Ford Claims Ownership Of Your Pictures 739
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?"
Free Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
Dangerous precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
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...)
no (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong question. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Boycotting Ford.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ford you get to lose out on at least one sale.
To heck with suing. Just hurt em where it hurts....their profits.
Re:no (Score:3, Insightful)
Reason number 312 not to buy a Ford....... (Score:3, Insightful)
Trademark, not copyright (Score:1, Insightful)
Should Ford be messing with their fan club over a trademark issue -- probably not. Do they have the right to prevent publication of a calendar containing their trademarks -- possibly, depending on how the trademarks are displayed and how the calendar is used. Is
Just GIVE THE PERMISSION !!! (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Wrong question. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ford's response (Score:2, Insightful)
Ford's trademarks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free Marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Too bad Warhol is dead... (Score:1, Insightful)
This is about Trademarks, not Patents or Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Tollways (Score:1, Insightful)
An answer. (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Whisper down the lane bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
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:EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Who cares about a typo when the HEADLINE is wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bit of a grey area, but I can't say I see Ford being outside the realm of reasonableness here.
Re:Ford's response (Score:5, Insightful)
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:EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
people own the *cars*, too, and their pics (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
One small change to their calendar would fix this (Score:1, Insightful)
That should make Ford very happy
Re:EULA (Score:3, Insightful)
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:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics (Score:5, Insightful)
There are three main types of intellectual property. You forgot the one that's relevant to this case.
Rob
YANAL (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [lsu.edu] about the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame which trademarked their building design and the photographer that sold a poster of the building. The appeals court specifically noted this:
So the trademark is protected only so far as it is used as an indicator of the source or sponsorship of the product. It is completely legal to take photographs of trademarked goods and to sell them. Andy Warhol's paintings [poster.net] 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.
Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
Luckily, trademark is what Ford is talking about, here.
Re:Ford's response (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Suing into extinction (Score:3, Insightful)
"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... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Public View (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:EULA (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Who cares about a typo when the HEADLINE is wro (Score:4, Insightful)
- 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.
If you carefully think about it... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Ford's response (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Form? (Score:1, Insightful)
I thought it was Fix Or Repair Daily.
You know, these Ford enthusiasts should should respond to Ford in the best way possible: buy a Toyota.
Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds Like Ford Needs To (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Form? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:people own the *cars*, too, and their pics (Score:3, Insightful)
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.