights, as does the property owner (if it wasn't in a "public" place). The physical structure of the vehicle itself can also be considered "a work of art"... which is what I guess Toyota is trying to do here. So yeah, they do have a slight point even if Toyota didn't physically take the photo.
Still, this is a P.R. nightmare and something most companies don't want to either bother with or are usually tickled that somebody is promoting their product over and above their competitors. Frankly, rather than demanding a take-down of the pictures, they ought to be sending professionally looking pictures with full republication and distribution rights granted.
Don't remove the images!
Simply hide the cars under a big "CENSORED BY TOYOTA".
If they cannot point out the specific photos they own copyrights with, Nexus does not have to comply out of obscurity of the notice. Simple as that. Try to bring that to court Toyota!
While we're at this spread the word to all major news network and let them broadcast the clip for a few minutes in evening news (or better yet, put that in the Morning section of Headline News). Let's see who is the ultimate winner here.
What a hideous crimes people commit these days. Poor Toyota, they must have lost millions of dollars because of these wallpapers. I mean, publishing a song on the internet, ok, it's bad, but a whole car?! Don't these people have any sympathy for a poor carmaker?
-- Cheers!
However, in lieu of Toyota's errant behavior and its refusal to keep its lawyers in check for something that only promotes their product, I might consider making my next purchase with one of their competitors instead.
I would that that, especially in these tumultuous financial down-times, that Toyota and other companies like them would rather enhance their customer loyalty base rather than diminish it.
So, Toyota, kudos for a great product line, but a thumbs down on your PR with your loyal customers.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
If Toyata has a user contributed forum or guestbook of some sort hosted somewhere, someone should just post random copyrighted material (both text and graphics to make it harder to filter) on their site and throw them the take down notice...
When site owner Harry Maugans requested clarification on exactly which wallpapers were copyrighted by Toyota, he was told that for them to cite specifics (in order to file proper DMCA Takedown Notices), they would invoice Desktop Nexus for their labor.
Harry should really consult his lawyer before making request.
It was him who asked for clarification. In some circumstance Toyota could really request payback.
I suggest Harry to comply, and send an invoice to Toyota for his labor, and it happens that Harry's labor is very expensive, say 1 million/hr...
I thought that a DMCA notice *required* actual specifics of infringing content. Its part of what you have to do when you file a notice. Claiming that your are going to force someone to pay you so that you have to comply with the law seems patently (no pun intended) ridiculous. If your client wants this action done, they pay you (the lawyer) to do what is necessary.
I get the feeling that the mere fact that they refuse to follow the rules without trying to extort money from the 'defendant', will get them a well deserved legal slap in the face
Desktop Nexus really should remove all wallpapers featuring Toyotas, these are shitty cars which shouldn't have been allowed in desktop wallpapers in the first place.
And now they have given another reason never to even consider owning one.
I would respond with, "I am investigating and will take down any non compliant images."
Then do nothing until I'm taken to court. When in court, tell the judge what the Plaintiff threatened me with a large bill to comply with the DMCA and they themselves didn't comply for not specify the images - or whatever. When I say 'I', I mean whatever my own sharpie, JD says.
Then again, I may have to take it up the ass.
Right now, hundreds/thousands of /.ers are picturing what said Toyota's look like in their mind.
As Toyota's lawyers prepare to sue them as well for using an illegal mental image.
Prepare to have your minds-eye DCMA'd.
At least not according to the article:
hell yeah
I would think it incumbent upon Toyota to specify the alleged infringing work, otherwise I would side with many of the remarks here.
Risky, though if I were the webmaster I'd try to get some legal assistance. I'd take down what was obvious, document this fact; then perhaps counter sue.
Places like Youtube are good examples here, a company sends a DMCA take-down notice, with a specific example. Unfortunately, it seems Youtube (or anyone else) doesn't always bother to verify, they just do it. But imagine if Toyota told Youtube they had to take down all videos of "x" or else. I'm sure that would fly like a fart in church.
And really, at the end of the day, where is Toyota being "hurt" by this. Having one of their cars on your desktop, etc., is free advertising for them, to some degree.
Toyota is probably trying to protect its trademarks. The USPTO would not renew Toyota's trademarks if Toyota did not actively work to prevent unauthorized uses of its trademarks. I did not hear anyone complain when Red Hat or Mozilla enforced their trademarks.
Palm trees and 8
lol
I'll see your link, and raise you two.
And this, folks, is why there will NEVER be a US remix of Top Gear.
The difficulty here is that some of those wallpapers might have official Toyota photos that have been airbrushed or had something added. That would make them derivative works, and they would be under Toyota's copyright. But there is no way for the site owner to know that. And if Toyota won't tell him which ones, then he is kinda stuck.
Legal question here: Is the site owner safe under DMCA safe harbor? He hasn't received a DMCA request, and he isn't advertising or selling the images. He is just a content provider. What if the owner puts a check box during the upload process saying "[ ] I certify that this image is copyrighted by USERNAME and is not created from any copyrighted works" and someone lies?
I know Wikipedia handles this by having a big paragraph about copyright when images are uploaded, and when you click on the image you see that boilerplate.
You may not agree with Toyota, but they are fully in their right to demand it..
> At the end of the day, the best question is that asked by Mr Maugans, "Has DMCA abuse
> really gotten this bad?"
How can you call this DMCA abuse when the article clearly states that Toyota has not sent DMCA takedown notices? Are they really alleging copyright infringement or is it trademark they are exercised about? The DMCA does not apply to the latter.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the law is fairly clear. The provider can ignore copyright infringement C&D notices that are not in the proper form. As for the cost of a lawsuit, Toyota would certainly run up a substantial tab, but for the defendant there's pro-bono work, the EFF, legal defense funds, and, of course, counter-claims.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
It is the responsibility of the site owner to be able to verify the copyright ownership or licensing status of every image/piece of content on his site.
