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
-
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
-
Ford Recalling 484,600 Escape SUVs Because Drivers Should Be Able To Ease Off The Gas
-
GM & Ford Decide To Be Best Pals In Order To Build New Transmissions Together
-
NHTSA Investigating 1.3 Million Fords, Toyotas & Hondas For Safety-Related Issues
Uhm… if VW claims to own a photo of MY car taken with MY camera by ME, I’m going to write them a nastygram for fraudulently claiming they own a copyright that they don’t own.
Are all of those hot rod magazines paying Ford royalties?
Ford doesn’t really have a case. You can take pictures of your car and you own the rights to the photo. The trouble comes when they try and sell it as a ford mustang calender. If they fought it they’d likely win from the designs I saw on the BMG site. Trouble is who has the money to fight ford’s lawyers. This is no different than alot of suits the RIAA has filed where they have no case, but nobody wants to risk the battle.
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.
This is a very serious issue for professional photographers. While the photographer owns the copyright of the photo they take, they are taking a photo of trademarks owned by Ford including the design of the car, and the Ford name and logo. Car companies have sued/threatened to sue photographers for using photos of their cars in commercial use.
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.
There ought to be a (huge) penalty for any company that claims copyright where they know they don’t have it.
My response: post a summary and links to the story on a widely-trafficked car discussion forum. If Ford doesn’t want to support its customers, or CafePress doesn’t want to support theirs, then we’ll just have to spread the word of this insanity. Bad publicity doesn’t help businesses keep customers.
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 …
The world has gone mad. You would think a crappy company such as Ford would take all the free publicity they could get. They basically have one foot on the corporate banana peal, make cars no one wants and then attack their owners. Good public relations.
@SoCalGNX: I’ve heard of this. If you’re TOO GOOD Wal-Mart will accuse you of being a copyright infringer and refuse to print your own photos. Sad but true.
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.
@Photogdc: I don’t think a calendar like this is a for-profit commercial use. I’m a member of a very similar VW club, and we had a discussion about this. We do not have VW logos in the club T-shirt for example, we have disclaimers that we aren’t associated with VW, and we don’t publish a calendar but if we did I’m sure we wouldn’t put the logo front and center (although I do have photos of the logo from the front of my car on my website, I don’t make a profit from those photos yet; when I do start offering for-pay print buying, the pictures with the logo won’t be buyable).
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).
I’d like to see Ford write me up for publishing pix of my faded-brown ’97 Escort, that has been affectionately nicknamed by one my kids as “The Turd”.
Sue that, Henry.
@Buran: On the other hand professional photographers are very appreciative of Walmart, Costco etc. when they question people or call us if our copyright stamp is on the back to check if it is legit. They don’t do this to be nice they are covering themselves since photo processors have been sued for copyright infringement.
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.
CafePress acts like this all the time. They are nothing but yellow-bellied, lily-livered, spineless tools for The Man. It’s trivially easy to get CafePress to close someone’s store. Try it sometime.
@Buran: As I said I don’t know if a court has ruled on a case like this but I know threats have been made. The company will consider anything where money changes hands to be commercial use, a court may not, they may only consider something like selling the photo to be used in advertising etc. I don’t know I am not a lawyer.
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.
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.
The original post (especially given the title) is confusing two very different issues: copyright and trademark. The photographer owns the copyright in the artistic work that is a photograph. However, there may be other rights with regard to the *subject* of the photo. For example, if you see George Clooney walking down the street and shoot a picture, you own the picture, but you are not allowed to use it in an advertisement without Clooney’s permission to use his likeness. Similarly, while I won’t opine on whether the position taken by Ford is particularly strong, the claim is not related to the copyright in the photo, but in using their trademarks (logos, brands) in commerce (i.e. selling photos including the trademarks) without Ford’s permission.
Info. on copyright: [www.copyright.gov]
Info. on trademark: [www.uspto.gov]
{ProfJonathan}
@Photogdc: Then you’d have to ban all those ads with cars in them with no logos on them, which hasn’t happened as I see them all the time. So there is seemingly plenty of “case history” to argue that without the logo it’s OK to use the photo for profit.
