WARNING - Ford Motor Company's claims ......

[ColdwaterHotrod]

Article can be found at this link

 

http://www.adrants.com/2008/01/ford-slaps-...sts-returns.php

 

I'm sure this will now cover anyone who makes a coffee table book also.

Not Good, Not Good at all

 

here's the post from the link

 

Ford Slaps Brand Enthusiasts, Returns Love With Legal Punch

 

While brands certainly don't want people using their products, logos and other related imagery to create products of their, own, the hammer that Ford legal dropped on the Black Mustang Club seems a bit heavy handed. Recently the club created a calendar which contained images of club members' cars photographed by the members themselves. Ford didn't take kindly to this and asked CafePress, the service the group had chosen to print the calendars, to kill the project claiming all the images in the calendar are the property of Ford...including the Black Mustang Club logo.

 

It's understandable that a brand would and should do everything it can to protect itself from any kind of potential negative effect but to attack a group of people who, clearly, love the product in question simply for showing their love of that product is, well, idiotic and more harmful to the brand had they done nothing at all.

 

BMC Owner Lisa commented to group members, "I'm sorry, but at this point we will not be producing the 2008 BMC Calendar, featuring our 2007 Members of the Month, solely due to Ford Motor Company's claim that they own all rights to the photos you take of your car. I hope to resolve this soon, and be able to provide the calendar and other BMC merchandise that you guys want and deserve!"

 

We hope this can be resolved as well. It's one thing to protect your brand from being harmfully tarnished. It's another to shoot down the very people who love your product the most.Wake up and smell the CGM, Ford.

 

BMC WEBSITE LINK TO STORY ALSO

 

http://www.bmcforums.com/showthread.php?t=42402

[Orf]

Somebody needs to explain to me how Ford can claim the rights to all the pictures I have taken of my car.

 

Does the Levi Strauss Company own the rights to all the photos that I've take of family members who happen to be wearing their jeans?

 

Does the General Contractor who built my house own the rights to all the pictures I've taken of it?

 

Maybe I'm naive, or simple minded, but I can't see a reason that could stand up as to how Ford can claim those rights. It seems to me that ownership rights would trump manufacturer's rights.

[iceman]

When I bought the car I assumed the rights to pictures of it came along with it. No wonder the stock is back in the toilet. This is what they are focusing on rather than turning a profit? Good solid leadership!

[chuckstang]

hahaha what a joke

 

I don't care, still love the Mustangs and trucks they build!

 

I think Ford is more concerned with the logo than the pix, they do not own the rights of those pics taken. The owners of those cars have those rights

[ColdwaterHotrod]

This comment is from another website forum board see the answer below:

http://www.v6z24.com/jbodyforum/ford-owns-...lly-t98987.html

 

"I tried to do our calendars through Cafe Press 4 years ago and ran into the exact same thing with GM.

 

From the cafepress site cafepress wrote: "NO pictures or photographs of products (such as automobiles or toys). Even if you own a product, trademark laws still prohibit you from selling merchandise featuring pictures of it. For example, you cannot take a picture of your car and then sell t-shirts or mugs with that picture"

 

And what I was told by them after they refused to print the calendars cafepress wrote:

"Even though you may own the cars, Chevrolet still owns the Make/Model of the car, and they retain the rights to the "Image" of the car. You will need to obtain licensing to use this image in your shop for merchandise sale. In addition, the LS1Calendar shop has this licensing from Chevrolet."

[ColdwaterHotrod]

after reading this kind of makes your think about the CSL & SAAC agreement a little more

[ShelbyDude]

There is no way in the world Ford can stop someone from taking pictures of their cars and selling them for profit.

 

I wonder if there is more to this?

 

Is it just merely the fact pertaining to pictures of privately owned mustangs? Or were they including any type of Ford logos or something other than what is attached to the cars?

 

Now if they were including logos or something that belongs to Ford in addition to what was attached to the cars then I can see where Ford might have a valid claim. Other than that, merely taking pictures of your cars, putting them in a calendar to sell, does not give any merrit to Ford's bogus claim.