I had (have) a site which my webmaster created with what she thought was licensed content. A popular image licensing firm sent her a notice to take down certain images and pay blackmail money^W^W restitution or they would take her to court. She took the images down and they settled; she asked them if there were any other images so that she could make sure she didn't have future liability. Two years later, I got a similar notice, with demands. My legal council (which cost nearly 30% of the amount they wanted, which was in turn about 10x the value of the images used based on their own catalog) who does happen to be an expert in IP law, basically told me I was screwed, and to pony up a check or be looking at 5 to 6 figures of litigation.
My old webmaster was kind enough to call them up and negotiate about a 20% reduction in the settlement on my behalf.
The moral of the story is this: If he has infringing content on his site, it is irrelevant whether or not they identify every piece. He has to be able to provide proof of license for every file he has. If he cannot, then he needs to take the images down or face possible ruin in court. This is the hidden failure of the system - there are so many regulations that it is impossible for a small business person to create a startup and know the implications, and ignorance is no defense. I feel for him, but he is (presuming he has actual unlicensed material) effectively screwed.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"Maybe there is something on the internet we can bill our clients for."
FAQs are evil.
Since cars are kinda complicated, I'll break it down to an anti-car analogy so people can easily understand.
It's like sending DMCA notices for screenshots of your application to a site boasting about the total awesomeness of the application.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
You won't be allowed to look at the cars in real life, as you can reproduce the image in your memory.
We see this nonsence all the time. Compagny lawyers who think they have a case completely ignoring if it will benefit or hurt their client to do so. More often than not, resorting to legal-bullying of ordinary people unwilfully brushing on your precious IP, is a terrible way to make a brand.
Every time I see the name (beginning with the letter D) of a very large maker of animated movies - the very first thing I think about, is how back in 2003 their legal vigilantes bullied a local musical into changing it's name from Rubber-Tarzan(translated) into Rubber-T. The name of the musical is the same as the title of the 1975 chilrens book that it's based on - while apparently the name Tarzan somehow became trademarked in 1999.
Legal experts say [insert name of litigous company here] would most likely loose the case - but the musical does't have the money to go to court, so they had to bend. It's impossible to imagine how [D.....] was damaged by a musical performance of a childrens book from 1975 not related to the animated movie - but their brand is irreparably damaged in the minds of countled danish parents (read prime costumers).
If you are a 500 pound gorilla, you have to be very nice to be viewed as likeable.
Run with the lemmings, and you'll get your feet wet.
No, thanks to relativity a parked car will be illegal according to a speeding camera but the camera itself will think of itself at rest.
Of course a parked Toyota could be doubly illegal...
In defense of Toyota, I would have to guess that all (or most) of the images at http://cars.desktopnexus.com/cat/toyota were created by their professional marketing folks. I don't know why they'd want to tell someone to stop giving them free advertising, but I suspect they do hold copyright to the images in question.
I really fail to see what Toyota is hoping to accomplish here. I work for a company in a marketing position and I personally am overjoyed when someone loves the product so much that they take the time to show their love and admiration by branding themselves or their site with pictures or statements about their contentment. The term detriment to the brand has probably been thrown around here, but after looking briefly at the photos on the site, I feel that it paints Toyota's product in a positive light and should be endorsed rather than oppressed. I really hope that this was a mistake that was not supervised by Toyota, but rather a mistake on the part of the legal representation of Toyota. In short, the photos are not a detriment to the brand, the site doesn't appear to charge for the photos, and gives their bandwidth and space free of charge to many different car manufacturers. I'd backpedal on this one very very quickly, and issue an apology for a misunderstanding.
Maybe they aren't so stupid after all.
This entire discussion consists of 2 parallel discussions -
1) These DMCA notices will draw all kinds of attention to the website in question.
2) The website in question is completely favorable to Toyota, why would they shut it down?
Answer is pretty obvious, my friends.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
I emailed this today to corporate HQ (as if it will help):
Hey Toyota,
I just read about you claiming all photos of your products are copyrighted by you EVEN IF COPYRIGHTED BY OTHERS!
You are forcing the issue on Desktop Nexus, a company I now feel empathy toward but otherwise unknown to me. I tell you what; If you win this one, I will try to get every Toyota product owner in America to send you a bill for free advertising and display of your logo on the cars THEY own!!! Someone better tell your lawyers that free advertising does work! You guys must be crazy.
Furthermore, my wife and I were just about ready to close a deal on a new Scion tc coup at our local dealership. This incident, if true, has upset me so much as a small business owner, that you can now consider us as a lost sale. I hope many other outraged customers will change your mind about this issue.
Please pass this along to your local Lynchburg, VA. dealership.
Sincerely,
Russll Streeper
5283 Village Highway
Lynchburg, VA 24504
Toyota is probably trying to protect its trademarks.
You know, I'm pretty sure that Toyota's legal department might have actually gone to law school, and thus would understand the difference between copyright and trademark.
Maybe the Toy Yoda company is doing this on purpose to generate buzz and sell more cars now, that people are buying less?
You can't handle the truth.
Interestingly, in many cases corporate lawyers they behave as if they do not. That is, they use the DMCA to attempt to protect a trademark when they shouldn't (call it DMCA abuse or whatever.)
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"When site owner Harry Maugans requested clarification on exactly which wallpapers were copyrighted by Toyota, he was told that for them to cite specifics (in order to file proper DMCA Takedown Notices), they would invoice Desktop Nexus for their labor."
By saying this Toyota is admitting that this would be a service rendered by them to Harry. This establishes that this is worth goods and therefore is a good. So what they're saying is that they want him to perform the service for them, free of charge. There has to be something in that argument that a good business lawyer can use to get him out of this. Especially given that this is, in all likelihood, illegal anyway.