@professorjonathan: It’s OK to use photos of people on the street — as long as they aren’t clearly recognizable or you can’t see a face. If your hypothetical photo was from the back, it’s different from one that shows the face and you can say “Oh, that’s soandso”.
You would need a model release in the latter case.
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.
@Photogdc: However, they still will refuse sometimes even if you bring in the form — they’ll accuse you of forging it. So if you get an idiot in the photo department who doesn’t like you, even if they’re your own pictures they’ll still treat you like dirt. I don’t appreciate being accused of doing something illegal, so I’d rather just go somewhere else that will respect me.
@GreatMoose: Ditto on that hobby though I haven’t had the space to do it in a while so I have a kit stash in my basement.
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.
@Buran:Obviously every retailer should treat customers with respect but they also need to make sure they are not infringing copyrights. The place you go that does not ask any questions may be more convenient for you but if they are shut down by a expensive settlement then they will not be convenient any longer.
FORD = F***er Only Rolls Downhill
@ 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.
It is all about context. It sounds to me like the cars in the calendar were basically product shots. [www.irphotoschool.com] In that case yes Ford does own the copyright to the design of the car. Without a product release they are sunk.
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.
@Buran:
Actually, they were trying to get people to buy licenses to do any photographic work in NYC that depicts NYC.
Due to security concerns you cannot legally take any photos taken ON or near a Bridge without permission.
AND
[www.nytimes.com]
several other places require permits when taking photos (especially in the south)
I’m a member of a Ford truck website and I have 4 Fords in my driveway right now. I’m really sad to read about this but I’ve posted a link to this article on our website hoping it will spark an interesting discussion. Any other Ford fans or anyone else with an educated opinion should feel free to check it out.
[www.v6f150.com]
Ebay reacts the same as cafepress in this – If you try to sell a replica of some vintage Ferrari and list it on ebay stating clearly that it’s not real, and list it in the category they created specifically for replicas, ebay will cancel your listing if contacted by someone who is allegedly representing Ferrari.
They will do the same if you’re selling a stock car (corvette, fiero, etc.) and list its color as “Ferrari red” or say a custom with “Ferrari wheels”
Kinkos once refused to print a window sticker I made for my real ferrari (bearing our ferrari club logo) because it is “Ferrari’s property” I offered to show the title to the car which clearly showed I owned it, not Ferrari, and they still refused.
Using a photograph to sell a copyrighted object is considered fair use.
@rockergal: I am assuming you are talking just about NY. Taking a photo on a bridge or of a bridge is perfectly legal. Please link to the statute in question.
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.
@professorjonathan: @rhombopteryx:
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.
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.
@Buran:
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.
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?
@rockergal: That’s funny, I’ve taken pictures of bridges without anyone hassling me or caring.
@Photogdc: If it’s your own photo and your own copyright, and they still act like jerks about it, then they don’t deserve your business or your friends’/family’s. They can screw someone else as far as I’m concerned.
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.
This has EFF written all over it.
@Buran: Dammit, somebody who doesn’t think this is an important issue deleted my topic. Grrr.
Rather than letting the salesmen know, try Ford’s public affairs.
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.
Ford’s public affairs: [secure.ford.com]
(I screwed up the link).
@trollkiller:
Yes I did mean NYC. It may not be enforced as much anymore now.
I guess it’s now the best business practice to piss off your customers, hey it’s working for the RIAA right?
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.
@WV.Hillbilly: Do the words ‘public domain’ mean anything to them?
I thought professional photographers could get away with using trademarked items as long as the items were being photographed in how they are used. IE: a car is shot being driven on a street vs. a car being used to I don’t know, fry burgers on?
Am I wrong?
@kenposan: I have not read the article but I think this will answer your question.
[library.findlaw.com]
@GreatMoose: Its also a big issue for race car modelers as well. Goodyear, Bosch and Marlboro have been causing folks headaches for the past few months.
Dr. E
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.
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.
@mgyqmb:
But that’s the reasonable bounds. The test in this case is the association with Ford. If they dropped all of the Ford branding, put hot models on the cars, and called it “Ladies of the Black Mustang Club,” they’d probably fall within fair use without needing Ford’s permission (again, they could get that if they made the effort). The emphasis would be that it’s a hot model calendar. It could still be grey if there’s still too much emphasis on the Ford product.
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”)?