View Full Version : More on copyrights...
Docmarc
Jan-14-2008, 10:27am
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/13/ford-car-owners-are.html
Tom C
Jan-14-2008, 11:02am
Ford is correct. Those people are try to use Ford's name, Ford's product, Ford's logo to make money for themselves. What if somebody makes their Mustang GT look like a May Kay car. Ford may not appreciate that on a calendar. Or who knows what could be in the background that Ford would not like. Or if a model was posing with guns next to the car...etc. Just like a musician may not like a concert to be released. Even though you think it sounds great the musicians may not and would rather it not be put out there. At mandolin symposium the first year, ther musicians had to meet and discuss if they would allow us to record the staff's concert. The final answer was no.
Neil Gladd
Jan-14-2008, 11:04am
If you take a photo of your car, or anyone elses, you own the copyright in the photo. This is allegedly about trademark infringement, but even so, I think the people at Ford have been inhaling too much exhaust fumes.
I assume that the builders in the Eye Candy section are there by choice.
Tom C
Jan-14-2008, 11:12am
If I was to make a calandar of my BRW Mando to sell for $$. I sure as heck would not do it without Ben Wilcox's approval or partnership of some kind. Maybe a calandar of serial killers holding the mando? How about the skin-heads quartet? Context. you should get the picture.
Then again my avitar is the psycho-squirrel holding a Gibs*n.
This is a very odd thread
delsbrother
Jan-14-2008, 12:04pm
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m278/durbien/squirrel.jpg
TeleMark
Jan-14-2008, 12:17pm
This is a very odd thread
We're a very odd bunch!
IMO, you're in the clear until someone asks you to stop. In any case, you would be risking essentially a Cease and Desist letter before they served you with papers, so let it run.
JEStanek
Jan-14-2008, 1:18pm
FYI, I made that Squirrel picture from an internet stolen squirrel and a mandolin (probably stolen from Dan's Archive!). #But... I'm not trying to make money off of it either. #Here's the "original"!
Jamie
EDIT: Since the eye candy pages are in effect advertising (with hot links to the builder's site where possible) set up by Scott, I think that area is safe and clear. I doubt Scott's that crazy to set himself up for trouble.
Ted Eschliman
Jan-14-2008, 1:53pm
I believe the squirrel photo is okay, as long as the headstock does not have a flowerpot...
JEStanek
Jan-14-2008, 2:01pm
You'll note I purged the name!
Jamie http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
The title of this thread is incorrect. It is a trademark issue, not copyright
Eugene
Jan-14-2008, 10:14pm
I assume that the builders in the Eye Candy section are there by choice.
Certainly on the early mandolin page that I helped put together by writing luthiers or their representative.
thistle3585
Jan-14-2008, 10:50pm
At first I thought the squirrel was discreetly flipping someone off then realized it was the fret board extension. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Stephen Perry
Jan-15-2008, 7:22am
Promoting their product is fine. For example, images showing your Ford car that you are selling. Promoting your product using their trademark isn't. For example, using images of their trademarks to promote your calendar.
Big firms try to police things quite vigorously. Have to for the trademark to hold. Even little firms like mine keep an eye out, especially for copyright infringement.