I really think the penalty for trademark abuse is loss of all IP rights.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
You guys just don't get it, do you? Well I'll spell it out for you: Toyota did this BECAUSE of the Streisand effect. They just got a lot of people to look at sexy pictures of their cars, and what did it cost them?
Some clever flunky at Toyota deserves a raise.
Trademarks protect the use of an identifying mark in commerce. It does not prevent you from taking or selling photographs of objects bearing such a mark, except in some exceptional cases where some sort of endorsement or association is implied.
And you can't use a copyright law - the DCMA - to enforce a trademark. Completely different animals.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Just goes to show when a company gets to big, they tend to pee on their customers.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
OK, I'm shopping for a car. A Toyota Camry was on my short list.
This helped me make that decision. I don't buy from bullies.
Boy, I hope nobody tells them about Ebay Motors or Cars.com or Craigslist. After beating up on their fans and losing them all, they can go after people trying to buy and sell their cars, they all use images of Toyotas in their ads.
And if they're concerned about people having pictures of their cars, they're really going to freak out if they find out that I've seen actual Toyotas just sitting out in people's driveways, parked on the side of the road, and even driving around on the public roads, right where anyone could look at them. I bet none of those people were paying any copyright licensing fees to Toyota for exhibiting the art-that-is-their-cars. It's going to be lawsuit city.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
They can invoice whomever they want, that doesn't mean anyone is going to pay them. They can file the notice as the law provides or shut the hell up.
That just doesn't matter. Don't prosecute things that are benefitting you. To make an analogy: Suppose you were standing on your front lawn with your wife when she collapsed, unable to breathe. When you ran inside to call an ambulance, someone off the street ran up and successfully administered the Heimlich, saving her life. Do you prosecute him for trespassing? Do you quibble about whether the law is on your side?
Think about it. Yeah.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
In related news, motorcycle company Harley Davidson is filing DCMA requests aainst millions of fans demanding that their various limbs be removed for unathorized display of their copyrighted logo and trademarks.
So, one could skirt the "specific image" issue by constantly changing one bit in each image (so it hashes differently) and changing the name of the file?
Any complaint could honestly be answered with "yes, image DCF31BBFDEE7ED4BB57B0FDD0914C5.jpg has been removed from our site."
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
When served with a DMCA notice do you?
1. Complain to the rights owner, resulting in acknowledgment of receipt
2. Counter complain that they have not filed the proper legal language or requirements
3. Complain to slashdot
Toyota is actually more on the ball than all the other car manufacturers when it comes to familiarity with copyright and trademarks. Ford is somewhat on the ball. GM and Chrysler, not very much (Chrysler appears to care more about the MOPAR trademark though.)
Stuff that you frequently find on the internet or for sale that is deemed counterfeit or illegal by Toyota:
- Car repair manuals (these are either unauthorized copies of the dealership manual or unauthorized copies of Haynes manuals, I have yet to see one that is legitimate)
- Stickers/decals for your car with Toyota brands on it. (Counterfeit, brand misuse)
- Third party aftermarket parts with Toyota logos (Counterfeit, brand misuse, mostly mainland china garbage.)
Toyota does in fact have to tell you specifically where the content is, and if they refuse, you should refuse, because, "your site" is not their intellectual property, therefor "your site" is not infringing on copyright. They however do not need the exact URL to the image, just a screenshot, and you have to do the rest. Typically Rights Owners are not familiar with this machine we call a computer faxmodem, and will sometimes send print out the web page only to fax it to you. If you are sent a document by email with no clear name of who is acting on behalf of the company, refuse it. Even though it may come from the toyota domain, that by itself does not authenticate that it's not some other website pulling a prank on you.
We have not received a proper DMCA notice for any particular image at our website. Under DMCA section 512(c)(3)(A)(iii), you must provide "Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material" A general description is not sufficient. Furthermore, under DMCA section 512(c)(3)(B), you cannot use your defective notice to claim we have actual knowledge of infringement. As to your invoices, we thank you for your notice that you will be invoicing us to do YOUR job of providing proper DMCA notices. We will inform our Accounts Payable department to immediately forward any such invoices unpaid to our Legal Department, as no section of the DMCA nor any other law requires us to pay them.
You could have Toyota sue the city that illegaly took a picture of you speeding or running a red light, because Toyota owns the copyright on the picture.
Brilliant!
All you're doing is taking down free advertisements all around the world and giving yourself a bad name...
This has nothing to do with PR and everything to do with overzealous lawyers.
If the web site could get the support of some lawyers, then I am sure that the burden of proof has to be on Toyota. Basically they should not be charging the web site for work, since it is not clear what is and is not a 'copyright infringement'. Another approach, would be to replace all pictures (validating with lawyers first), with anti-publicity, where you have a picture with the following text: "Toyota demanded us not to host photos, based on the DMCA, and without due reason, so here is a picture of a Honda instead" :)
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
If it hasn't already been mentioned further upthread, you are seeing a bit of the future, a bit of the face of Freedom's true enemy: The Multinational Corporation.
It took an age for the idiots in Washington to even understand the implications of cell phones by drivers of cars. They'll never grok a business that knows no borders, run by people who are, under current jurisprudence, practically immune from prosecution, and have no real physical location in a recognized state, no headquarters, only, as Friedman has pointed out, supply chains.
It's a wink from the future folks, and it isn't good. As recent history has pointed out, governments no longer work for the people. And as long as you're in a position where you couldn't walk away from your job for a while, you don't have much say in the matter.
Desktop Nexus: Please file proper and complete DMCA takedowns.
Toyota: We will bill you for our time.
DN: Do not do so. Incomplete takedowns denied categorically. Good day.
Toyota: Completed takedown requests.
