Ford owns pictures you take?!

[Keith Long]

http://www.bmcforums.com/showthread.php?t=42402&page=3


Ford is treating legal action against a club for using pictures THEY took of THERE cars for a calender they are selling to the members. Sayen that they own the rights to the pictures?! And the use of them infringes on copyright laws?

Im not an expert on copyrights and such, but this doesnt seem right. How can FoMoCo claim to own pictures because there brand of vehicle is in them? What do you guys think about this, do they have any ground to stand on here? are there claims accurate? If so, does that mean any time anyone takes a picture of a Ford, they do not own the rights to the image?!

[Curtis Creager]

Not sure how to word this exactly...I believe they own the trade market on the car/design. Please excuse my lack of correct technical verbiage. I wonder if selling for profit makes any diff?

There is a local club here in my area that creates a calendar every year but a certain manufacture hasn't swooped down yet...ya never now days.

[Bob Chapman]

Not sure how to word this exactly...I believe they own the trade market on the car/design. Please excuse my lack of correct technical verbiage. I wonder if selling for profit makes any diff?

There is a local club here in my area that creates a calendar every year but a certain manufacture hasn't swooped down yet...ya never now days.

They're probably asserting ownership of their "trade dress". "Trade dress" refers to the unique shape of their cars. Trade dress laws are intended to protect Company A from having Company B copy A's products and sell them (i.e. building a car that looks exactly like a Ford Mustang and selling it, duping the public into believing it's the real deal and, in effect, taking money from Ford's pockets).

However, please note that the shape of a calendar is NOT the unique shape of a Ford Mustang. Deep pockets would likely put Ford on the losing end of a lawsuit, but who among us has pockets that deep?

[John Thawley]

And this is where we've lost our way with respect to copyright laws. I can understand their legal issues over intellectual property... and as Bob pointed out, "trade dress"... I can even understand their protecting brand characteristics and logos... but a car club calendar is not threatening to any of those "rights."

Kind of like me suing Delta because they violated the airspace over my house, huh Bob? LOL

JT

[Jamie Holladay]

I've seen another discussion about this, as well as have read some of the post on the BMC's web site. I think this is beyond ridiculous. It would be interesting if the BMC were to take Ford Motor Company to task.

[Derric Slocum]

if that club runs anything like it did when my friend left it a few years ago they wont pursue it enough to win. it would be nice to see someone to stand up to something like this but like you said, who has the pockets?

[Daniel Buck]

sheesh, that's pretty darn low... As an owner of a black Mustang myself, I'm ashamed that Ford is going to act like a little child over car owners taking photos of their beloved black Mustangs. What's next, start suing folks who take photos of their cars (like me!) who AREN'T selling the photos,? :-(

I wish there were some way to combat Ford (or other companies) when they do dumb stuff like this. What are the options for us 'normal' folks who don't have tons of money to blow chasing dumb decisions like this?

[Mike Ditz]

Maybe what they are going for is like the NFL or Harley Davidson or Disney, it's the licensing to use images of their products. Some companies don't care and some do...

[Jamie Holladay]

Here is an interest thought I had this morning:
If CafePress cannot produce the calendars for the reasons mentioned, the what about the news papers. For example: A used vehicle ad for a non-Ford dealer which features Ford vehicles and a description such as: 2006 Ford Mustang GT?
It would stand to reason that non-Ford dealers could not produce such ads. I think BMC needs to ask that question and see how Ford and/or the courts respond. It is the same difference. When I shoot our inventory and print a Ford in the ad I intend to make a profit.

[David Adolphus]

Here is an interest thought I had this morning:
If CafePress cannot produce the calendars for the reasons mentioned, the what about the news papers. For example: A used vehicle ad for a non-Ford dealer which features Ford vehicles and a description such as: 2006 Ford Mustang GT?
It would stand to reason that non-Ford dealers could not produce such ads. I think BMC needs to ask that question and see how Ford and/or the courts respond. It is the same difference. When I shoot our inventory and print a Ford in the ad I intend to make a profit.

Good one! You know, CafePress won't even allow a damn Mercer or Stanley calendar.

I'll write this up in my weekly legislative email newsletter--that's got about 250,000 readers, and I bet a few of them are at Ford.

There was a hugely popular Mopar site, moparstyle.com--now mopower.com that got shut down by D-C for use of the name. Idjits.

[Keith Long]

so what does this mean for those of us who do freelance work, taking pictures of cars, such as fords. If i am hired by someone in the mustang club i am apart of to photographer there mustang, is ford gonna get in a tizzy over me making money photographing a mustang.

And yes i know theres very little chance they'll make a big deal out of one person like that. Im just sayen, are they sayen no one can ever take a picture of a ford vehicle again and make a profit on it?

[John Thawley]

so what does this mean for those of us who do freelance work, taking pictures of cars, such as fords. If i am hired by someone in the mustang club i am apart of to photographer there mustang, is ford gonna get in a tizzy over me making money photographing a mustang.

And yes i know theres very little chance they'll make a big deal out of one person like that. Im just sayen, are they sayen no one can ever take a picture of a ford vehicle again and make a profit on it?

No.. I think that wouldn't be the case at all. You are performing a service... it's the old, "no, I charged for my time... I give the picture away."

The problem is the commercial sale of the calendar...

This is where copyright has to be revisited. It's like quoting a book in a research paper. Or citing sports results. A fact, after all... is a fact. No one owns a fact.

This is getting as silly as looking at Nigel Tufnel's guitar collection -

Nigel Tufnel: Look... still has the old tag on, never even played it.
Marty DiBergi: [points his finger] You've never played...?
Nigel Tufnel: Don't touch it!
Marty DiBergi: We'll I wasn't going to touch it, I was just pointing at it.
Nigel Tufnel: Well... don't point! It can't be played.
Marty DiBergi: Don't point, okay. Can I look at it?
Nigel Tufnel: No. no. That's it, you've seen enough of that one.

[Matt Mullarkey]

same thing is going on with my site and cafepress. we have a local group of racers that we make calendars for. Ford said no. oh well.. who's got the time and money to fight Ford :(

[David Adolphus]

Here's a preview of my little rant; it'll go out tomorrow or Thursday, and appear online here (http://www.hemmings.com/newsletter/newsletter.html). Thanks; this usually requires a full day of reading legislation. Live versions will have links to APN and Jamie's site.

Why Ford hates clubs

You'd think manufacturers would encourage owners and clubs. We know there's no better way to build brand loyalty, and we can't count the number of times we've seen a car show up for a photo shoot towed by a truck of the same make. And we're not just talking Big Three, either--we once saw a vintage Honda roadster arrive behind a Ridgeline, and a 1970 Porsche towed by a Cayenne.

But the humorless androids that inhabit corporate legal departments (sorry, sis) don't see it that way, and they have a history of cracking down on clubs.

This week, we received word of Ford putting the kibosh on the Black Mustang Club's annual member calendar. This follows the then-DaimlerChrysler's high-profile, and successful, attempt to force Dave Schultz's "Moparstyle" forum to shut down last year; he's since changed the name to Mopowerstyle.

Of course, this isn't the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last, but the malicious way in which they capriciously enforce their "trade dress" is an egregious attack on the very car lovers who support them. Their rationale is that use of their brand, products, images or even name, deprives Ford or Chrysler of income. But as Jamie Holladay said on the APN forum, referring to used cars, "When I shoot our inventory and print a Ford in the ad I intend to make a profit."

He's exactly right about that, and Hemmings Motor News also expects to make a profit from ads featuring Mustangs. As does the New York Times, Road & Track and your local FOX affiliate. The only difference is that the manufacturers have elected to pick on little guys who can't be expected to fight the corporate might of Dearborn. Maybe someday, a high-powered car-loving lawyer looking for his day in the sun will take this baby to the Supreme Court. Until then, all we can do is heap our scorn upon those who show so little respect for the people who love them.

Angry yet? If you need a contact elsewhere, let us know.
GM: Alan Adler, Legal Issues, 586-947-4624
Ford: Mike Moran, Public Policy, 202-962-5416 OR David G. Leitch (whom you may remember from the Alberto Gonzales hearings), General Counsel, 1126 Puritan Avenue, Birmingham, Michigan, 40089
Chrysler: Mike Palese, Legal Communications, 248-512-2682

[John Thawley]

Cool David. Maybe after your article has settled in and the NAIAS is over, I'll enlist Peter Delorenzo at Autoextremist to get pissed about it. LOL

JT

[Matt Mullarkey]

i think i'm just going to sell most of my camera equipment and buy a video camera.. and sell DVD's :)

[Daniel Buck]

i think i'm just going to sell most of my camera equipment
whatcha got? I could use a 500mm on the cheap! You know, since we can't take photos anymore, it's not worth much now. :D

[John Thawley]

i think i'm just going to sell most of my camera equipment and buy a video camera.. and sell DVD's :)

OMG... when is the last time you signed a credential release? Video is the crux of most of these problems. Video rights are over the top.

JT

[Daniel Buck]

http://www.bmcforums.com/showthread.php?t=42820

it's been resolved.

[Mike Ditz]

Instead of discussing it from the legal side, which unless you are also a lawyer you at at a severe disadvantage, try to contact the Public Relations people (after the Auto Show of course) and try to get them on your side. I don't know about the Detroit Three but some of the Japanese companies support the car clubs. Nissan PR had good relations with the Z club...

There is a difference between taking a picture of a car in order to make an ad to sell the car, or put in a magazine or newspaper (editorial use) and taking a picture of a car and selling the calendar (commercial use)

[Matt Mullarkey]

looks like our issue with Ford is resolved also... got an email from them today.. they must have had a board meeting about the bad publicity they were getting.. still waiting for Cafe Press to put the calendars back up.. lets see if they admit they were wrong.. lol

i guess i'll keep the Camera equipment for now.. lol.

[Daniel Buck]

they must have had a board meeting about the bad publicity they were getting..
I honestly hope this is what happened. It would mean that the common man still has a voice :D Although it looks like the real problem was most likely with CafePress, not Ford.

[Matt Mullarkey]

Well, the person we were dealing with at CafePress said he represented Ford in their Trademark and copyright cases.. We are still waiting for the calendars to be removed from "pending" status..

[Todd Corzett]

I'm glad to hear that this was resolved in a positive fashion. Hopefully other manufacturers (DC and VW, for examples) take this with some perspective.

-Todd...

[Matt Mullarkey]

actually it hasn't been resolved.. CafePress has pulled down more calendars with Fords in them :( i guess the lawyer's feelings got hurt when Ford told him he was wrong... This is the last year we use CafePress... it's been nothing but trouble with them. We lost a lot of money :(

[Daniel Buck]

the issue with cafepress isn't as bad as if the issue would have been with Ford. BMC has switched to a different company because I guess CafePress isn't listening to Ford anymore. But at least BMC now has Ford's blessing so it should be ok with other printing companies, hopefully! :-)

[Matt Mullarkey]

CafePress blamed Ford for the "Mixup" and Ford said it was Cafepress...lol. well, all the calendars are finally back up for now and we got an apology from Cafepress for all the drama that shouldn't have happened in the first place... lawyers are destroying the world. :(

[Keith Long]

Good to see its been solved and im pleased, as a Mustang owner, that the problem was with cafepress.

[Jim McIlvaine]

I produced a GM-licensed poster several years ago and I have a bit of a different perspective on this issue. Was the process of getting licensing a major PITA? Yes, but I think it was worth it. The auto manufacturers have billions of dollars invested in the design of these cars and they have a right to protect the way their products are presented to the general public in commercial form, whether it's a poster, calendar or die-cast model. Having typed that, I think the big three have licensed more than a few products with pretty horrible quality.

As someone who went about things according to the manufacturer's demands, I was rewarded with a near-monopoly on the market. I was able to recoup my costs and make a tidy profit in a relatively short time span, while my retailers were able to do the same.

After having gone through that process, it would piss me off if the automakers didn't crack down on people who tried to produce similar products without their approval. My image was shot by a professional, with a medium format camera and professionally printed on paper that met GM's specific requirements. As a result, it looks as good hanging on the wall now, as it did eight years ago- no yellowing or fading.

If the manufacturers allow a car club to sell a terribly composed, relatively low-res picture, that they blow up and copy at the local Walgreens/Kinkos, it hurts my business, as well as the equity they've invested in professionally promoting their product, even if the club had the best of intentions.

I understand the passion car clubs have for their vehicles and their perceived intent. I also have the experience of editing the "Reader's Rides" section for a couple of magazines and it's amazing what people think qualifies as a "great" picture of their car.

[John Thawley]

I produced a GM-licensed poster several years ago and I have a bit of a different perspective on this issue. Was the process of getting licensing a major PITA? Yes, but I think it was worth it. The auto manufacturers have billions of dollars invested in the design of these cars and they have a right to protect the way their products are presented to the general public in commercial form, whether it's a poster, calendar or die-cast model. Having typed that, I think the big three have licensed more than a few products with pretty horrible quality.

As someone who went about things according to the manufacturer's demands, I was rewarded with a near-monopoly on the market. I was able to recoup my costs and make a tidy profit in a relatively short time span, while my retailers were able to do the same.

After having gone through that process, it would piss me off if the automakers didn't crack down on people who tried to produce similar products without their approval. My image was shot by a professional, with a medium format camera and professionally printed on paper that met GM's specific requirements. As a result, it looks as good hanging on the wall now, as it did eight years ago- no yellowing or fading.

If the manufacturers allow a car club to sell a terribly composed, relatively low-res picture, that they blow up and copy at the local Walgreens/Kinkos, it hurts my business, as well as the equity they've invested in professionally promoting their product, even if the club had the best of intentions.

I understand the passion car clubs have for their vehicles and their perceived intent. I also have the experience of editing the "Reader's Rides" section for a couple of magazines and it's amazing what people think qualifies as a "great" picture of their car.

Good points.

I think you also have to understand their need to apply these policies equally across the board. I have a friend who produces aftermarket accessories for Corvette. One piece actually carries the logo stamped right on it. I think GM has every right to make sure that part is fit, finished and completely up-to-standard. Given that... it doesn't make any sense that they would have varying rules for any segment of their business or brand.

I would hope, however, that they would institute a process that would streamline special needs such as a "club calendar" or enthusiast motivated promotions. After all, these are people that carry a passion for the brand and their heart is in the right place. All companies need friendly relations with their customer base.

JT

[Bill Jurasz]

Does this mean this calendar is also a problem? And would I have any exposure, having taken the cover shot? Another member here has February. Does it matter the calendar is sold non-profit and only to club members?

http://forums.s2kca.com/showthread.php?t=27236

[John Thawley]

Does this mean this calendar is also a problem? And would I have any exposure, having taken the cover shot? Another member here has February. Does it matter the calendar is sold non-profit and only to club members?

http://forums.s2kca.com/showthread.php?t=27236

The only people entitled to determine if it's "a problem," is them.

[Jim McIlvaine]

Does it matter the calendar is sold non-profit and only to club members?

http://forums.s2kca.com/showthread.php?t=27236

It's a common mis-conception that non-profit causes somehow relieve everyone of responsibility. In the right situation, a non-profit or charitable cause can help fast-track permission (or forgiveness) on a project, but that certainly doesn't give the responsible parties carte blanche to do whatever they want. If I wanted to take pictures of nude models on S2000s for a calendar and donate the proceeds to a woman's shelter, I'd still need approval of the manufacturer's licensing agency and I probably wouldn't get it.

John is correct in that the only opinion that really matters is the manufacturer's and their licensing agency. However, if someone else produced a licensed calendar and feels your calendar is hurting their business, regardless of where the proceeds go, you can believe they will bring it to the attention of those parties.

Every manufacturer is different, but in most situations, these calendars fly under the radar and manufacturers will even turn a blind eye as long as it's on a small scale... unless the quality of the calendar is really bad or someone complains.

[John Thawley]

With respect to "non-profit," from their point of view, it's THEIR profit that YOU are determining to be NON. It's their's to give away, not yours.

JT