| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/14/2008 10:17:54 PM · #1 |
Don't forget your waiver from 'Ford' before you photograph your new car you bought from them...
Article Link
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:21:28 PM · #2 |
Delete
[thumb]617074[/thumb]
Delete
:-P |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:27:21 PM · #3 |
wow thats bull#$#@@... and so unfair to me... geese sounds like the record companies now
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:27:26 PM · #4 |
Well, the mustang isa work of art... ;-)
I think the article is a bit biased though...
As long as that 'Ford' and Mustang logos are on the cars, you are in copyright violation. Period. Same thing for Coke cans... and don't think for a second Coca-Cola wouldn't come after you for a Coke calendar.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:29:27 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:33:31 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by digitalpins:
lol a coke calendar |
Not including the ones of overly skinny models with sinus issues, ofcourse
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:33:38 PM · #7 |
Just try to photograph and seel any picture of a woman (I suppose of a man too) with the Playboy logo on it. There was a photographer a few years ago that did a model shoot with the girls wearing tee-shirts with the Playboy bunny logo on it and Playboy made him remove all the images or license their use. The same reason was given, he was infringing on their trademark and logo.
Toys R Us is another one that will aggressively go after the use of their name or even a parody of the name. Most of these companies have learned that they have to or they will lose a marketable trademark, name or logo.
If I'd only trademarked my name before that other Michael came along. LOL!
Mike
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:35:11 PM · #8 |
Seems to me 'Ford' should concentrate on declining car sales, loss of market share and poor profits.
But what do I know. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:35:28 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Just try to photograph and seel any picture of a woman (I suppose of a man too) with the Playboy logo on it. There was a photographer a few years ago that did a model shoot with the girls wearing tee-shirts with the Playboy bunny logo on it and Playboy made him remove all the images or license their use. The same reason was given, he was infringing on their trademark and logo.
|
If I'm not mistaken Hooters restaurant has gone after photographers for shooting girls in their uniforms also.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:36:30 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
...shooting girls in their uniforms also. |
Who would want to do that?
;-)) |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:56:41 PM · #11 |
They've got about as much right to that sh*t as celebrities have to privacy on the street.
[thumb]509791[/thumb]
Let 'em come after me.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:59:37 PM · #12 |
| Seems like a GREAT way to foster brand loyalty..... Sort of like record companies suing customers :-/ Given 'ford' is in such a strong financial position.... even better idea :-) |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:59:48 PM · #13 |
I would think that if you buy something, you then own the rights to that particular item. Under 'Ford''s thinking there, they should be able to go and take legal action for car owners for publicly displaying items to which they hold the "trademark".
Perhaps I shouldn't be giving them ideas.... |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 11:06:41 PM · #14 |
 
As long as you're not using it for advertising you can sell the pics if you want. Maybe since they club has their logo on the calendars they consider it advertising for the club, implying that 'Ford' company is endorsing the Black Mustang Club? |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 11:08:44 PM · #15 |
People making money off unlicensed trademarks. Disney would sue, NASCAR would sue, the NFL would sue, GM would sue, Toyota...
Yeah... it's a calendar of cars created by their owners.
I could go buy a print from DPCPrints and make copies of it and sell those right? After all, I do own the print.
I can stamp Gucci on handbags and sell those too.
Maybe it is a dumb move on 'Ford''s part to go after loyalists, but they aren't the first, won't be the last and certainly have the right.
Message edited by author 2008-01-14 23:11:20.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 11:15:25 PM · #16 |
Back to you previously scheduled program.
Message edited by author 2008-01-15 00:00:29. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 11:51:04 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Maybe it is a dumb move on 'Ford''s part to go after loyalists, but they aren't the first, won't be the last and certainly have the right. |
This is what I don't really get by these types of moves... lets say they own the rights to the photo. If they own the rights then they can pick and choose at their whim who they want to go after and who they don't can't they? There is no precedent that needs to be set is there that would stop them from going after legitimate infringements if they didn't go after this club? Does not suing one group stop you from suing another? I'm not sure on all the rules around copyright.
If the car club was group of drug dealers then yeah .. i could see 'ford' not wanting to be associated in any way... but as far as I can tell (not really much detail on the club) its a group of people who like 'ford' and those particular cars... what harm is there in letting it go through? Why go after people who support your product (be it any company) that generates positive free publicity. Its not like having this calendar go through will hurt their sales... but them doing this lawsuit i am sure has turned probably turned off some members of that club from 'ford'...
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 11:59:01 PM · #18 |
It's a forum, a web site, a business venture, making money off of 'Ford' by selling photos of it's cars, and guess what.. I'd be willing to bet the car owners weren't paid a dime for THEIR photos. ... hmmmm....'Ford' might not be the only one mad if people stopped to think.
Yes, 'Ford' can pick and choose it's battles. They could have gone after the group financially. It appears they only demanded the calendars be taken out of production.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2008 12:18:54 AM · #19 |
So we expect our copyrights to be obeyed, but screw everyone elses. Got it.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2008 12:24:47 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Cam:
Seems to me 'Ford' should concentrate on declining car sales, loss of market share and poor profits.
But what do I know. |
'Ford' has to make its money somehow, if not by selling cars, then by suing photographers..... |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 12:26:58 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So we expect our copyrights to be obeyed, but screw everyone elses. Got it. |
The issue is not one of copyright but of trademark. No one is stealing an original photo from a 'Ford' ad shoot, they are trying to sell their own photograph of an object for which 'Ford' claims (and has been granted) trademark protection.
I'm pretty sure the way the law works in this area is that you can almost certainly sell your individual fine art photograph picturing your own vehicle, or publish it as part of a news story (editorial use), but you cannot sell mass reproductions, or use it in any form of advertising or license it as a stock image.
The photographer still owns the copyright, even though not free to use it in some ways; 'Ford' can't just use one of these photos in a magazine ad without paying a royalty. |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 12:27:55 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by jan_vdw:
'Ford' has to make its money somehow, if not by selling cars, then by suing photographers..... |
It's not suing photographers! It's telling a website to stop violating its license to make money.
The photogs weren't being paid either.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2008 12:53:48 AM · #23 |
I'm glad I sold my 'Ford' and now own this brand. ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-01-15 10:55:03.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2008 01:02:00 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So we expect our copyrights to be obeyed, but screw everyone elses. Got it. |
lets use a different context instead of a car... every calendar that is sold that has a person in it that is not naked would be in violation of copyright. Wow... i'm going to start writing letters to levis to have them pursue this type of infringement :D Nudy calendars for everyone lol A portrait photographer's job just got a lot more interesting :D lol
|
|
|
|
01/15/2008 01:08:39 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by EyeTrap:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So we expect our copyrights to be obeyed, but screw everyone elses. Got it. |
lets use a different context instead of a car... every calendar that is sold that has a person in it that is not naked would be in violation of copyright. Wow... i'm going to start writing letters to levis to have them pursue this type of infringement :D Nudy calendars for everyone lol A portrait photographer's job just got a lot more interesting :D lol |
For stock images, most microstock sites and some of the macro sites require NO visible trademarks in a photo at all. istockphoto once turned down some rubber ducky photos because they said the purple ducky would violate trademarks.
If you'll notice most commercial swimsuit or fashion calendars list somewhere the designers. They DO get rights to license trademarked designs.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/10/2025 05:11:50 PM EDT.