DN: Takedowns granted.
Toyota: Invoice for time.
DN: Invitation to single-partner intercourse with self.
It doesn't take a lawyer, just a brain. DON'T FEED THE LEECHES.
(except my mom and dad please!)
Toyauto is getting exactly what they wanted - attention. Corporate trolling at its finest.
Move along, nothing to see here...
Even casual involvement excludes total freedom by it's inherent nature. John Valby
In one of his books, Lawrence Lessig discusses how manufacturers of furniture and other goods have been claiming copyright protection for their goods if they appear in movies. Moviemakers have been needing to go through an elaborate process of copyright clearance for objects that appear in their movie scenes. This has applied even if the movie scene is intended to be of someone's room as it is in real life.
This claim by Toyota is the same kind of thing. It looks like they are claiming copyright protection for the appearance of their cars if used in something that is reproduced. Presumably a police car chase or a major accident, if the car involved is a Toyota product, would require copyright clearance by Toyota to be shown on TV.
This is carrying the law to its ridiculous extreme.
This is yet another example of the failures of capitalism. Protect the fucking rich by destroying the poor and middle class. Communism evens everything out and prevents the evils of capitalism to allow more freedom. COMMUNISM FTW! CAPITALISM IS EVIL!
IANAL, but I agree with you that the notice is defective and that they shouldn't be under any obligation due to it (nor should they be obligated by any "invoice" Toyota sends).
Frankly, I would get a real lawyer to tell them off, but it couldn't hurt to refer them to the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdam.
So Toyota want to file takedown notices but won't file 'proper' DMCA takedown notices without billing the site owner for the work required to produce the DMCA takedown notice?
Right.... obviously Toyota believe you *can* have your cake and eat it.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
This couldn't have come at a better time, from my point of view. I'm in the market for a new car. My current car is a Toyota (2000 Celica). My last car was a Toyota. So was the one before that (an '83 Tercel hatchback, as a matter of fact). While still under warranty, the top half of the Celica's engine had to be replaced. It hasn't given me any trouble since (beyond having an appetite for headlights I find a bit disturbing), but somehow it's never enjoyed the same place in my heart as the others.
For the first time in more than 20 years, I've thought about looking for a new car somewhere besides a Toyota lot. Competitors (even North American ones) have come a long way in the last few years. They now offer the kind of quality and reliability I expect in a car, so there's a lot less reason to pay premium bucks to Toyota. And Toyota parts, when you need them, cost a LOT.
This incident has made up my mind. Toyota is off my list, and won't receive further consideration. It's exactly the kind of crap I hate: a corporate bully with deep pockets slaps average people across the face, not because there's any compelling reason to do so, but just because it can.
For once, in a small way, I'm in a position to slap back. My next car won't be one of theirs, nor the one after that...and so on. I'll also have a word with family and friends who may be leaning toward their product: buy elsewhere, help starve a corporate thug.
By the way, if you reach a similar decision, please feel free to pass this little note on to your local Toyota dealer. I certainly intend to, probably the next time the dealership sends me one of those irritating, "we value your business" letters.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
God damn lawyers.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
This is the same company that has stolen the 9rules logo. Compare it yourself here.
Open Source Alternatives
It is FAR less costly to ignore DMCA takedowns and let the burden of proof remain with the plaintiff than to blindly obey requests and make it the burden of the recipient.
As always, I'm not licensed to practice law in your area, so consult a lawyer for legal advise or read the freakin' statute.
Ehud
If they do, can they claim they were saved by zero?
Probably under the theory that ANY protest, however misaimed (such as crying copyright when they really mean trademark), qualifies as "attempting to protect our trademark".
Historically, has any trademark been lost due to similar fanboy type activities??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
You know, maybe it's because I'm a chemist, and not a gearhead, but those pictures suck, and I would never want one as a destop. Maybe it's because the cars are ugly, or maybe it's because the photographs suck (they DO look like marketing promo photographs, so maybe Toyota has something there), but I will take my wallpaper of a Gen-1 Optimus Prime any day of the week.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
Well, my next car was going to be a Toyota Supra, but, alas, it will not be :-P
Anyone remember Ford doing this a while back? Are they using the same lawyer??
Just because it works, Doesn't make it right. - JTM
I'm sure I can make this nastier, anyone?
If everyone does this, there will be very few car sales unless they capitulate.
Any lawyer types willing to make a public version of this contract everyone can use?
Check out the "new" images on page 3 :-)
But I think it would be more effective if people uploaded their best, rusted-out, 15-year-old Toyota car pictures. Or maybe something worse, like this, this, or this. The site has a whole gallery of photos definitely NOT taken by Toyota. Not big enough for wallpaper, unfortunately :-)
Dude, I went to highschool with Harry. He is a pretty kickass dude.
You mad
Glad to see that Toyota has their eye on what is really important.
I'd honestly expect this from BMW or a more "prestigious" car company, but companies like BMW are smarter than that and know that part of their customer base is enthusiast-driven (pardon the pun) and would be shooting themselves in the foot.
This reeks of the fat chick screaming rape when no one would even think of even looking at her in that way. Seriously. Most Toyotas arent even that great to look at. Toyota is crying for attention, and seeing if they cant get some money out of it as well.
A photograph of a sculpture or other work of art is a new work of art and has its own copyright. I can photograph and sell pictures of buldings, bridges, and statues. The photos are mine and so is the copyright. Copying Toyota's photos or drawings of cars may not be permitted, but taking a photo of a three-dimensional object does not transfer any of the rights to that object to the photo.
How exactly do they own the copyright to images of their product? I thought that kind of logic applied only to pictures of persons.
For a simple analogy, let's say you build cars, and someone takes a picture of them. How exactly is his reproduction of those pictures a damage to your ability to market your product? Do you sell pictures? Can people drive his pictures instead of buying your cars? I know it's just an analogy but...
