@curiosity: Whitney Drake seems to have cleared up Ford's point of view.

@Whitney Drake: Thanks for clearing it up and also thanks for working with both the car club and Cafe Press.

For all you folks that were attacking Ford due to limited information, I think you owe an apology to Ford. Now if they would just release that car that runs on water.

@morsteen: You may allow a photographer to sell images of your artwork but others may not. Take a look at [www.benedict.com] the article is a good strting point with a case example of a sculpture copyright holder defending his copyright against a movie studio.

Yesterday we spoke to both Cafe Press and the Black Mustang Club and explained the situation (about the Black Mustang Club's calendar) to everyone's satisfaction. Ford has no problem with Mustang or other car owners taking pictures of their vehicles for use in club materials like calendars. What we do have an issue with are individuals using Ford's logo and other trademarks for products they intend to sell. Understandably, we have to take the protection of our brands and licensing very seriously.

Ford did not send the Black Mustang Club a "cease and desist" letter telling them that they could not use images of their own cars in their calendar. The decision not to allow the calendars to be printed was made by Cafe Press, because we had gotten in touch with them in the past about trademark infringements on products they sold.

I think it is great that the Black Mustang Club, and any other enthusiast club, would take pictures of their own vehicles for use in calendars or other materials.

I'm looking forward to purchasing a copy to hang in the garage next to my Mustang (even if mine isn't black).

Thanks for giving us the chance to have our say.

As I pointed out in previous posts trademark is usually pro-consumer, and copyright is usually anti-consumer since trademark usually deals with consumer confusion, and copyright usually deals with the protection of an artificial monopoly given for work produced by the sweat of the brow.

Here though I am sure people realize is a competition between two businesses (with an outsourced producer in the middle), not between a consumer and a business.

Ford does seem to be using trademark as if it was a copyright. This really seems to be a question not of society being over-lawyered, but more importantly of businesses asserting greater legal rights than they actually have and no lawyer, judge, or legislative/regulatory/executive body correcting them.

I think they could just as easily have let this go, or struck a deal with the BMC but they do have a valid reason for C&D-ing the calendars.

FYI about copyright suits: They come and seize the equipment used to make the offending material if they can. That means if Walmart gets caught violating copyrights, the courts seize their dye-sub printer. That's a chance they simply won't take, on top of the court costs, etc.

--on topic--

I think it's bogus what Ford's trying to do to its fans in this case, but I can understand where they're coming from in a purely reflex-action sort of way.

They don't know what the context for the photos is, how they're being taken or portrayed, and what that says about Ford as a brand. Moreover, as a blanket rule, they don't have the time or money to go check out everyone who wants to make and sell things using the Ford mark or imagery to make sure they're using things right. So instead they say "No, you can't do it at all" though, I bet if they asked they could have gotten permission, but now it's moot. For all Ford knows, the Mustang club could have taken pictures of the cars with flat tires, all rusted up, slogans like "F*cker Only Rolls Downhill" on them. That wouldn't be too great for the image of Ford, so they'd want to squash that. Or they could be using the cars in connection with illegal activities or in conjunction with companies Ford doesn't have a business relationship with, and may not want one with.

The goal of these calendars is to make money, and they're doing that by trading on the Ford name. You can't make up a calendar using pictures of your Dell computer and then sell it and expect Dell not to get pissed about it. You're making money based on their name.

I'm currently doing some graphic design work for one of the largest fan-based sci-fi groups around. They (and I by proxy) don't have explicit permission to use any of the trademarks or copyrighted images, but they have a tenuous agreement where as long as nobody makes a profit it's all good, and it seems to be working because everyone's respecting it. It's when you start making money off of someone elses trademarks and copyrights that people get bent and pissy.

I didn't know if I should be flattered or pissed!

This is a scary topic. In theory, if left unchecked it could allow a company to protect its trademark to the point of infringing on an individual's right to take or develop pictures for purposes that are clearly "fair use".

If a lawyer or insurance adjuster takes a photo of an Exploder (oops, Explorer) after a triple flip caused by defective Firestone tires, does the photo infringe on Ford and/or Firestone's copyrights by exposing a product design flaw? If I take a photo of a collectible copyrighted item I own (such as an original Disney cartoon cell) in order to show it to a prospective buyer or document it for insurance purposes, is a developer such as Walmart justified in refusing to print the pictures?

I can understand a company protecting its products against others profiting from it; however the Supreme Court made it clear over 30 years ago that making a personal copy of copyrighted material is legal and well within the scope of fair use(the "Betamax Ruling", allowing individuals to record copyrighted TV programs for personal viewing).

If your local photo lab doesn't have the brains or bal*s to recognize "fair use", put away grandpa's 35mm Nikon, pull out your digital camera and print the photos at home or on a self-service digital print kiosk at your local store.

