p.1 #4 · Ford claiming rights to photos others took
Spydweb wrote:
I wonder if Canon, has rights to all the logo's shown in the B+S
The difference being, people aren't trying to sell the photos...they're selling the equipment.
In this case, the club was selling calendars (making a profit?) containing photos of Mustangs...which probably show the Ford logo, and heck...Ford probably even has the likeness of a Mustang copyrighted.
p.1 #5 · Ford claiming rights to photos others took
They can't sell enough cars to break even, they are now behind Toyota in sales and this is how they treat people who are nuts over the Mustang. WAY TO GO FORD, that's a way to get them back in the dealership.
p.1 #6 · Ford claiming rights to photos others took
Trademark matters are (I think) matters of dilution and confusion, there may be an aspect of needing to keep up with "enforcement" to maintain rights. So it may be that their isn't much dilution or confusion but they feel the need to actively "protect" the brand. Which tends to be unfortunate because they are aggravating their own customer base here.
Union Pacific agressively targets model makers for marketing licenses, etc., and it's only logos/paint schemes that differentiate different railroads cars and locos in many cases.
I guess it remains to be seen where this will go and just what the details are. Plenty of ads out there using comparisons, logos, actual products etc., with fineprint disclaimers. Maybe all they need are some disclaimers, maybe not. I'll bet the lawyers will make more than the photographers.
p.1 #9 · Ford claiming rights to photos others took
Forrest Egan wrote:
Sorry...if their 'logo' is clearly visible, you need their permission.
You have photos with trademarked logos on your page as well and since you are promoting your business you are in violation as well . Most photographers have some degree of violation as there are visible trademarks in a lot of photos .
p.1 #11 · Ford claiming rights to photos others took
Forrest Egan wrote:
Sorry...if their 'logo' is clearly visible, you need their permission.
ericevans wrote:
You have photos with trademarked logos on your page as well and since you are promoting your business you are in violation as well . Most photographers have some degree of violation as there are visible trademarks in a lot of photos.
The difference, AGAIN, just like the Buy & Sell reference to Canon's logo on gear being sold, is that I'm not SELLING the photos which contain their LOGO. These people were SELLLING a calendar which contained photos of Ford's copyrighted LOGO.
If I were selling prints of the racing images on my website, then the sponsors/teams would have an issue with my site. Check out my Purchase page (which links to my PrintRoom account) ... only Astrophotography and Wildlife are for sale. For a similar reason...I don't have any of those racing photos on my business cards...specifically because I don't have releases to use them in that manner.
p.1 #12 · Ford claiming rights to photos others took
There's got to be more to the claim than just the visibility/inclusion of logos. We don't know what it is, not having any of the actual documents involved. One could sell street scenes with cars and not need to delete all of the various logos, delete corporate ads, signs and images, etc. For example, a street scene with cars, a fast food restaurant, the Post Office, etc. All are "protected" in some ways, but it's OK to sell the picture. There's no confusion that this is a "post office" picture.
Likely is the project in a whole depends to heavily on "ford" trade properties, like use of the name Mustang, and an apparent conclusion/claimed confusion that this is Ford supported/endorsed or even "official."
p.1 #13 · Ford claiming rights to photos others took
Forrest Egan wrote:
Sorry...if their 'logo' is clearly visible, you need their permission.
Would the logo of the car not be visible if you take a picture from the front? What now? If I want to sell my car, or make a website with my car, I need permission if I take a picture of the car logo?
Ford should be focused on selling more cars... their marketshare is slipping away and has been for quite some time! Retards!
p.1 #14 · Ford claiming rights to photos others took
FYI, this has been resolved. The club apparently got a nice letter from someone at Ford clearing them to run it & wanting to buy one themselves. It seems the issue was CafePress has had issues with selling stuff with Ford's logo in the past, so they held up printing. The club is going with another printer & has Ford's blessing.
As Forrest said, if their trademarked logo is visible on a product you're selling you need permission. Ever wonder why ArmorAll or Turtle Wax (I forget which) has debadged all the vehicles in their TV ads? That's why.
Now, don't all you guys who ripped on Ford feel silly?
Jan 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM
jjlphoto Offline • • • • • [X]
p.1 #15 · Ford claiming rights to photos others took
Often times, the bottom of such published pieces have: Ford logo, Mustang image, etc., are Registered Trademarks of the Ford Motor Company, or something like that.
p.1 #16 · Ford claiming rights to photos others took
Forrest Egan wrote:
Sorry...if their 'logo' is clearly visible, you need their permission.
akovacsi wrote:
Would the logo of the car not be visible if you take a picture from the front? What now? If I want to sell my car, or make a website with my car, I need permission if I take a picture of the car logo?
No, because you're selling your car, not a photo of your car with a Ford logo on it...the photo is only published to show people what you're selling. The real issue in this documented case is that they were selling calendars which included the Ford logo without asking Ford for permission...forget the fact that the cars were even there.