OH WAIT
Well, it would be pretty obvious if you think about it.
If you had the rights to publish pictures of cars for public display there would be nothing to prevent anyone with a gripe from doing so. Then we would have:
Each and every one of these captioned "Would you buy a car like this?". Today, just try publishing one of those pictures and you will be sued. Partly because you don't have the rights to publish pictures of the cars or their logos. This is today keeping web sites, newspapers and magazines from publishing such pictures. Sure, pictures like this might be a little over the top, but think of the advertising value to Ford of having a collection of such pictures involving Toyotas. This is the logical extension of negative campaigning, just like our recent elections in the US.
Why shouldn't we have negative advertising? Well, I am sure we would if it was legal to do so. Today it is not. And trying to say the pictures currently published are negative or defaming isn't the point. The point is that once you let the rights slip there is no limit and no boundary. No morals, no common sense and certainly no decency.
All the big companies are corrupt dens of snake handling pedophiles.
he he he he he he.
Makes as much sense as Toyota's silly idea
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
And then he invoices Toyota for complying with each and everyone of them to the tune of the same dollar amount their bill is. Two can play this game.
Why break even?
The "???" step is clearly how to collect on that invoice. If you really want to piss them off, you sue them for it. Either way, the pictures will be back up after the counterclaims come through.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Easy just tell Toyota that they would be happy to take them all down, but that the rightful owners of those photos that were uploaded would need to be compensated with royalty payments to license (or in this case sorta unlicense) their IP. Desktop Nexus would surely be ok with sending Toyota invoices for those Royalty payments to their users. ~When site owner Harry Maugans requested clarification on exactly which wallpapers were copyrighted by Toyota, he was told that for them to cite specifics (in order to file proper DMCA Takedown Notices), they would invoice Desktop Nexus for their labor."
http://cars.desktopnexus.com/cat/toyota/
I clicked the first image that caught my eye on that page, which took me here.
This is a Toyota concept car, not in production. The first commenter even suggests its a Toyota-copyright-owned image.
Here are some of the images from that series, attributed to a Toyota press release, in Motor Trend.
Now, I think it is rather stupid of Toyota to destroy free PR and goodwill, but this is not a case of people taking pics of their cars in their driveway.
They should submit a drawing a of a spider to pay for the invoice remitted by Toyota.
... after the picture owners refute the takedown, per the DMCA.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
a whole new class of lawsuits to emerge from this type of legal abuse. Lawsuits against litigious extortion.
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
So now the potential defendant has to pay for the privilege of having the antagonizing party produce legal documents to build their case. That sounds a lot like a distorted form of extortion and constitutes a barratrous action on the part of the lawyers involved.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
this would also include all those "car" popups that infringe on my web viewing. i would like my time wasted by closing popups with monetary benefit, and this may also help lead the way for the rights of peoples veiwing act (circa 2009 by me) to get paid for viewing garbage adds.
happy trials
... it is not binding on the manufacturer, since the car dealer is not an agent of the manufacturer with respect to anything other than what the relation between the manufacturer and dealer spells out. That relationship won't include any rights to contract away the right the manufacturer has. While there are potential arguments against the manufacturer claiming a copyright ownership of any pictures taken of a sold car, this kind of contract is not the kind of thing that would work that way.
Now if you could get the manufacturer to agree, that would be something else. My bet is even in an economy like this, that would never happen.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
... if Toyota sues Nexus and Nexus hires some high priced lawyers to fight against Toyota's high priced lawyers. But this is a case of legal bullying because Nexus cannot afford such lawyers.
Businesses like Headline News don't cover "little things" like this due to the risk of losing advertising. It would have to actually go to court for a news media like that to gain any interest. One possible exception would be if we managed to trigger a widespread public boycott of Toyota, like pickets in front of every Toyota dealer in the country on the same day.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
What you describe is something that existed in copyright law even before the DMCA. If you are the one making the decision about what to put up, then you are responsible for making sure you don't put up anything that infringes on any copyright. While the DMCA can be applied even to such cases, it doesn't even have to. The copyright owner can use the traditional legal methods against you.
What this part of the DMCA is for is to deal with cases where the web site does NOT make the decisions. When user postings are involved, the DMCA included a provision to protect internet access providers (and this includes web sites hosting user submitted material, not just an ISP running a hosting service for user web sites) ... provided the ISP does certain things spelled out in the law to gain this safe harbor (register their agent, do the takedown, etc). As long as the ISP does these things, the DMCA protects them from liability.
So if you as a webmaster put up copyrighted content, the ISP hosting your website would be protected if they follow the DMCA, but you would not be protected. The copyright owner could still pursue you for the past damages even if the site stays down. Having it taken down may be enough to make many copyright owners happy enough not to pursue you, but that option is open to them.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Try using mopeds?
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
It is FAR less costly to ignore DMCA takedowns and let the burden of proof remain with the plaintiff than to blindly obey requests and make it the burden of the recipient.
Ignoring a properly formed DMCA takedown request means you lose the ISP safe harbor that ISPs (including websites hosting user postings like pictures). That's a HUGE gamble. The risks include liability for any and all damages, as well as the legal fees. And while it is unlikely Toyota has much damage, if any, for the pictures on Nexus, their lawyers could potentially spin this any way they want. And if Nexus doesn't also hire high priced lawyers to argue against these spinnings, they'd lose by default and the court would end up ordering a judgement against them by however much Toyota demanded whether it was real or not.
And that's what makes the legal system in this country so screwed up. Plaintiffs can make any crazy demand they want and the courts are not generally even allowed to consider if those demands are valid or warranted unless the defendant argues against those demands.
