"How about we alienate our fans?" - Ford takes a page from the RIAA playbook
The internet has made it incredibly easy for groups of enthusiasts to communicate and collaborate. Gearheads benefit a lot from this. It's easy to share pictures of our beloved rides, and with services like CafePress, you can even get some cool merchandise made up. Just like the record business is going after people who allegedly stole a whole bunch of music (how about the record company contracts, which are often a detailing of how the label will pillage an artist, cloaked in the fig leaf of legalese?), Ford has decided that it didn't like a bunch of Jaguar fans making up calendars and selling them to a small group of like-minded people. The idea that there'd be enthusiasts so enamored with one of its PAG properties that they'd go through all that effort was so abhorrent to Ford that the automaker shot off a trademark infringement lawsuit to put an end to the Leaper Love Fest. Maybe Jag's next owner will embrace the fans rather than alienate them.
Thanks for the tip, Chuck
[Source: XKE Data via Goolsbee.org]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ryan C. 10:36AM (10/12/2007)
Keyword "selling". Intellectual Property is still Intellectual Property. And when the trade of currency is involved, civil law is broken. I see no issue with this.
Reply
zach 10:54AM (10/12/2007)
While Ford may be legally correct in their position; I think the point here is to point out the petty and childish nature of Ford's actions.
This calendar is potentially costing Ford what? $100?
With all of Ford's problems, they probably have one or two other issues they could be focusing on instead of a few enthusiasts celebrating a make of car that Ford won't even own in a month or two. This is just stupid.
Calebe 10:58AM (10/12/2007)
And not all laws are correct.
no_slushbox 11:08AM (10/12/2007)
". . . when the trade of currency is involved, civil law is broken." - Leave the legalese to actual lawyers. FYI trademark law is both civil and criminal and violation of it does not require the exchange of money.
That said, going after a calendar that raises a couple hundred a year for an enthusiast (of your product) club is beyond stupid.
This happened because an overzealous lawyer at a firm retained by Ford wanted to get some additional billing in by charging the hours taken to write this shake down letter.
vice 11:13PM (10/12/2007)
Get real.
The person who took the picture owns the copyright to that picture. The photographers get the money for an image if income is produced from it, not the car company. If Ford had a case, EVERY car magazine and website would be shut down. But that aint gonna happen because they're full of beans.
Ford is bluffing with their pit-bull lawyers. This kind of thing happens all the time. Attorney letters go out to scare people. Fight the power, I say.
The only people who should be scared is FORD. They are marketing MORONS. No wonder they have lost hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, whereas European and Asian manufactures are kicking Ford's ass all over the map.
What exactly is the point of pissing off people who have paid a lot of money over the years to be a fan of a car/marque/brand? Piss them off enough and they'll switch to another marque, it's not like there is zero competion out there. Idiots.
Eric Liberatore 10:40AM (10/12/2007)
So if I sell pictures of me and I'm clothed do I have to pay a royalty to the manufacturers of the clothes? How stupid is this world going to get?
Reply
Pete 10:49AM (10/12/2007)
I know there is a following of Ford Contour enthusiasts that make a calender every year displaying their cars...I wonder if Ford will sue them?
I have to admit this is ridiculous.
rndmnme 10:50AM (10/12/2007)
Well, not exactly. It's like you took a picture in Abercrombie and Fitch clothing and decided to market it as and A&F modeling calender. It's still a stupid move, because they are probably making little to no money off of it (relative to Ford) and they aren't going to likely give a percentage to Ford, they're just going to stop making them. Thus, all this will do for Ford is make them look bad.
compy386 10:48AM (10/12/2007)
This is kind of like what Apple did when they sued their own fansite for leaking material. I don't know how the fansite got that information, but don't sue your fans. Dumb for business.
Reply
Mike Botros 10:53AM (10/12/2007)
I would do the same thing if I wasn't getting my due from someone else marketing something I created.
Reply
zach 10:56AM (10/12/2007)
Ford created the e-type? really?
Honestly, don't people see how ridiculous this is?
Calebe 10:58AM (10/12/2007)
They should have said, If you donate 10 dollars to our club you will get a free calender. Still you would think Ford would be all for helping out the brand. Pretty sad actually.
Reply
Jason 10:57AM (10/12/2007)
What was the source of the photos/imagery used in the calendars? If the photos are taken by people and submitted by them, I don't see how Ford can say or do anything about it. If they're using promotional photos/material from Ford/Jaguar, then I could see an issue.
Reply
carguy 11:10AM (10/12/2007)
While it seems daft, Ford has to protect its Jaguar trademark or it will go into the public domain where other commercial entities can freely use it and cash in on it.
Reply
Keith 11:37AM (10/12/2007)
Amen to carguy. Ford needs to send these letters out or it loses its copyright protection. Sad as it sounds (and don't laugh too loudly) it does need to protect the integrity of its brand. Of course, the approach of giving the calendars away would work, too, in exchange for a "donation" that isn't mandatory.
Gardiner Westbound 11:18AM (10/12/2007)
Another brilliant Ford "Bold Move".
Reply
anonimo 11:20AM (10/12/2007)
The issue here is whether the images were transformitive or not. If the seller took pictures of jaguars from some source other than his own ( any website or Jaguar/Ford sites or publications ) then the seller is indeed in the wrong. If the seller simply took a photo of a Jag, and the sole purpose was sell an image of a Jaguar, he owns the photo, but not the rights to the Jag itself. However, if the images were photos taken by the seller to artistically interpret the object, it is transformative under copyright law. In other words, if the intent was to sell artwork, and that can be demonstrated, then the seller is OK. If the intent was to simply sell an image of a Jaguar, and the way the photograph was taken/modified/presented offers no additional artistic value, then the seller is in the wrong.
The trouble is, CafePress can't tell the difference, or doesn't feel like it, and just wants to remove all images having anything to do with a Ford.
Nevertheless, there are still tons of people using copyrighted logos or vehicle names, and even downloaded wallpapers from manufacturer websites. This is wrong, and it is hurting the true artists who are creating their own artistic work, even if the subject matter is a Ford.
Reply
Eleventeen 11:40AM (10/12/2007)
Chucks cars - beautiful as always. Great shot.
Reply
chuck goolsbee 3:15PM (10/12/2007)
Thank you "Eleventeen".
It is just "car" though. I don't have the cash to support anything beyond a singular car. ;)
--chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
Alex 11:39AM (10/12/2007)
Take the number of calendars sold, A, multiply by the probable vale of each, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of legal fees, we don't sue.
i can't imagine this stunt will net in the black for Ford.
Reply