Wow. Corporate douchebaggery at its finest. :thumbdown

 

That actually does make sense to me. From what I understand anyway.

They made a calender with Ford products in it without getting Fords permission.

If that's the issue in black and white then it does make sense to me.

 

That actually does make sense to me. From what I understand anyway.

They made a calender with Ford products in it without getting Fords permission.

If that's the issue in black and white then it does make sense to me.

True, but Ford no longer "owns" the cars. They don't hold the title to the vehicles so why should they have any say? Their cars are not being bashed at all.

 

You can do whatever you want, until you use Ford's products and imagery for profit. That's why photoshops and such made on this site are not an issue, but when you use Cafepress and start selling things, that is an issue.

 

Could the issue be that they are charging for them? I bet if they were free Ford wouldn't give a crap.

*Edit* Dang, FocusonPunk beat me to it.

 

yeah, if there personal cars then ford doesn't have really any say. if you were taking photo's of unowned cars then maybe they can say something.

 

If people want to buy pictures of my Ford vehicle why should I not charge them? It is my property I'm selling pictures of.

If people wanna buy pics of my bathroom is the guy that makes my toilet going to sue? Jesus f***ing christ on a stick.

 

It depends on the trademark. The Ford emblem is their Trademark. If someone is profiting from Ford directly, I would think they would want some of the profits.

At the very least, had the calendar people contacted Ford first, Ford probley would have let them use it with out wanting a part of the profits. But since they didn't contact Ford about it first, Ford is probley a lil upset about it.
Look at it this way: if someone took a picture of your house and was using it in an advertisement and he was making say, $5000 a month off the advertisement with YOUR house it in, would you be a little pissed considering he didn't even ask you? -- This is just an example

It's the calendar peoples' fault. If they had a lawer that was doing is job and checking in to things like this, this wouldn't have happened.

 

Look at it this way: if someone took a picture of your house and was using it in an advertisement and he was making say, $5000 a month off the advertisement with YOUR house it in, would you be a little pissed considering he didn't even ask you? -- This is just an example

With your example, it wouldn't be the home owner who is complaining, it would be the home builder. (Comparing it to the car owners and Ford)

 

Ford continues it's trend of sucking the big one

 

It depends on the trademark. The Ford emblem is their Trademark. If someone is profiting from Ford directly, I would think they would want some of the profits.

At the very least, had the calendar people contacted Ford first, Ford probley would have let them use it with out wanting a part of the profits. But since they didn't contact Ford about it first, Ford is probley a lil upset about it.
Look at it this way: if someone took a picture of your house and was using it in an advertisement and he was making say, $5000 a month off the advertisement with YOUR house it in, would you be a little pissed considering he didn't even ask you? -- This is just an example

It's the calendar peoples' fault. If they had a lawer that was doing is job and checking in to things like this, this wouldn't have happened.

Um, no. It would be my house he is profiting from. Ford handed over ownership of my Focus to the original owner and so on.

If Ford doesn't want people selling pics of their cars they need to make sure there are no trademarks visible on the car when it leaves the dealers possesion.

Hell, I should back charge Ford for 6 years of advertising fees for driving around and displaying their logo on both the front and rear of my car. I can only imagine how many times a non Ford owner looked at those logos.

 

This is why there are lots of debadged cars in movies and TV shows.

All you have to do is remove the Ford emblems, and I believe you are cool.

 

Its not my job or concern to remove them. They can just stop putting them on at the factory. Problem solved, and responsibility and liability are placed where they should be.

 

If Ford doesn't want people selling pics of their cars they need to make sure there are no trademarks visible on the car when it leaves the dealers possesion.

When I buy a Sony DVD player, I don't buy the rights to use the Sony logo anyway I want to...

Hell, I should back charge Ford for 6 years of advertising fees for driving around and displaying their logo on both the front and rear of my car. I can only imagine how many times a non Ford owner looked at those logos.

You don't have to buy their cars.

I'm not making the case that this is a good move by Ford, but the bottom line is they have a right to protect their logo from being used in ways that makes Ford appear to support or endorse an action/product they had no knowledge of.