Maybe I can clarify this just a little bit. Think of the Mustang as a sculpture. If you created a sculpture and I took photos of the sculpture to sell, would you think that that would be right? Of course it wouldn't. You own the copyright to that sculpture, to that art you created. I am making a copy of your art in a different medium.

Ford owns the copyright to that sculpture. The car club is ripping off Ford, even if it is unintentional.

They like Mustangs and you want to make them hate the company that makes Mustangs? Way to go, yet another decision that proves U R TEH WINNARS!!!1!

Sincerely,
Ford Ex-Employee
Still Baffled By Your Endemic Corporate Insanity

What if people loved their McHouses so much that they had clubs, and a club wanted to produce a calendar of happy McHouse owners and their fantastic McHouses. Would McDonald's be able to step in an say "No, you can't do that?"

(Granted, it's CafePress not printing the calendars because they're worried about Ford suing them, but the idea is the same).

It still doesn't seem right at all from a common-sense perspective.

Jesus, this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

The same lawyers are probably direct Ford employees, and they're probably Ford fans, and they can probably appreciate what the club is trying to do, but their hands are tied -- not due to corporate policy, but by federal law.

The solution for these clubs is simple; all they have to do is approach Ford (or the NFL or Pixar) and license the material. If they can make the case, chances are the license will even be reasonably priced, perhaps free.

I could understand if somebody were copying Ford automobiles, or producing a product with the blue oval logo on it, but it just boggles my mind that they're trying to protect their trademark from a car club who wants to put out a calendar. Why? What does Ford think it's going to lose by allowing the calendar to be publised? The calendar is not claiming to be or being marketed as a Ford product.

Pretty much, all of the "Ford is stupid" people above don't understand the details of what's going on here, and I daresay are blowing this out of proportion.

So if I take a picture of something, and there's a Ford automobile in the background, I'm breaking copyright? Is it me, or is the world of copyright turned into bizarro world?

Slashdot | Ford Claims Ownership Of Your Pictures

And somehow, my topic died but someone else's didn't:

Ford refuses to allow fan-made calendar to be sold

Right, wrong, or indifferent, F**d just burned the very people that keep their sales high enough to stay listed on the stock exchange.

The pictures were taken in 1941.

I think if you take a picture of something (within reasonable bounds), you should be able to do whatever you want with it if you own the item in question.

Look at it this way... say I take a picture of you. I now own the rights to that photo, but don't you think you have the right to demand payment for its promotional use (or veto such use, or kindly say, "go ahead")?

I bet you can come up with some ridiculous examples of how this could turn out bad, but in theory, I don't see it as that bad of a proposition.

As you can probably guess, I also am not too keen on "intellectual property" in terms of music either.

Dr. E

Am I wrong?

That is interesting. How do these big companies then reconsile the use of their trademarks in competitor's ads?

Look at all the car commercials where Ford beats Chevy racing on the dry lake bed or Tide cleans better than whatever Tide cleans better than. And let's not forget the great Pepsi/Coke taste test.

And that is all advertising to generate profit and discredit your competitor.

I guess it's now the best business practice to piss off your customers, hey it's working for the RIAA right?

There's a legal and not legal way of doing everything. Failure to defend your trademarks can cause you to lose your trademarks. Ford's gone down this path before, hence the GT40 instead of the GT, the Fusion instead of the Futura. Chances are, you can clear this stuff up legally beforehand and get permission. It's not expensive (and maybe free) if there's no profit motive.

This has EFF written all over it.

How about instead make a calendar of each of the fords being crushed. Ok, not the valuable classics, but some junkers, and make a big publicity thing about it. Hand them out for free at the next share holders meeting.
that will get their attention.

They should get Hondas. I run a CRX club, our shirts all have the Honda and the CRX logos on them, our meets feature Honda banners, our pictures all feature (duh) our cars, and no one's ever given us grief about it. I know of other honda clubs that hold their meets at dealerships or even factories, and are enthusiastically received by management. When you get right down to it, it's free publicity for Honda. -shrug- Don't get why any company would threaten legal action against someone who's advertising for them for no compensation.

Maybe I should buy a ford and then sue them for failure to compensate me, since I'm advertising for them every time I drive the car with the Ford logos on it.

hmmm.. .Did I just violate copyright by saying Ford?I mean Ford is Ford's name and belongs to Ford, right? ;)

I had copies of some old tintypes that were shot at the end of the Civil War that Walmart refused to print.
They suggested I get a release from the photographer.

A little more clarification on this: This is Cafepress saying they will not do it, becuase of prior issues with Ford. This does not appear to be a case of Ford actively persuing the issue.

