TheSamba.com :: View topic

Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:49 am

http://www.adrants.com/2008/01/ford-slaps-brand-enthusiasts-returns.php

Looks like they need more royalty money after getting passed by Toyota...
:roll:

Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:56 am

That's just pathetic!

Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:09 am

Quote: Ford ... claiming all the images in the calendar are the property of Ford.

WTF? How can they possibly claim that? :shock:

I take a picture of MY car, I can do with it what I want! :roll:

Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:15 am

pyrOman wrote: Quote: Ford ... claiming all the images in the calendar are the property of Ford.

WTF? How can they possibly claim that? :shock:

I take a picture of MY car, I can do with it what I want! :roll:
x2 Consumers need to get at least something out of their thousands spent.

Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:18 am

typesoneandtwo wrote: pyrOman wrote: Quote: Ford ... claiming all the images in the calendar are the property of Ford.

WTF? How can they possibly claim that? :shock:

I take a picture of MY car, I can do with it what I want! :roll:
x2 Consumers need to get at least something out of their thousands overspent.

fixed for you

Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:23 am

90volts wrote: typesoneandtwo wrote: pyrOman wrote: Quote: Ford ... claiming all the images in the calendar are the property of Ford.

WTF? How can they possibly claim that? :shock:

I take a picture of MY car, I can do with it what I want! :roll:
x2 Consumers need to get at least something out of their thousands overspent.

fixed for you

:lol: :lol: yup, Fords suck ass. You can't polish a turd.

Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:27 am

pyrOman wrote: Quote: Ford ... claiming all the images in the calendar are the property of Ford.

WTF? How can they possibly claim that? :shock:

I take a picture of MY car, I can do with it what I want! :roll:
I guess you didn't read the fine print when the car was originally purchased. It states the manufacturer owns the right and images for perpetuity for all owners.

Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:30 am

Glenn wrote: pyrOman wrote: Quote: Ford ... claiming all the images in the calendar are the property of Ford.

WTF? How can they possibly claim that? :shock:

I take a picture of MY car, I can do with it what I want! :roll:
I guess you didn't read the fine print when the car was originally purchased. It states the manufacturer owns the right and images for perpetuity for all owners.

That's 'cause I didn't buy a forkin ford! :twisted:

Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:31 am

pyrOman wrote: Glenn wrote: pyrOman wrote: Quote: Ford ... claiming all the images in the calendar are the property of Ford.

WTF? How can they possibly claim that? :shock:

I take a picture of MY car, I can do with it what I want! :roll:
I guess you didn't read the fine print when the car was originally purchased. It states the manufacturer owns the right and images for perpetuity for all owners.

That's 'cause I didn't buy a forkin ford! :twisted:
VWoA does the same... they own the images.

Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:34 am

Glenn wrote: VWoA does the same... they own the images.

I've bought nothing from them either. Their logo is one thing, however, the one on my bus is all mine, images and all! :twisted:

Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:09 am

Hmmm. I know a bit about copyright and trademark laws. These issues aren't so clear. Despite contract language, the law of the land supercedes.
Trademarks only pertain to words, names or slogans. Design Patents apply to vehicle design and expire after 17 years. How can VW or Ford legally prevent someone from snapping a picture of their car and retaining rights to that picture when they aren't even within their rights to stop a direct copy of their older design(repro parts, for example.) I don't claim to know the answer here, but I think the contract terms could be considered null and void if they conflict with the law of the land. All it takes is one pissed off lawyer with the nuts to challenge cease and desist orders, IMO. They probably would not hold up.

Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:05 am

typesoneandtwo wrote: How can VW or Ford legally prevent someone from snapping a picture of their car and retaining rights to that picture when they aren't even within their rights to stop a direct copy of their older design(repro parts, for example.)
Because they have deep pockets to pay lawyers that can out last you.

Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:11 am

Glenn wrote: typesoneandtwo wrote: How can VW or Ford legally prevent someone from snapping a picture of their car and retaining rights to that picture when they aren't even within their rights to stop a direct copy of their older design(repro parts, for example.)
Because they have deep pockets to pay lawyers that can out last you.
You are correct. Like I said, all it takes is a pissed-off lawyer. I wasn't suggesting that I alone could change that. :wink:

Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:20 am

Glenn wrote: typesoneandtwo wrote: How can VW or Ford legally prevent someone from snapping a picture of their car and retaining rights to that picture when they aren't even within their rights to stop a direct copy of their older design(repro parts, for example.)
Because they have deep pockets to pay lawyers that can out last you.

Ok then.

Please explain how the professionals legally get away with motorsports photography.

http://rally-america.com/photo_gallery.php?pic=60&gallery=5

Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:25 am

yetibone wrote: Glenn wrote: typesoneandtwo wrote: How can VW or Ford legally prevent someone from snapping a picture of their car and retaining rights to that picture when they aren't even within their rights to stop a direct copy of their older design(repro parts, for example.)
Because they have deep pockets to pay lawyers that can out last you.

Ok then.

Please explain how the professionals legally get away with motorsports photography.

http://rally-america.com/photo_gallery.php?pic=60&gallery=5

Or how the content on any website is the copyright of the website owner, even if it contains thousands of images of cars that are supposedly the property of some car company.

Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:31 am

...and some of the pics bring good money too. $5 to $50 a pop from a team for a shot of their car out on a stage.

Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:37 am

typesoneandtwo wrote: yetibone wrote: Glenn wrote: typesoneandtwo wrote: How can VW or Ford legally prevent someone from snapping a picture of their car and retaining rights to that picture when they aren't even within their rights to stop a direct copy of their older design(repro parts, for example.)
Because they have deep pockets to pay lawyers that can out last you.

Ok then.

Please explain how the professionals legally get away with motorsports photography.

http://rally-america.com/photo_gallery.php?pic=60&gallery=5

Or how the content on any website is the copyright of the website owner, even if it contains thousands of images of cars that are supposedly the property of some car company.
If they're "hot linked" and not hosted on the site, then...

Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:41 am

Then what? They're the property of the site that the pics originate from.

Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:00 pm

You guys obviously weren't around when VWoA went for this.....

I was printing and selling a shirt with a VW Beetle on it at the time, no logo, no word "Volkswagen" or "VW". I was "served" with a letter of lawsuit, to cease and desist, as many vendors were. I studied the law, and did some net sleuthing and came up with this:

VWoA had hired a third rate "IP Protector" to "protect" their images. It was a guy who was hiring a bunch of college law students to work out of his house (and he was being sued all the while by his neighbors for running an illegal business out of his house...) and write "scary" threatening letters to people he had found on the web selling stuff with VW pics and logos. It was amazing that a company as big as VWoA had hired such a bottom-feeder as this guy. I had all the data on him, his house, his family, family problems, etc. I won't divulge here, but this guy was a scumbag.

At that time, VWoA had applied to the UPTO (US patent and trademark office) to trademark the/any image of the Beetle and were denied on the grounds that the image was vague and could be from all angles, different years etc. They since appealed and I think have the trademark, all of this history is available on the USPTO website if you care to dig deep enough.

But that wasn't the legal basis for their efforts, $$$ was. They could just hire scumbag to write scary letters and rattle enough people and ge thtem to pay back some money. I blew them off complete, and eventually started refusing the registered letters. I know some well established VW part suppliers who astonishingly (to me anyway) paid this scumbag well into 5 figures to get him to leave them alone.... and I know of another Fullerton shop owner transplant from VT who told them to pound sand (actually those are not his actual words...) and has to this day (I'd expect nothing less).

They went after many, many clubs, but in the end when the Michigan club confronted them, made it clear to them that it was VERY bad press, the severed their ties with the dumpster businessman.

Fact is these businesses have the right to protect logos and images, and yes images can be trademarked. But money wins in all cases, so the legal basis does not have to be there.

Interestingly all the while VWoA was not only ignoring such publications as "Hot VWs" and "VW Trends" (who had no legal agreements with VWoA to use the term "VW"), but was actually buying advertising space from them.....

Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:17 pm

FUCKED OVER REBUILT DODGE