 

I think it's an awesome way for a company to treat their loyal fans and customers. Nothing says, "I appreciate your patronage!" like a Cease-and-Desist on people who are proudly dispaying their Ford vehicles for all to see and admire.

 

Its not my job or concern to remove them.

It is if you want to use the car in a money-making concern.

That's the way the laws work. You don't have to like it, you just have to live by it.

Just like my kids and eating their green-beans.

Eventually they will 'grow up' and realize that it's how the world works!

 

Just more proof that our legal system is ass backward.

The people should be protected over and from big corporations. The problem is most people can't afford to buy politicians.

 

Just more proof that our legal system is ass backward.

The people should be protected over and from big corporations. The problem is most people can't afford to buy politicians.

Our legal system isn't ass backwards. It may be skewed, but look at other countries comparitively.

Our protection under the law is what makes our free-market so successful. If things like this weren't protected, it would cause a huge tumble economically. The legal institutions in place are what make us what we are...one of the most economically successful companies in the world.

 

True, but Ford no longer "owns" the cars. They don't hold the title to the vehicles so why should they have any say? Their cars are not being bashed at all.

That's like saying, since you own and iPod, you can make an EXACT copy of it and sell them.

Well, kind of. Ford still owns the rights to the design.






*This wouldn't be an issue if the genius' had just called the for PR/HR department and asked permission. It's not hard to do. You have to do that with EVERYTHING. Any picture on the internet, anything...if your going to profit off of it, you need to own the rights to use it and/or have permission to use it.

 

That's like saying, since you own and iPod, you can make an EXACT copy of it and sell them.

True, but they aren't selling actual copies of the car, just images. No blueprints. No mechanical working pieces. I'm fairly certain I could take artistic pictures of my iPod and sell it.

I don't think they should have to call Ford at all and ask. If they didn't take the pictures themselves, they would need permission from the photographer. How do all these auto photographers make money? They surely don't have permission from every manufacturer to take pictures of their cars.

 

Just more proof that our legal system is ass backward.

The people should be protected over and from big corporations. The problem is most people can't afford to buy politicians.

Kona, picture this:

You create this great product, and you're selling a metric **** ton of it. (good for you)

Then somebody makes a movie with your product prominently featured in it (your corporate logo large and in charge), making it appear that your product is the source of some evil doings.

suddenly, your sales go to hell in a handbasket... now what?

do you just let it happen, or do you do something about it?

now you have to apply that same logic down the line to the smallest infraction, or it's not being applied evenly and fairly.

This is obviously overstating, but Ford has the right to protect itself.

 

True, but they aren't selling actual copies of the car, just images. No blueprints. No mechanical working pieces. I'm fairly certain I could take artistic pictures of my iPod and sell it.

As long as Apple doesn't object, or you remove any direct reference (logos, names, etc) to the product... yes you can.

 

The issue is not photos of the cars.

Its the Ford Logo and other trademarked logos on the picutures (cobra, mustang, SVT) that present a problem.


Ford has a legal obligation to protect their trademark. If those cars had no emblems on them, I'd bet you'd never see any action from Ford.

 

If ford wasn't doing so ****ty right now, this wouldn't be as big of an issue. Guaranteed. When the place my boss used to subcontract for went out of business, whose gross sales were roughly 10x the amount of ours, they tried to sue us for getting preferential treatment, even though we were the ones charging the least and doing the highest quality work. My boss lost 26,000 out of HIS pocket...

F!!K corporations.

 

The issue is not photos of the cars.

Its the Ford Logo and other trademarked logos on the picutures (cobra, mustang, SVT) that present a problem.


Ford has a legal obligation to protect their trademark. If those cars had no emblems on them, I'd bet you'd never see any action from Ford.

Yep.


That's why you get a cease and desist letter if you start selling shirts with Mustangs on them, the logo, and their 'horse'. It is all trademarked.

All of the OEMs have licensing programs set up for this kind of stuff.

You might think that it is more 'innocent' if you're only selling to your club members, but Ford doesn't see it that way. They want their percentage - and they want to make sure that their logo and trademarks are being used correctly.

When it comes to fine art, not so much... because t-shirts are so much cheaper and profitable in the long run.