HOWEVER! Ford's lawyers have been VERY actively persuing aftermarket equipment manufacturers, such as Mustangs Plus, and threatening them with lawsuits for simply using the word Mustang in their businesses. Even if they have been doing it for 20+ years.

If you are a Ford or classic car/truck fan, I encourage you to get informed and let them know that they are only hurting themselves. Tell the salesmen if you go looking at a new vehicle.

It would make more sense that it is trademark dilution, tarnishment, or blurring that Ford claims since "Ford's trademarks which include the use of images of THEIR vehicles" is specifically mentioned.

However, perhaps both of you are missing that Ford is also putting copyright at issue - "Also, Ford claims that all the images, logos and designs OUR graphics team made for the BMC events using Danni are theirs as well". Usually this is the case when there are derivative works like in photographing graffiti (See [www.nytimes.com]).

There is an issue about how and what is copyrighted etc. However at the very least as the copyright owner, Ford has the exclusive right:

- To reproduce the copyrighted work;
- To display the copyrighted work publicly;
- To prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work; and
- To distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale, rental or lending, and/or to display the image.

Irrespective of if this issue is just legal puffery, I am sure that CafePress is intimidated by the potential for both claims and even if it is to its long term interest may not want to sort out such a matter in the short term.

Also as a note, nice photos.

I wonder if Harvard Business School teaches a course on how to succeed in business by pissing off your best customers.

Let me check....

No. No they don't. Who'da thunk.

[www.v6f150.com]

AND
[www.nytimes.com]

several other places require permits when taking photos (especially in the south)

If the calendar photos were editorial shots then ford does not have a case. [home.pon.net]

The Hot Rod mags fall into the editorial use of the copyrighted car designs. The photos they use are for illustrative purposes.

@ Meg Marco
-caption correction alert-
As ProfessorJonathan and Photogdc point out, it's Trademark and not Copyright infringement that Ford claims. While they both can be abused, Ford isn't claiming ownership of pictures Joe Schmoe took, just the car subjects of those pictures. It might be a dumb claim either way, but it's the difference between dumb and too laughable to even say with a straight face. The original BB article catches the distinction.

Union Pacific used to do this too which was why UP model railroad stuff was a little more pricey than other roadnames. One of the companies UP threatened to sue did something amazing and stood up to UP's bullying and actually somehow managed to negotiate a perpetual royaltyfree license not only for themselves but every other model railroad business -- even knowing that they could be harming their own profit margin by helping their competitors.

I was stunned when I heard about it. There really are some good businessmen left in the world. But they don't work at Ford, it seems.

But I doubt the kit industry is going away any time soon -- I'm sure they'll probably follow suit somehow, especially since a lot of the subjects they replicate were paid for by the taxpayers and therefore many would argue that they should be copyable at least by US citizens.

So if Ford shoots itself in the foot big time will they catch on the this is not a 2 way street? THEY need people to buy the cars, people DON'T need Ford to spend money.

And as far as copyright goes on buildings will all those skyline photos of NYC have to be cleared with all those building designers? Doubt that.

You would need a model release in the latter case.

Info. on copyright: [www.copyright.gov]

Info. on trademark: [www.uspto.gov]

{ProfJonathan}

Actually, this is becoming a fairly common problem. One of my hobbies is plastic modelling, and many smaller manufacturers have had to go out of business because they cannot afford the liscensing fee that the makers of the real airplanes are charging. It's pretty stupid.

On the issue of erasing the logo that is a start but they would probably claim they own the trademark to the design of the car to and still threaten action.

It can be a hassle if they won't print your own stuff but normally a business card or showing them your website will suffice.

Sue that, Henry.

If they want to stop us from using their logo, fine; I'll just edit the image so that the VW logo disappears. But if I want to take a photo of my own property, that's my business, especially if I do it ON my own land or on public land (like a street or a park).

Judging from the photos in my own Gallery, I bet they'd try the same thing on me. Just another reason not to go to Wal-Mart; there's a great family-owned decades-old camera shop just down the street from me that does photo printing. I'll be patronizing them for all my photo-printing needs.

Ford: We own the copyright of YOUR photos that YOU took wit...

I don't own a Ford and I've never bought anything from CafePress. Looks like I never will now ...

This is true even for recognizable buildings. The building owner or architect of famous buildings have threated action against photographers for commercial use of photos of their buildings or photos containing their building like a skyline photo.

I have also heard of airlines taking action for airport photos that have their planes in them. This is why you will often see the names or livery of planes Photoshopped in airport photos.

I do not know if a court has yet ruled on the legitimacy of these claims.

A coworker who is a photography student recently had his work questioned by Walmart. Walmart seemed to think he was violating some copyright as well.