BMW own your photos...so they say...help!!!

[tessler]

forgive them father, they know not what they do.

many people do not understand the designer's passion for their design, and the pain they feel when their design gets taken and used without their consent, or worse, when the design gets used in a way the designer never intended.

ian

That's a nice sentiment, Ian, but "Passion and Pain" are hallmarks of the High School drama.

Just as writer's write and photographer's shoot, I do what I do for a living and I take my vocation, and plagiarism, as seriously as any other practitioner.

 

[marchyman]

many people do not understand the designer's passion for their design, and the pain they feel when their design gets taken and used without their consent, or worse, when the design gets used in a way the designer never intended.

Maybe not fashion designers. Anyone can copy any apparel design and legally sell it as their own.

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

 

[alzyck]

Win? In the US you've got a well established first amendment right to parody such things. As long as a trademark parody doesn't confuse the public or compete with the trademarked goods or services there is no harm. That might not stop the trademark owner from suing, but if you are willing to pay for a half decent lawyer you will likely to win. Might not be cheap, though. Or you can just continue making fun of a company (or its law firm) that doesn't seem to have a sense of humor. Example (Unicorn, the new white meat).

Don't know what the rules are outside of the US.

I guess I'm not sure it's that clear. Several years ago, here in Omaha, someone created "Mutual of Omaha" parody t-shirts called "Mutant of Omaha". It was obvious the t-shirts were a parody. Mutual sued for trademark infringement and won. They also won the appeal.

According to the following article, there's been rulings on both sides of the parody/trademark issue. Parody gets a lot of leeway, but it's not a slam dunk.

http://www.sff.net/people/lucy-snyder/brain/2001/02/us-court-rulings-on-parody-in.html

 

[pmdave]

I used to be very proud of my machines, and I would religiously replace any damaged or fading logos. But if that loyalty is misplaced, perhaps it's time for a litle revolution. Maybe its time for a vehicle owner to determine the use of logos.

Do I have any legal resppnsibility to display a logo that provides free advertising to the manufacturer? Does an owner have any legal responsibility to maintain a logo, badge, or name installed or formed on a vehicle by the manufacturer?

Is there any legal reason the owner of a vehicle couldn't attach a logo of his/her own design to a commercial product, say a motorcycle?

I'm imagining a blue disc with the letters WMB at the top (acronym for World Motor Bike). In the center of the disc would be a silver propeller, which would spin in the airstream. The propeller would be designed so that at speeds of 55-75mph, it would create an optical illusion of two opposed 90 degree arcs. Perhaps the disc could be made of a hologram that would change from blue to black.

The logo would be made of shiny plastic with an adhesive back that could be easily attached to the motorcycle of your choosing, perhaps in appropriate sizes or s hapes to fit over various manufacturer badges.

Maybe it could have the acronym MOA instead of WMB, which could be copyrighted by some large enthusiast organization.

A rider could simply stick this logo over the top of any other logos we choose to hide, perhaps stimulating other riders to ask, "hey, what brand of bike is that?"

Is it time?

pmdave

 

[marchyman]

According to the following article, there's been rulings on both sides of the parody/trademark issue. Parody gets a lot of leeway, but it's not a slam dunk.

http://www.sff.net/people/lucy-snyder/brain/2001/02/us-court-rulings-on-parody-in.html

Interesting read, thanks.

 

[rickgiroux]

Well, yes they are. They have shut down Mom and Pop repair shops that showed the Bar & Shield, They copyrighted "Hog", Hawg" and other words connected to motorcycles. They hit Dayton Tee-shirt shops which were selling Harley shirts and belt-buckles without company approval. You may remember they were going to try to copyright the "sound" of a V-Twin engine.

Here's an extended article on that question of rights:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/1998101101.html

What follows is a quote--probably illegally if H-D (c) has anything to do with it....

Trademarks
On this web site the words and logos: Bar & Shield Logo, Dyna Glide, Dyna Wide Glide, Eagle Iron, Electra Glide, Evolution, Fat Boy, HD, H-D, Harley, Harley-Davidson, Harley Owners Group, HOG, HOG Logo, Heritage Softail, Hugger, Ladies of Harley, Low Glide, Low Rider, Roadster, Screamin' Eagle, Softail, Sport Glide, Sportster, Springer, Sturgis, Super Glide, Tour-Pak, Tour Glide, Ultra Classic, Wide Glide, and Road King are registered trademarks of Harley-Davidson, Inc. , Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The words: Convertible, Duo Glide, Hydra Glide, and V-Fire III are trademarks of Harley-Davidson, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

As I understood the origional questions about this, BMW AG is reticent to be seeming to endorse/be represented by/be connected to an aftermarket commercial enterprise without specifc permission.

Mac

Hmmmmm. check out http://www.fatboyicecream.com/

this company is owned by a friend's family. he has a good story about fighting that milwaukee company over the name, and winning.

 

[grafikfeat]

Does anyone have any experience with this?