The big question in this case is if the takedown is properly formed. The argument is that without specific references it is not. The 2nd part of the question is whether Nexus can afford to deal with the fallout of arguing that the takedown request is not properly formed.
This is one of the things wrong with the DMCA. Had it required a judge to sign off on it, issues like this might not be happening.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Were these pictures of radiator fans or interior ones?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos
People began to use the word "Thermos" to refer to any container which could keep liquids warm, and so the trademark was lost in the 1960s.
Palm trees and 8
Ignoring a properly formed DMCA takedown request means you lose the ISP safe harbor
Thanks for deleting the part of my post that said that. Next time try and read the second sentence also.
That's a HUGE gamble.
"That" is a huge gamble? What is a "HUGE gamble". Safe harbor is just that. There's NEVER been ANY liability to ISPs. The safe harbor provisions are a false prophilactic.
Stop it. Your fairy tale is funny. Third parties have NEVER been found guilty of liability let alone damages let alone responsible for legal fees.
The big question in this case is if the takedown is properly formed.
No, that's a red herring used by DMCA proponents to pretend that if the takedown request is formed ok then it must be complied with and otherwise it isn't.
Sorry, bud, it doesn't matter if it's "properly formed" *lol*. It matters if it's valid and whether the 3rd parties wish to respond to it.
AS I SAID: the fallacy is that one MUST respond to it. One DOES NOT NEED TO. One merely gives up the "Safe Harbor" which isn't needed since the courts have not found third parties liable.
This is one of the things wrong with the DMCA.
The DMCA is a big piece of crap designed to fool stupid people into doing stupid things.
I'll say it again for a third time. THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS TO TAKE DOWN CONTENT. IF YOU DON'T TAKE DOWN SOMEONE ELSE'S CONTENT YOU GIVE UP THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS. Courts have never found third parties liable so giving a "safe harbor" to a nonliable party is a joke.
Regards,
Ehud
What legal recourse do I have against Toyota as of this moment?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Should they then be able to sue Toyota for claiming ownership of non-Toyota property...
In your case, your webmaster (and thus a member of your company) put up the images.
In this case, it appears to be a site wherein members have uploaded the wallpapers (hence "fan wallpapers") and NOT the site owner. Their obligation is thus to remove specific items as notified by the copyright owner.
And put up pictures of Nissans and Fords instead. Hey, it's free advertising that Toyota doesn't want, so why make a fuss about it? Fuck'em.
One of my Scion photographs is on that website. Since Toyota/Scion is trying to usurp control over my copyright, what legal action can I take against Toyota?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
... do you know where your lawyers are?
I wonder how Toyota and their "supposed" attorney Garrett Biggs (anyone have an address) would feel about the onslaught of "Toyota Sucks Balls" desktop wallpapers that might start showing up. I think "Garrett Biggs Sucks Balls" also has a nice ring to it. Nothing wrong about sucking balls. I just wonder how they would react. And for those of you who believe this is childish, yes it is. But so is their behavior, and sometimes the kiddies only respond to name calling. Damn, this back injury IS making me mean.
have been sitting on their asses for too long without seeing any action, so they've started going through the poor villages pulling off a few rounds to ease the boredom.
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
Almost all those images appear to be professional photographs or renderings. Toyota probably spent a lot of money having those made.
This isn't an issue of Toyota asking a site to take down images of people's own cars, but a site distributing artwork clearly owned by them.
One possible legal risk in performing this vague takedown is that it would establish a precedent specific to this website that the site operator makes a judgment about content of each user submission. This could have the effect of nullifying the protections of the DMCA for the website (a provider with respect to user submissions) with regard to future postings under the expectation that the website operator is making decisions of what is, or is not, posted. Normally, the DMCA protects internet providers (such as a user provided content website) from liability by providing them with a safe harbor in the form of the takedown process. If a copyright owner identifies content that infringes on his rights, the provider avoids liability by removing the content per the DMCA requirements.
What Toyota is effectively asking DesktopNexus to do is to give up the safe harbor and to make decisions about what is, or is not, a copyright violation. Instead, the decision of what images are actual infringements should be made by Toyota itself (or its lawyers). Then if Toyota makes the decisions incorrectly, Toyota becomes liable (with respect to the user whose posting was removed).
My guess here is that Toyota's lawyers know that many, maybe most, and perhaps all, of these images do not actually cause them any harm and are not genuine infringements. But they are taking this approach as a means to shed any liability for takedowns they know would be improper and cause them legal headaches.
As much as we hate the DMCA takedown provisions, it does serve the useful purpose of providing a safe harbor for providers like web site operators (and the more general web hosting providers). Although the procedures for takedown are rather draconian (for example, even if the user claims he has permission from the real copyright owner, which may even be himself, the takedown stays in force for at least 2 weeks), it is an essential part of providing the safe harbor. It is essential to protect this safe harbor to avoid the even more draconian situation where everything anyone puts up has to be thoroughly vetted in advance with the associated extreme costs. What is needed to fix the DMCA is to tweak the procedures (shorten the mandatory time frame and provide for some stiff penalties for inappropriate takedowns).
The DMCA does include this:
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Scion had readily available contacts and generally respond very quickly.
That's where I would (and did) start.
I recommend calling to start with and following up in writing.
I suspect this can be resolved very quickly (by corporate reeling their over-eager lawyers in).
Tomas
ScionLife.com
http://www.scion.com/#contactUs will get you the contact info...
Buy American but Buy Smart
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
Toyota has a "Contact Us" link at the bottom of their main site. From there you can fill out a feedback form, and ironically, Copyright is one of the subjects. I encourage everyone to go send them something - this is what I wrote:
Your recent actions with Desktop Nexus show that Toyota fundamentally does not understand basic copyright law, and the implications of DMCA. For starters, Toyota quite simply doesn't hold copyright to any image just because there is a Toyota product in the image. This battle was fought and lost by Ford and others.
