|
Wanna sell a pic of your Ford? Freichen Ford.
This is hilarious .. .
Some mustang guys made a calender, and Ford starts a lawsuit. http://www.bmcforums.com/showthread.php?t=42402 Cliffs notes ; Mustang guys take pics of their cars, and hire a company to make the calender. Ford tries to start a lawsuit against the calender making company. So you can own a ford, but you can not use its image for profit. Link is working again |
this is SUCH bullshit!! SO, by Ford's logic every time a Ford product is featured in magazines such as Motor Trend, Edmunds, or Modified they are infringing on Ford copyrights??!!
I REALLY hope there's a good attorney on that forum whose looking to get famous by actually fighting back. Heck, I'd even donate a few bucks to see it happen. |
perhaps with such shitty 4th quarter sales, they try to pick up money wherever they see ANY possibility.
|
On one of the pages a professional photographer chimed in. Short of it was that according to US law if you take a photo of something you then own copyrights to the photo. I'm thinking Ford really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Heck they even went to the extent of flagging some guy's SRT8 Charger photos, so what does that tell you?
|
yeah, Ford is just hoping to scare these guys with their big attorneys. This wouldn't last an hour in a courtroom but Ford is hoping these guys don't have the $$$ to find that out.
|
Reason: Better chance of making money on frivolous lawsuits than actual car sales.
|
Originally Posted by tjbourgoyne
(Post 2241841)
Reason: Better chance of making money on frivolous lawsuits than actual car sales.
1) no legal leg to stand on 2) What are the odds that these owners are wealthy enough to have significant assets? |
there is little difference between ford and the 3rd reich...
|
one has Alan Mullaly(sp?) for CEO, the other has Bill Gates? :dunno:
|
Don't take a picture of me. I hold the copywrite.
Here is a link to the story: http://www.adrants.com/2008/01/ford-...ts-returns.php |
Originally Posted by alnielsen
(Post 2241952)
Don't take a picture of me. I hold the copywrite.
Here is a link to the story: http://www.adrants.com/2008/01/ford-...ts-returns.php |
I doubt they are actually going all the way to court, for the reasons stated above. They are probably just sending out cease and desist letters and hoping people will not question it because they're a big scary company.
If you were to take it to court, it would probably be thrown out and ford would have to pay court fees. More likely they would dismiss the suit entirely. |
letters being sent from ford:
"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." |
While that much is true, they don't have the right to the all the stuff they said they do. Where does ford get off telling someone they own rights to obviously non-ford products?
|
Now you guys know another reason why I left Ford when I had a chance. Rather than allow the free promotion of their product they choose to turn on their biggest supporters.
I would be happy to file the responsive brief in that lawsuit and I would win the case on social merits, alone. Ford wouldn't want me to bring the law into it. As to exercising control over the quality of Ford product; isn't THAT best done from within, during the design and assembly process? |
Fords argument makes sense to me. The calender was being sold on the cafepress website for anyone to buy. They clearly stood to gain from Fords image.
I would think Ford would persue a more freindly solution, however. It's not much of a stretch to imagine the site owners printing the calenders and selling them independently to forum members. Or giving them away to forum members and asking for a donation, wink wink. As well, the claim that Ford said they owned everything is written adlib all over that site, but never once did I see it in writing from Ford itself. I suspect its the result of over-reaction or misinterpretation. |
The problem is, most of these cars are modified by the owners. They are no longer the image of what Ford sells.
If a person is in public, you can freely take pictures of him. This is how the tabloid news works with celebrities. The same principal should apply to other object also, including Ford products. |
Good move, Ford. You're becoming the RIAA of the auto industry.
P.S. - Your desperation is showing. |
Dude, you look at any of the cars in that calender and modified or not, they are all clearly Ford Mustangs. They all look like Mustangs, and have all the Ford and Mustang logos. To the average person, they are still very much in the image of what Ford sells.
You can't take a picture of Fords and put it in a calender and sell it to the general public under the pretense of being a Ford calender, or mug, or hat, or whatever you put the Ford product on. It makes perfect sense. |
It makes no sense whatsoever. I understand if they were using the official ford logo, or using pictures that ford paid for the rights to (ie, paid a professional photographer). But these are photos of modified vehicles that are no longer to Ford specs. They are owned by the people, with pictures taken by the people (or possibly those hired by the people).
|
It doesn't matter if they're not to Ford specs anymore. You and I can see that, but to any reasonable, and average person, they would be identified as Ford Mustangs. Lucky for you and I, the law is based around the reasonable person, otherwise the world would be a shit place to live.
Bottom line is that they were selling a calender on a public shopping site, featuring Ford Mustangs for a price which I can only assume is above materials and processing costs. You can't do that. I don't agree with Fords actions here, but saying they're way off base is simply untrue. Many companies do this type of cyber policing of their brands. |
I just want to know what happens to all the magazines, calenders, televised racing events, tv shows, car shows . . . . .
|
Blue eyes is exactly correct. And this is the part that matters most
"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." In order for ANYONE to protect their trademark they have to show that they have activelt protected it. If starbucks doesnt take action against someone who opens another starbucks across the street from them they can lose their rights. If Ford doesnt take measures to protect their copyright/trademarks when they perceive a violation then they can lose the right to it. If they let just anyone produce calendars for profit without objection then they lose the right to complain if a giant company did it too. |
the press is generally exempt from trademark violations but they have to get it right
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story....code=39785&c=1 http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story....code=38919&c=1 Muzak is commonly used as a generic term for the sort of piped-in music you might hear in a lift. But it is still a registered trade mark to the US-based company which pioneered providing pre-recorded music for shops and offices in the the Thirties and still trades to this day. Theoretically, journalists could face some sort of legal action for deliberately devaluing a brand. But in practice any penalties would be likely to be more subtle. Stansfield explained: “The Motion Picture Academy has always insisted that Oscar has a trade mark against it. If journalists ignore that, the situation might be that you get less access, but I’m not sure if there would necessarily be any sanction in law.” Stansfield added that it is distinctiveness and continuity of use which makes brands valuable and that this is why their owners are so keen to ensure journalists treat them as proper nouns. |
heres a good article on the press and trademark including some good AP info
http://realtytimes.com/rtinteractive...11_editors.htm and another concerning trademark dilution by bloggers http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_new...stnews&id=1935 |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands