Pictures of your car are not your property....

[F1_Master]

According to Ford.
2008 BMC Calendar - NOT Available due to Ford - See Inside! - Black Mustang Club Forums

I got some more info from the folks at cafepress and according to them, a law firm representing Ford contacted them saying that our calendar pics (and our club's event logos - anything with one of our cars in it) infringes on Ford's trademarks which include the use of images of THEIR vehicles. Also, Ford claims that all the images, logos and designs OUR graphics team made for the BMC events using Danni are theirs as well. Funny, I thought Danni's title had my name on it ... and I thought you guys owned your cars ... and, well ... I'm not even going to get into how wrong and unfair I feel this whole thing is as I'd be typing for hours, but I wholeheartedly echo everything you guys have been saying all afternoon. I'm not letting this go un-addressed and I'll keep you guys posted as I get to work on this.

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! This thread will remain open for you to comment however you wish, and I'll update it as needed.

Thanks for all your support of the BMC!!

[kingofthering]

Oh.

At first I thought the RIAA found something else to own.

[adrenaline]

How could Ford be so stupid?? Oh, wait...

[Spastik_Roach]

Thats such utter crap. Where do they get off doing this stuff?

[Alastor]

I think everyone on that forum should de-badge their car. Otherwise they might actually take pride in their ride.

[nota]

How could Ford be so stupid?? Oh, wait...

Agreed, it is insanity

Ford Motor Company's claim that THEY own all rights to the photos YOU take of YOUR car

US judicial madness is a given, but I'd like to see this claim tested in an Ozland court!

[jcp123]

What a crock of crap. They've been cooking up this paranoid BS about Mustang logos for a while though.

[Clivey]

OK, so what happens when every creator/manufacturer latches on to this and sues everyone for every photo they've ever taken?

Laughable madness!

[Alastor]

OK, so what happens when every creator/manufacturer latches on to this and sues everyone for every photo they've ever taken?

Laughable madness!

IANAL but,

The link is misleading, they don't actually own pictures of your car, once you buy a car you can do whatever you want with it. They are not providing a license for the privilege to have a ford. However, they do own the trademark on the car, so if you sell a picture of your car with the trademark showing then they will have a problem with it.

I think if they are really going to be this sensitive about it, they should be required to give the option of selling the car without emblems. That way the consumer can avoid these problems if they are worried about it.

[Coventrysucks]

Ford claims that all the images, logos and designs OUR graphics team made for the BMC events using Danni are theirs as well.

If they have integrated any of Ford's original logos, fonts, designs or registered trademarks into their work, then yes, they do belong to Ford.

Ford should be allowed to protect their intellectual property as much as anyone else.

I'm sure the BMC would never dream of using images of their member's cars in the calendar without permission, so why do they think they can sell Ford's property without asking?

What would the club's response be if I create a calender using their images, designs and logos, and sell it on the internet?

Copyright law exists, no matter how hard you try to pretend it doesn't.

I'm not sure that the club's version is telling the whole story; they appear to suggest that the main reason is that Ford owns the copyright of pictures taken by other people - whilst that is not true, Ford do own copyright on any of their logos/trademarks/designs etc that are featured in those photos - and that extends to any part of the design of the car.

If they had contacted Ford first, they may have had a different response, or at least a clear explanation as to why not, and then Ford wouldn't have to put up with half-baked accusations being levelled at them by people who don't understand what they, rather than Ford, have done wrong.

You can argue whether Ford's stance on the matter, and the approach they have taken is wise or sensible (I'd say it isn't), but it is certainly not wrong for Ford to exercise their legal rights, as people seem keen to suggest.

[Falcon500]

OK, so what happens when every creator/manufacturer latches on to this and sues everyone for every photo they've ever taken?

Laughable madness!

Potentially profitable madness even if they get a minor cut of every image of their cars sold.

Thats my guess.

[Clivey]

Potentially profitable madness even if they get a minor cut of every image of their cars sold.

Thats my guess.

And I wasn't just meaning car manufacturers!

- What happens when clothing companies try to sue you for taking a photo of yourself wearing T-shirts showing their logos?

- What happens when your builder sues you for advertising your house (his design) for sale using pictures?

- And what happens when the State sues you for taking a photo of their land?

[ZeTurbo]

If they have integrated any of Ford's original logos, fonts, designs or registered trademarks into their work, then yes, they do belong to Ford.

Ford should be allowed to protect their intellectual property as much as anyone else.

I'm sure the BMC would never dream of using images of their member's cars in the calendar without permission, so why do they think they can sell Ford's property without asking?

What would the club's response be if I create a calender using their images, designs and logos, and sell it on the internet?

Copyright law exists, no matter how hard you try to pretend it doesn't.

I'm not sure that the club's version is telling the whole story; they appear to suggest that the main reason is that Ford owns the copyright of pictures taken by other people - whilst that is not true, Ford do own copyright on any of their logos/trademarks/designs etc that are featured in those photos - and that extends to any part of the design of the car.

If they had contacted Ford first, they may have had a different response, or at least a clear explanation as to why not, and then Ford wouldn't have to put up with half-baked accusations being levelled at them by people who don't understand what they, rather than Ford, have done wrong.

You can argue whether Ford's stance on the matter, and the approach they have taken is wise or sensible (I'd say it isn't), but it is certainly not wrong for Ford to exercise their legal rights, as people seem keen to suggest.

Yes i understand that the logos violate copyright laws if they have the brands logos ...
But how are the pictures of the cars Ford's property? because they have a ford logo on it? what if i make a calendar of pictures of me, in front of time square... will all those companies who have logos on display have the right to sue me? its madness!

[Kitdy]

If the pictures of these cars are not legally under the ownership of the photographer, does that not mean that pages like UCP and car blogs are illegal? They are making a profit form displaying cars on their pages are they not? What about car magazines then? Them having pictures of cars; is that illegal?

[Coventrysucks]

But how are the pictures of the cars Ford's property?

The actual pictures aren't, but what is featured in the pictures is.

what if i make a calendar of pictures of me, in front of time square... will all those companies who have logos on display have the right to sue me?

Permission is the key.

This looks like a good explanation:

The Law for Photographers / Travel Photography Law / Legal Issues of Taking Photos

"Works of art - sculptures, paintings, and even toys - are protectable by copyright... A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, and photographing a copyrighted work is considered a way of reproducing it. Thus, you may need permission to photograph a building or an art work."

If the pictures of these cars are not legally under the ownership of the photographer, does that not mean that pages like UCP and car blogs are illegal? They are making a profit form displaying cars on their pages are they not? What about car magazines then? Them having pictures of cars; is that illegal?

You will see on some photographs (supplied to the media by car companies) "for editorial use only" - this allows for the photograph to be reproduced for editorial use - reviews, descriptions etc - that is how websites and magazines are able to use media images.

You may notice that all of the photographs used in the UCP database are either supplied by the car company or taken by Wouter/Pieter and a few others - that is for copyright reasons.

There are also other exemptions under "fair use" - if you look at some of the copyrighted images on Wikipedia, there are often explanations of how the image is considered "fair use" - it can be for criticism/review, parody, size/quality compared to the original, etc.

Technically, whenever you post a picture in a thread that you have "found" somewhere else, without getting permission, you are violating the copyright and breaking the law.

This happens a lot though, so it would be difficult for anyone to constantly track down and prosecute every violation - usually it only gets legal when someone tries to make money - as the Mustang club did.