Second, you can't bill Desktop Nexus because you don't feel like taking the time to identify the images that you (wrongly) violate Toyota's IP. The DMCA has absolutely no provision for this.
Last, Toyota, you certainly don't get PR. Do you realize how stupid and anti-customer you look right now? I'm in the market for a new car. Granted, you don't make a single car that excites me like my (now gone) MR2 Turbo did, but even if you did, I'd cross it off the list because of your actions. I'd hate to take a picture of a vacation with my car in it and get sued by your clueless legal team.
Now doesn't seem like the best time for an automaker to discourage potential consumers. Last I checked Toyota's sales were set to record the first annual sales decline in 10 years. Might the company's energy be better spent learning how to effectively harness and direct social media efforts on the Web, instead?
Nexus should take down all the wallpapers, & replace them with their own photos of Toyotas. Really crappy looking Toyotas.
So Toyota is claiming copyright ownership on all photos taken that contain a Toyota? I own a '98 Toyota Corolla. It's completely paid up so there isn't even the ownership ambiguity of the bank having a claim to it. If I were to take a photo of my kids playing in front of the car and post that online, would Toyota be able to sue me? Would they be able to claim ownership of my photo simply because the car was in it?
Let's allow this for the moment and see what happens if we take this "copyright ownership" claim to the logical conclusion. Any band name manufacturer can claim ownership over your work (photo, indie film, etc) if their product happens to appear in it. Not only would you need to look out for cars appearing in the photo/film/etc, but you would need to make sure any soft drinks consumed are generic, any food eaten doesn't come from a known chain, and any clothes (especially shoes) worn can't be tied back to a particular manufacturer. Should you slip up and allow one cultural reference into your work, it ceases to be your work and is instead owned by the corporate conglomerate whose product you accidentally referenced.
In related news, Cambell's now owns all copies of Andy Warhol's 32 Campbell's Soup Cans paintings.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Also, pictures that were taken IN PUBLIC are not subject to copyright protection of the subject matter (people, logos and such) unless they are used commercially, or in competing or misleading ways.
If Toyota does not want pictures of their vehicles to be taken, then they need to get those vehicles OFF THE STREET. They can't have it both ways!
I hope you read TFA and search out their side before letting /. bully your opinion.
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
I'm pretty sure that Toyota's legal department might have actually gone to law school
I'm pretty sure the majority of their legal department hasn't. Go ahead and file this remark on your way out for me.
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
Hello,
Ignore the Toyota notice until Toyota clarifies which wallpapers, exactly, are under their copyright. Toyota has the right to any pictures it has taken. If a fan took a picture of his Toyota and turned it into wallpaper, the copyright is owned by the fan. If Toyota pursues the matter, hire an attorney to send them a few threatening letters. That should straighten the whole thing out.
Bye,
B.R.
There are a lot of trademarks that have been lost that way. But I meant lost specifically due to this sort of derivative works, created by fanboys -- NOT due to the use of the word to mean "generic whatever".
[croggling at the thought of "toyota" as the generic word for "automobile"]
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If Red Hat or Mozilla started suing people who took pictures of their own computers while running certain web browsers or kinds of Operating systems I think there would be a lot of complaints here.
From an artist's point of view, just how difficult is it to make a Toyota vehicle look incredibly stupid? Now to be legally protected, it has to obviously be a parody, so the Toyotas can't be made to look a *little bit* stupid, they have to look *incredibly* stupid.
Recall the example of the parody of Dewar's Scotch magazine adverts featuring celebrities recounting their first sexual experiences. A parody, upheld by the US Supreme Court, depicted Rev. Jerry Falwell's "first time" -- in an outhouse with his own mother.
Visual artists -- go to town!
Sometimes these "internet things" take on a life of their own. That small website owner wouldn't have to have anything to do with the satire. I mean,
if there were even just one incredibly funny picture (or YouTube video satire) to come out of this, the "Streisand Effect" could be renamed the "Toyota Effect".
Hide all sigs: Click HELP+Prefs (top), VIEWING (last on right), DISABLE SIGS (3rd on left) and SAVE (hidden at bottom).
I had to rent a car from the midwest to Hartford, Ct. weekend before last... it turned out to be a Toyota Camry. Loved the car.. loved the ride... and 36 miles per gallon, even up and over the Appalachian mountains !
I was seriously considering buying one. Now I won't.
And no, I don't feel that *not* purchasing a great product because of the way a company conducts itself is my loss. Any company that cannot control it's greed and stupidity does not get my money.
I.E. - because of the R.I.A.A., I have not purchased a new CD in years.
And no, I do not download my music online either. I just do without. I already had way too many CD's before all that started with the music industry suing folks. I have my FM radio, and if I really want a CD, I can usually find it at a yard sale before long. I will not financially support the current music industry.
I.E. #2 - Because of the way Sony decided to install root kits and other secret files onto peoples computers without notice, just from loading a CD Rom or the software for it's fingerprint readers, I will not purchase a Sony product. Nor have I done so for 3 or 4 years now.
I have a list I don't buy from.
Others still do purchase such products. Then they complain when the company then acts like it is above you, me, and the law. The company doesn't seem too worried about losing business. And in general, it probably doesn't lose much business. Folks still continue to send these companies their money.
But not this person.
If it has tires or tits, it will give you problems.