 

I noticed the one pic of one of the months with a pic of a mustang, but I couldn't see anything on there that pertained to Ford, such as using a pic of the blue oval or anything. Was there anything like that being used anywhere in the calendar? Just pics of cars owned by private people is not enough to prevent someone from selling calendars with pics of their cars.

 

Now you see the type of mentality that is behind running this company and why it is in the mess it is in! To many MORONS up there screwing everything up!

[ColdwaterHotrod]

I think it's because the chrome pony in the grille was visable. also BMG (Black Mustang Club) used the word MUSTANG in the club title & now the website shows all logos & words "CENSORED" like this

 

I'm sure Shelby can do the samething if they wanted to, lets hope not or I'm going to have to send them a $1 a year for CSL

[computerworks]

Before dumping on Ford so much.... has anyone checked that this may just be a broadbrush Cafe Press policy, not driven in this case by Ford?

[LuisA]

You can take all the pictures you want and you own the pictures, however, when you try do business by selling someone elses trade mark, then you are in trouble. Example, you buy a book and you own it, you can read it, you can have other folks read it.........but, you cannot make copies and sell them! It's against the law! Same with music, same with movies.......

 

What Ford is trying to stop is not the club, is the press who makes the calendars.........done properly they shoudl have contacted Ford, worked out an understanding and then do the calendars.

[ColdwaterHotrod]

This could explain why some commericals on TV or in movies "BLACK OUT" any reference to the make or model of a vehicle... like placing black tape over the blue oval? You can use the shape of the vehicle, but you can't show brand.

[LuLu]

Is there a lawyer in the house?

 

I think the important words here are "sale", "profit" and "distribution".

 

Had the calenders been offered for free, prolly wouldn't be a problem. Charge anything, and you are considered to be making a profit. Even just as reimbursement for production costs and mailing could be a violation. Hell, just reaping in some public attention for the act of reproduction (fame) could violate the law, depending on circumstances.

 

Like videos/DVDs and audio CDs, the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that if you buy one copy, you can make additional copies for your own personal use. However, if you charge anyone nickle one, (including reimbursement for the cost of the blank medium, or shipping charges) you are violating copyright laws put in place to protect the investment of the original artist(s) who created the original work.

 

Look at it this way, gents. Let's say you have memorized your great-grandmother's recipe for the best fudge in the world, award winning fudge that was handed down through your family tree for years and years, and then some guy comes along, writes it down in a cook book and sells the cook book for 4.99. He collects money (or, even just covers his costs) and you get squat. He gets the glory, you get nothing.

 

That's called "distribution for gain", and "intellectual property", and the owner (whether it be FMC, or your great grandmother) doesn't get squat. Doesn't feel good, eh? And both have rights.

 

Maybe its something as simple as just asking for permission? I can't see Ford getting all up in arms over a calendar for a small club, but did anyone ask first? And, if you let one get away with it, where do you draw the line?

 

Any other automobile manufacturer in the world building and selling a Mustang besides Ford? Any other Impalas on the road not made by GM? Where can you get a "Big Mac", or, a "Whopper"?

[ColdwaterHotrod]

Those are some good examples.

[LuisA]

Agree, but most importantly, Ford is just protecting their rights and they cannot be blamed for it. I am sure that if the club woudl have obtained permission first, it woudl have probably be OK.

 

Also, the reproduction and distribution of a trade mark is not allowed, whether for gain or not.

[ShelbyDude]

I think it's because the chrome pony in the grille was visable. also BMG (Black Mustang Club) used the word MUSTANG in the club title & now the website shows all logos & words "CENSORED" like this

 

I'm sure Shelby can do the samething if they wanted to, lets hope not or I'm going to have to send them a $1 a year for CSL

 

 

Perhaps the use of "MUSTANG" anywhere would be a valid claim.

 

But the mere fact mustang, Ford or any emblems that are on the car where they were SOLD with them on the car, would not be a valid claim.

