Well, this seems misguided. A group of people who are members of the “Black Mustang Club” wanted to take some pictures of their cars and make a calendar using CafePress. Turns out, CafePress refuses to publish pictures of Ford cars due to claims of copyright infringement:
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.
Yikes. Perhaps Ford makes more money on Mustang calendars that we’d previously suspected.
Ford: Car owners are pirates if they distribute pictures of their own cars [BoingBoing] (Thanks, Paul D!)
(Photo:morsteen)
More From Consumerist
-
Ford Recalling 484,600 Escape SUVs Because Drivers Should Be Able To Ease Off The Gas
-
Ford’s Steel F-150 Pickups Could Get Aluminum Body Makeovers To Save On Fuel Costs
-
Third Time Is Far From The Charm For The Once Again Recalled 2013 Ford Escape
-
Ford Issues Immediate Recall Of 2013 Escape SUV Because Fire Is Scary
-
Toyota & Ford Fighting On The Playground Over Who Has The No. 1 Car
So one can make use of competitors logos if making a comparison? Why not just make the calendar with a caption under each Mustang picture saying “I bet Chevy Camaro owners don’t have to deal with this trademark crap…”
We tried to make a calendar for my grandmother using pictures taken by Olan Mills Studio and Kinko’s said we needed a release from the photographer.
The pictures were taken in 1941.
@stanfrombrooklyn: Ugh, those guys are still around and still not-great as ever.
Ford fanbois. Just go get an F-body already.
Ford’s graspy jerk-off lawyers did the same thing to a classic Jaguar club who printed calendars of photos of their own cars. It’s a patently stupid move that serves only to alienate the company’s most passionate advocates, the people who restore, drive and love old Fords often buy new ones, and the people who’ve been the victim of this kind of heavy-handed treatment and had the company they’ve promoted for years spit in their faces are likely to buy a Toyota next time.
@CMU_Bueller:
Not at all.
I explained when they were taken and that the copyright had expired 100 years ago and all they could do was mindlessly repeat that it was their policy.
@Photogdc:
In most cases with these type of car enthusiasts, the first thing to go is the badging. So that usually rules out the logo problems.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, F**d just burned the very people that keep their sales high enough to stay listed on the stock exchange.
@WV.Hillbilly: “OK, then, let me refer you to xxx cemetery, but I’m afraid he won’t be answering the phone.”
@Buran: Updating my own post, this is now on slashdot:
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
What the hell is wrong with everybody lately? This is the most asinine thing..well, one of them, anyway..that I’ve heard all week.
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?
Buying a Honda now…
@dwayne_dibbly: It would be violating trademark, except in your case, it wouldn’t be. Probably. It all depends on prominence and purpose of the work.
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.
@balthisar: Well, I understand that in the wacky world of legalese, it might stand up, but as a matter of common sense, it’s hard for me to believe that a car-maker wouldn’t absolutely welcome that kind of enthusiasm for one of their models.
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.
They are using Ford’s trademarks to make money. It’s wrong for the same reason you can’t open up a hamburger restaurant using the golden arches.
our country is out of control. this is insanity.
@dwayne_dibbly: It’s a good point, but what’s being missed is that a trademark owner must, by law, defend that trademark or risk losing it. Say they let this club use it without a license. Then another club. And so on. Eventually, they won’t be able to tell a “legitimate” abuser to stop, because -hey!- there’s all of this existing precedent out there. Ford hasn’t defended its mark!
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.
@swalve: What if McDonald’s sold little McDonald’s play-houses…millions of them. Let’s say they stopped making hamburgers altogether (we could only wish) and did nothing but make McHouses, complete with signature color scheme and golden arches.
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.
@balthisar: Thanks for the clarification
It still seems backwards to me but logically, yes, it makes sense.
Companies like this are really killing the industry slowly but surely. They are stifling car enthusiasts who are the bread and butter of their business. So I will now have to walk around afraid of what classic ford product I take a picture of and sell? That’s how photographers make money, they sell their photographs duh. What a lame case. In true cases of deliberate malicious intent, and defamation of someone’s trademark I can understand. But a classic car enthusiast (such as myself) taking a picture of a car he likes or a car club making a calendar to promote their cars? come on! un fucking believable.
Dear Ford,
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
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.
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.
@trollkiller To answer your question most definitely. It is right for a Photographer to sell one of their photos. They could have a better creative vision, better lighting technique, better equipment, better knowledge of their equipment, etc, etc, which might make their shot more artistic and desirable than an amateur’s photograph. It is their right to sell it. I would let a painter, a photographer, a videographer, or whomever do their representation of my sculpture and sell it. Because it is their artistic vision. Not mine. Now If someone blatantly rips off my sculpture by sculpting the exact same thing in the exact same style and selling it as their own knowing damn well it was my original idea then i’d be pissed. There’s a fine line but it’s there. If people were MAKING their own mustangs that looked just like ford’s and the logo was in the same script but just named different, then THAT would be trademark and copyright infringement.
@SoCalGNX: Wal-Mart actually called me when I sent them some of my digital photos to process. I had to sign a statement that I took the pictures in my backyard (with my Nikon D-40x) and that I was not copying pictures taken by a professional photographer.
I didn’t know if I should be flattered or pissed!
@gman863: Walmart, or any other store that does photos (even copy centers) doesn’t have any business interest in either training the employees to know the difference, or caring whether there is a difference at all. They don’t want anything to do with the reasons for why you’re making the copy. They simply don’t care. The thing that matters is that you don’t have permission, and that’s good enough for them. If you don’t like it, don’t spend money there. Take it to Walgreens and use thier self-serve kiosk to make your copies, or go to Staples and use the self-serve color copier. The legality doesn’t change, but you’re taking the responsibility for understanding copyright law on yourself instead of putting it in the hands of a kid behind the counter acting on behalf of a multi-billion dollar company.
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.
@DeeJayQueue: For a more clear example: Say you took pictures of your Ford Mustang with a little girl in it, and put as a caption “Ford Mustangs are great for picking up little girls, ha ha ha” that would be pretty skeevy right? That would be pretty potentially damaging to Ford’s reputation right? Well, for the most part, they wouldn’t have any way to keep that sort of thing from happening until after it’s been produced and put up for sale unless they policed their trademarks and copyrights heavily, which is what they’re doing here.
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.
TRADEMARK MISUSE IS NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT! Geez.
@trollkiller: The real question in that case then is what is the trademark (the design? the logo?) or the copyrighted material and what rights does the owner have?
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.
My name is Whitney Drake and I work in Ford Communications. We’ve been watching this discussion with interest and I’d like to clarify what is essentially a misunderstanding.
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.
@Whitney Drake: Thanks for dropping by, and making a public statement!
@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.
@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.
They are “taking it very seriously”
[thepiratesdilemma.com]
@rockergal: Yea they are still enforceing that law, in a way. I didn’t know about it until after taking many pictures of the Brooklyn Bridge (I’m an amature shutter-bug with a D-40 SLR). Near the end of the walk, a police officer bleeped(?) his siren and waved for me to come over there. I just continued walking…
This is sad to see a company that is already losing lots of market share doing this to its loyal customers. Fords are hopeless now.
Cafe press needs to man up! I had my store closed when I made some really cool anti walmart shirts, I called them & they couldn’t reinstate my store fast enough, then late one night closed it again. I have never bothered with them since. Man up cafe press, man up!