Is this the US HQ making the legal demands, or is the main HQ in Japan pushing the demands down the pipe? I'm thinking it's either the latter, or Biggs is an idiot who was looking for some quick cash from his employer-- if it's a DMCA compliance issue, one would ordinarily use the takedown and be done with it. But this guy's using the C&D instead, and threatening to bill the desktop wallpaper site for services rendered^Wforced when asked for more information. That makes this legal posturing seem all the more suspicious.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Toyota issued a blanket request to demand the immediate removal of all member-uploaded wallpapers featuring a Toyota, Lexus, or Scion vehicle (citing copyright violation), regardless of whether Toyota legally holds the copyright to the photos or not. When site owner Harry Maugans requested clarification on exactly which wallpapers were copyrighted by Toyota, he was told that for them to cite specifics (in order to file proper DMCA Takedown Notices), they would invoice Desktop Nexus for their labor."
You see, in my neighborhood, there are many photo-radars and I'd love to let Toyota fight my speeding tickets.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
So if the fear in receiving CAD letters is lawsuit, countersue for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
Did anyone look at the pictures?! There's no doubt in my mind that they are all in fact official Toyoto photos. Toyota is not claiming ownership of random photos of their cars.
Yep. I just had a look, too. I randomly clicked five of the images on the first page, and I'd say four of them were almost certainly official toyota publicity shots: they are professional quality shots, featuring cars in pristine condition, in some cases concept cars that haven't been made available to the general public, and none of the cars in them are carrying licence plates. They look like brochure pictures.
The only one that doesn't look like an official toyota pic is the one in the top left left corner, which appears to have been produced by a bodykit manufacturer to sell their stuff.
So the story hear: toyota's lawyers are too lazy to file a proper DMCA notice. Big deal.
You know, I'm pretty sure that Toyota's legal department might have actually gone to law school, and thus would understand the difference between copyright and trademark.
I think it's some sort of an initiation rite for the legal department. Bully and intimidate some defenseless group of people by pulling some IPR stuff out of your arse. I bet they are having a good laugh at it at the company sauna right now!
Btw, this is how some believe the DMCA came into being.
I clicked around those sites and there's plenty of copyright infringing material!!
Sure, the users try to hide their illegal activies by calling the offending pictures "vacation photos" and "my daughter's birthday party" but I saw right through they're little scheme! They're sneaky, they focus on an object or person but you can clearly see the vehicle in the background!
Ha ha! You'll have to try harder next time, you can't fool the copyright police that easily!
~Syberz
Ford did the same thing earlier to Cafe Press. Cafe Press in turn forced me to remove a picture of my own car from their site. When I responded by telling Cafe Press it was a picture of my car they said they had no control over it and I needed to contact Ford to discuss it. This resulted in my NEVER using Cafe Press again. I did try to contact Ford about it and never received a response. Which means, I probably will never buy another Ford. This kind of attack on the little guy is senseless. They need to site specific cases where their rights are violated. They can't violate mine because some other idiot violated theirs. What is this world coming to?
Dear Toyota fans,
We are glad that you enjoy our products so much as to design wallpapers featuring them. The industrial design teams here at Toyota are proud of the work they've done, and your wallpapers only serve to illustrate how much their hard work has paid off.
Ha ha, just kidding, stop that shit you fucks. No one is allowed to look at our cars without shelling out at LEAST fifteen grand. Oh, and I dare you to see one on the street without closing your eyes until it's gone. What's that, you have? Well, we know where you live, and we're coming for your family.
Sincerely,
Foo Barrington
VP Arrogant Fucks Dept.
Toyota
...at least, that what the desktopnexus.com says now. :-(
That was quick.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
I guess they don't want free advertising anymore for their cars, now instead of a co-worker asking "gee that looks like a cool car!" and the other co working blabbing on for 20 minutes about how great their scion is they will complain about the car company being NAZI like and the other co-worker will buy a GM or Ford car instead....
Great use of your brains Toyota.
It is not like anyone is going to start copying their cars anytime soon based off pictures.
I could see if someone was making copies of their cars or using their pictures as libe4l against their company, but this shit is just waaaaaaay to controlling for the car company.
It is like Alienware telling users not to post pictures of their kickass cases and syste4ms because they want to charge users for displaying pictures of their systems.....
Hey Toyota, point gun at foot and fire , because that is what you are doing.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
That there are several images there which are very unlikely to be fan-created, as they do look to my eye like they came out of a brochure or catalog.
Some that do not, but I would not say that Toyota is completely off-base with their complaints of their copyright being violated.
After reading this story, I decided to go to Toyota's website, get their contact address, and write a letter (snail mail) stating, briefly, that: It has come time for me to purchase a new family vehicle. I was considering a toyota vehicle for our new family vehicle until I saw a story about Toyota sending a DMCA takedown notice to a website that holds desktop wallpapers, some of which show Toyota vehicles in them ...."
Screw Toyota. I'll take my twenty grand to some other car company that doesn't pick on petty crap like desktop wallpaper.
I don't know enough about Cars to tell which images might be ones actually produced by Toyota, but I did browse their Video Game section, and the there are some very very clear copyright violations there.
Sorry, but it's clear to me that this site doesn't give a damn about other people's copyrights, and are instead trying to make it difficult.
Their hands are not clean. They're very very dirty.
Sorry, I did not find any nude Barbra Streisand pictures to use as wallpapers. Can you update the link?
A group of (previously) happy customers are advertising for them for free-- and they respond by threatening them with trumped up copyright violation charges? Am I reading that correctly?
Go to Desktop Nexus to see a nice compilation wallpaper: http://cars.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/26515/
To Toyota, one word: No.
Argument: You charge us for labour to research which pictures you hold the copyright for, we invoice you (for an equal or greater amount plus legal fees) to take them off the site.
I'm not an advocate of ridiculous lawsuits, but I thought you could counter-sue and at least get legal fees paid for... or of course, Toyota might just lose in a landmark "What the hell are you thinking, you stupid company?" decision by the judge.
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)
There's a post from Toyota at PriusChat.com. They're backing down. "Please let your members know that we offer a sincere apology to the DesktopNexus site and its users for any inconvenience or disruption this miscommunication may have caused."