 

So using just intitials such as BMC would not violate any trademark rights.

 

This makes me just want to start printing up all kinds of stuff to sell. :happy feet:

[sprint200]

07SGT4729 is probably close to the mark, here. And the point that the publisher may be invoking an in-house policy set in place after a past "bad" experience with lawyers is also a good bet.

 

Orf, as for the pictures of your house....."hand 'em over now!" j/k But for example, if an architect designed your house, and you decide to have those pictures published in a magazine; you must first obtain the designer's consent and likely must credit them in the publication. The courts have stated that while you may own the house, you do not own the ideas that created the house. That "intellectual property" belongs to the architect, and you paid them for the one-time use of those ideas to build it.........Oh, and if a "photographer" took those pictures and not you yourself, well they can control the number of prints made and how they are used......

 

That's life in America, baby

[LuisA]

SelbyDude, it's a matter of whether or not Ford has registered those words & emplems as Trade Mark or not.

[ShelbyDude]

This isn't a case of RESELLING dupicated items, such as grandma's recipe, or building new mustangs to sell, or copying CD's and DVD's, etc.

 

It is one thing to take copy righted photos that belong to someone else, duplicate them and then sell them.

 

This is not the same thing and has nothing to do with any of that. This about taking a photo of YOUR PROPERTY, not duplicating and copying the property where you are selling that property, but taking a photo of YOUR PROPERTY and then selling YOUR PROPERTY.

 

How does taking a picture of YOUR PROPERTY violate copy right or trademark laws?

 

I'm not building another car that looks exactly like it and selling it for profit while claiming it is a Ford Mustang. It is a freaking picture of MY CAR that I own and bought and paid for! I'm not reproducing the car like you would be doing if you copy CD's, or someone's recipe and then sell it for profit. That clearly violates copy right and trademark laws.

 

If you took a picture of your CD and sold that picture of the CD is that the same as duplicating the CD and selling copied CD's???

 

It is MY car! It is MY picture that I took or it is a picture of someone elses car that I took and obtained permission from the owner of that car. What I do with those pictures is MY right, not the manufacturer that made and sold the car!

 

If it were that simple then how does the media get away with taking pics of celebrities, reprinting them in their news magazines and selling them for huge profits? Would pictures of common vehicles on the road not be basically the same thing???

[oilman]

I agree with Shelbydude, there has to be more to it, otherwise all photos on Ebay, etc., would also be an infringement. Has anyone sold anything on Ebay and requested the manufacturer's permission to use a photo? Something else gives IMO. Just thinking, maybe if the calander was only produced to GIVE to their members as oppossed to using these images to SELL this calander would make a difference, as they would be profiting from the use of the Ford product photo.

[sprint200]

I'm sure someone could produce a doctoral thesis based on this one single event :work:

 

Shelbydude, I agree that some level of common sense should apply to issues like these; but that presumes everyone having like sets of ethics and morals. Where one group may use another's intellectual property with care; someone else may abuse it while "Technically" doing the same thing as the first group. If you are "profitting" from the pictures BECAUSE it is a Mustang, then you are profitting off of someone elses ideas. If your picture has artistic merit OF ITS OWN and just happens to have a mustang somewhere in the composition then there may be a distinction there. Again, I don't think any of this applies to any of us untill we start "Publishing" and/or "Selling" our pictures.

[Orf]

But for example, if an architect designed your house, and you decide to have those pictures published in a magazine; you must first obtain the designer's consent and likely must credit them in the publication. The courts have stated that while you may own the house, you do not own the ideas that created the house. That "intellectual property" belongs to the architect, and you paid them for the one-time use of those ideas to build it.........Oh, and if a "photographer" took those pictures and not you yourself, well they can control the number of prints made and how they are used......

 

Believe me, I am fully aware of that. Been there. Still there. But that's a different story, for a different forum.

