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."

Comments

Whats the point...?

[Zathain Sicarius]

All you're doing is taking down free advertisements all around the world and giving yourself a bad name...

Toyota and Sony.

[Sun.Jedi]

Is any more evidence required for average people to avoid these 'too large for their own common sense' companies?

Re:those people are obviously freaks

[Scutter]

What I'd like someone to do is to produce a DMCA takedown order for Toyota on a piece of clothing that is worn by an actor in one of Toyota's ads.

It would be better to serve them an order to remove all ads containing clothes for copyright violation and then invoice them when they ask you to indicate which ads are violating copyright.

Pathetic

[GFree678]

Directly attacking the fans who are providing free advertising of your product is about as stupid as it gets.

Re:Pathetic

[DarkOx]

I would argue that protecting ones trademarks and copyrights would include taking the time to file specific and correct DMCA requests even if that meant enumeration what items you were interested in for the requestee. It would be like me knocking on my neighbors door and saying

Dude I know some of the stuff in your yard can't possibly be allowed by our community bylaws. Can you please go research them and get back to me, then naturally you will have to get compliant.

It seems to me if I have an problem with something someone else is doing it falls to me to at least identify what that is in a specific an actionable way and determine if its at least reasonably possible I have the force of law on my side before I bother them or a court with my complaint.

Re:Pathetic

[Teancum]

This isn't about trademarks here. The website owner isn't (yet) disputing the use of the trademark, nor is the website owner attempt to sell a similar product (aka an automobile) using that trademark.

Yes, trademarks have to be defended according to U.S. law, but there isn't a trademark infringement going on here.

Besides, the DCMA doesn't cover trademark usage... it only applies to the use of copyright.

The issue with the "New Zork Times" is that the "New York Times" certainly does sound similar, and the purpose of the "New Zork Times" was for something "related" to journalism... aka it was for a similar product. Branding is important, and Infocom in this case tried to make the "newspaper" appear in a format similar to the better known commercial organization as well. Again, this doesn't relate to the above incident.

Trademarks aren't copyright protected. The form and styling of the vehicle, however, might be considered a "work of art" and as such have tertiary copyright status such as when you attempt to take a photo of a statue or other 3-D work of art. It depends largely on the context, but clearly this website is using the vehicle as the focus of the image and it certainly could be argued that the vehicles are being admired as works of art. As they should be in many cases.

Some (not all) of the images also appear to be from official Toyota publications and/or photographers hired under contract by Toyota. The copyright status of these images is much more clear-cut.

Still, there is no reason to even comply (or even respond) to letters or notices that don't give specifics regarding what images are out of compliance and what aspect of the copyright status is being asserted here. They can't just ask you to shut down your website.

It is even more insane to shoot the fans here, who are hyping up and adding "buzz" to their products. This is "free" advertising of the kind that most marketing groups salivate over and only could wish they could get. The lawyer/marketing genius needs to get fired by Toyota for even considering the thought of going after these guys.

If the website was offering images of Toyota cars blowing up, in crashes, covered with blood, or appearing in a negative light, that could be something more of a concern. Instead, they (Toyota) should be grateful that they aren't being charged for this "service". Heck, their P.R. guys should be uploading more photos to this website.... particularly after this has received some huge attention through slashdotting and other blog posts.

The path is clear.

[MostAwesomeDude]

Ignore the notice. It's clearly not properly formed, and should provide great evidence, should Toyota decide to start suing this guy.

Invoices mean nothing

[Teancum]

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.

Toyota has no legal case

[denobug]

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.

Re:its just a car.

[davolfman]

The proper response? Bill Toyota right back for each and every takedown.

Re:its just a car.

[genner]

... 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."

My first reaction was, "What idiot laywers, no court would award them that. Maybe they hope that the website won't spend the money to fight them." But I thought about it for a few seconds, and if the onus is on the infringer to make sure that they are not infringing, then it makes sense for them to be billed. I'm not saying it is the responsibility of the infringer to be sure they're not infringing, but if that's the case, then it's a little easier to see where this seemingly crazy statement actually came from.

Except the site owner isn't the infringer and the DMCA makes sure they can not be treated as such.

Re:its just a car.

[Naturalis Philosopho]

You can ignore physics all you want, rest assured that it won't forget you.

Re:its just a car.

[Blkdeath]

i don't want my car to fragment on impact. I want my car to protect me, no matter what Detroit says about crumple zones, i will never drive a car that is designed to fail.

Oh. So rather than having the crash energy absorbed by predictable crumple zones you'd rather have it focus straight into the passenger compartment and into your body and brain. Well, I suppose it's one example of Darwinism.