 

I know somebody else ran into a situation like this. I'm sure I could find it, if I did a search. Maybe they'll chime in on this one to set the story straight, where my memory screws up the details. They had a picture of their car, that they took, and had either a T-shirt or a sweatshirt made for their own use. Not intended for resale. I believe either they, or the shirt printer, were contacted by Ford to cease and desist. That's the heavy handedness I'm talking about. I wanted to do the same thing with a couple pictures I took of my car. A unique T-shirt would be cool for owner gatherings. Or even a T-shirt for all the attendees of the gathering we've held on the Outer Banks. I guess I could be in serious trouble for doing something like that.

[ShelbyDude]

I guess NIKE is in deep doo doo!

 

I ordered these from their web site and they custom made these for me. :happy feet:

 

Now if Ford had a valid claim I would think this would be one of them. I was actually surprised they accepted this order and made these, but to late now! They made them, I got them and they are mine now!

 

 

[Orf]

I guess NIKE is in deep doo doo!

 

Wait just a second. Nike owns the rights to those pictures, there, buddy! :shades:

[ShelbyDude]

Wait just a second. Nike owns the rights to those pictures, there, buddy! :shades:

 

 

Are you SURE??? Are you SURE it isn't Ford and/or SAI that owns the rights since it does bare the "SHELBY GT500" name???

 

Oh well, I'm not going anywhere, so let them all come and sue me!

[Orf]

Are you SURE??? Are you SURE it isn't Ford and/or SAI that owns the rights since it does bare the "SHELBY GT500" name???

 

Oh well, I'm not going anywhere, so let them all come and sue me!

 

Not just them. Whoever made that Santa Claus in the top picture might be next in line to sue you.

 

You, sir, are a scofflaw.

[rpretzel]

Believe me, I am fully aware of that. Been there. Still there. But that's a different story, for a different forum.

 

I know somebody else ran into a situation like this. I'm sure I could find it, if I did a search. Maybe they'll chime in on this one to set the story straight, where my memory screws up the details. They had a picture of their car, that they took, and had either a T-shirt or a sweatshirt made for their own use. Not intended for resale. I believe either they, or the shirt printer, were contacted by Ford to cease and desist. That's the heavy handedness I'm talking about. I wanted to do the same thing with a couple pictures I took of my car. A unique T-shirt would be cool for owner gatherings. Or even a T-shirt for all the attendees of the gathering we've held on the Outer Banks. I guess I could be in serious trouble for doing something like that.

 

Orf,

 

This is a case of reproducing copyrighted or trademarked material. Even if for your own personal use, it is illegal to reproduce copyrighted or trademarked material. If you buy a CD and rip the songs to your mp3 player, you are reproducing copyrighted material and breaking the law. Basically, you bought one copy but are using two copies. If you want 2 copies, you need to buy two copies.

 

In your T-Shirt example, the person bought a car with a trademark on it. The person then reproduced that trademark. Ford did not receive any compensation for the reproduction of their trademark, and they should have by law.

 

I'm not saying I agree with such strict enforcement of copyright/trademark law, but that's the way it works.

[ColdwaterHotrod]

IMHO - If you have enough $$$ Money $$$ you can patient, trademark or copyright anything as long as your the first person to file for it.

[ShelbyDude]

IMHO - If you have enough $$$ Money $$$ you can patient, trademark or copyright anything as long as your the first person to file for it.

 

 

It takes nothing to change a patient. I have seen equipment companies do it all the time. They copy each others machines and simply change a name and something as minor as a door handle and BINGO! It's not the same machine any more! They get their own patient on it and they are good to go!

 

So that brings the question of these pics of those mustangs. Are any of them 100% stock the way they were when Ford rolled them off the assembly lines? Or have they had changes done to them? Different wheels? Tires? Mods of any kind? Then they are no longer considered Ford's and protected by copy right. They have been changed from how they came from Ford!

 

If it wasn't that simple, then how is it that a manufacturer like KIA can get away with building vehicles that look exactly like other manufacturers vehicles? They have some that are so close to looking like other vehicles that the only way you can tell the difference by looking at them is by looking at the manufacturer emblem on the vehicle. Remove the emblems and they can easily be mistaken as the other manufacturer's brand! Yet it appears Ford can not do a thing about it to stop them! Why is that?

[carnut]

Maybe if we get Ford to reopen the Mustang Ranch??? :happy feet:

[LuLu]

Gents...Back in 1993, the Supreme Court ruled on this topic, when artists creating DVDs and CDs were not getting paid their royalities.

 

The Court decided that if you purchase a DVD/CD, you are allowed to make copies for your own personal use. Duplication for profit requires payment of royalities. "Profit" includes distribution (free or not), reimbursement for any blank medium, shipping charges, publication fees and even personal "fame" any copy may earn you.

 

This is why some professional sports are blacked out in some areas on game day, and why the FBI and local police circulate in the crows of major sports events. Circulation, even for free, need permission of the owner. Any sports bar ultimately profits from displaying live events in the bar. Not a lot of enforcement on this, true. But, that doesn't make it right. Thus, I think this is where BMG may have crossed the line. Licensing...Again, and this decision remains true today, which is why/how you can download film and audio, once you pay the fees. Here's a few short stories for you.

 

Waaaaay back when video tape was popular, there seemed a to be a video store next to every hot dog stand in the world. You could rent and watch, but you were not supposed to copy them. When it got big enough, copyright schemes were invented to prevent duplication because it was a rental, not a purchase. Hell, my first copy of The Blues Brothers back then cost me over 110.00!

 

A friend of mine got into duplication and sold copies of feature films at half the price, and the FBI came to his door. It wasn't too bad for him, paid a fine and suffered seizure of his equipment and inventory. Then, he gave up others he thought were doing the same thing, and I was one of them. Nice friend, eh?

 

Anyway, the FBI came to my door ready to seize my film collection, hand truck at the ready. I'm a film buff, it was my minor in college, and I have about 600 feature films on video tape which I am converting to DVD today. However, they couldn't touch anything I owned, because my copies were made from Laser discs (remember them? daddy of the DVD?). I rented the films I wanted and made video tape copies for my library. I didn't distrubute copies to anyone, no personal gain other than my person enjoyment. They left empty handed.

 

How did I get away with this? Well, I didn't "get away" with anything, Laser discs were deemed "publications" by the Court, same as books on the shelf in a public library. No imbedded "protection" schemes. And, what is inside every public library? Copy machines (can't say Xerox, it's a TM) that expedite duplication. I didn't do anything illegal.

 

Okay...Back to Ford and reproduction of protected materials...Trademarks, copyrights and all that crap. Ford is a big company, with many many interests to patrol and protect. Maybe this isn't so much about licensing fees, but inherrent liability?

 

One of my favorite sites to shop for FMC parts is KarKraft. Peek here?

 

http://www.karkraft.com/

 

This is a company with licensing agreements to offload FMC production line overstock and recycled/remanufactured FMC products. Nothing but FMC products here, and they have all the agreements in place, fully legal. But, about two years ago, their advertising changed. What used to be called a "Cobra", or a "Mustang" component, was changed over to "snake" and "pony". Why? So buyers could not drag FMC into court in any dispute over products. The buck (and liability chain of custody) stops at KarKraft.

 

Last but not least, I once owned the Kenny Brown #1x Marauder, first ever supercharged Marauder, and an experimental car. It was 2002, and a year before the car came out. It made the centerfold of Car and Driver, and it was featured on an episode of Autoweek on the SpeedChannel. The Car and Driver article appeared in the April '03 edition, and I wanted some color copies of the article to have on hand for car shows. Every color print shop I went to turned me away until I could get written permission from 1) Car and Driver, 2) the photographer who took the photos, and Kenny Brown. I did, all I had to do was ask, and wait.

 

Maybe a calendar or a tee shirt isn't a big deal, I don't think so. And, there doesn't appear to be any liability issues for FMC. However, you can't dice up who gets enforced. Like I said the last time I posted on this, maybe all someone has to do was ask?

 

Just a thought, carry on gents.