If BMW are correct then, any photos, images and even video posted here or anywhere else is in fact theirs and not yours, even though you own the vehicle.

Help and advice would be really appreciated!

All the best
Simon

Copyright is a funny thing.

But in this case you are making money off the marquee.
If you were to alter the markings/logos on said motorcycle than you would be ok.
At this point you are selling an image of a BMW GS of which you do not have the right to do.
You can publish the photo. You cannot make money from it.
Alter it to look like a generic motorcycle than you would most likely be OK.

I deal w/ this issue almost every day. Logo removal off of models.
Same goes for sneaker patterns. If not part of the ad they must be made non-identifiable.

 

[classicvw]

I don't think removal of the manufacturer's logo would be enough. BMW would claim (probably rightfully so) that the motorcycle is still identifiable as /recognizable as/ or it represents a BMW motorcycle. Even if you removed the logo, you still couldn't then say "Here's where we traveled on our BMW motorcycle."

As others have said, BMW does not own your photo, but it retains the right to allow you or not allow you to profit from something that contains their copyrighted images in them.

 

[grafikfeat]

I don't think removal of the manufacturer's logo would be enough. BMW would claim (probably rightfully so) that the motorcycle is still identifiable as /recognizable as/ or it represents a BMW motorcycle. Even if you removed the logo, you still couldn't then say "Here's where we traveled on our BMW motorcycle."

As others have said, BMW does not own your photo, but it retains the right to allow you or not allow you to profit from something that contains their copyrighted images in them.

I know. I said to make it not identifiable as a BMW Motorcycle. (at least I think I did )

In his image it could be altering the taillight shape and removing the cylinder, etc.
Hard to see closer as his image on Flickr is low rez too.

 

[mika]

I am not a lawyer and donÔÇÖt play one on the forum. I know that some of the respondents are and have given reasonable generic advice responses that make sense. However, I am curious.

Did Zazzle supply you with a copy of BMW AGÔÇÖs objection notification?

Have you contacted BMW AG directly about this matter?

BMW AG along with many other companies is very and rightfully protective of their logos and related intellectual property rights. I imagine they have dedicated staff to monitor sites and media with very broad guidelines for what may constitute a violation or infringement. To demonstrate to courts that they actively have been protecting these they treat all occurrences the same way ÔÇô with a big hammer.

I followed the link to ZazzleÔÇÖs content guidelines. They appear sufficiently helpful and vague at the same time allowing them, as a third party; to duck out safely, any time a company raises a concern. The onus to defend your works right to be published as is and or gain any releases falls on you.

I am not taking sides but am curious if you were given the information needed to respond to BMW AGÔÇÖs complaint, what response if any they made if you were given the info and did contact them, and what accommodations they demanded in their response.

 

[widebmw]

This is posted on two topics on this board.
The rest of the story is at
http://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread.php?p=606060#post606060

 

[pmdave]

Well, there is a difference between FatBoy and Fat Boy, legally speaking.

pmdave

 

[xp8103]

Admittedly coming late

Business Law was one of the most enjoyable classes I took in college unrelated to my major (computer science)...

From one of the cited links:
"The use of a licensed shirt to make fabric items and then to sell them is covered under copyright law under the First Sale Doctrine. In Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anzaresearch Int'l, Inc (98 F.3d 1109, reversed), Justice Stevens noted for a unanimous court: "The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it, he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution."

So, that applies to the item itself but not images of the item? I have to assume that is the case. The opinion above implies the original item placed into the stream of commerce. It's what allows us to re-sell our bikes but prevents the OP from selling posters with his bike in it?

 

[pmdave]

Trying to sift through law is like trying to work your way across a river by finding the boulders to stand on--with lawyers continously stirring up the mud so everything is hidden.

I have to assume there is a difference between the actual product and an image of the product. That is, when BMW sells a motorcycle they can't claim any further control over how it is used, displayed, or even modified.

But if you take an image of the sacred BMW logo, BMW can claim they must have control over how it is used. Their high-priced lawyers might argue that a depiction of a bike with the logo visible, or an article in which the author uses the term "BMW", or further describes the machine in the image as a BMW gives them a reason to attempt to control the use of the image, especially for commercial purposes.

Let's say you take a nice photo of a BMW motorcycle, in which the logo is sharp and clear. You print up some T shirts with that image. If you attempt to sell those T shirts without BMW's permission, they could argue that you're using their logo. I don't think it makes any difference whether the photo is supportive or not, BMW simply wants to control the use of their corporate images. Let's say the photo is of an oilhead with the final drive removed by the side of the road. I don't think that would be any different from a complete, shiny, operational BMW by the side of the road.

However, let's note once more the difference between volunteer and commercial products. If you're not selling the image or words, it's much less likely BMW AG would take any notice or action.

pmdave

 

[xp8103]

However, let's note once more the difference between volunteer and commercial products. If you're not selling the image or words, it's much less likely BMW AG would take any notice or action.

pmdave

Hmmmm..... I'm pretty sure that is what Napster had in mind too??

I don't disagree with anything you say and I'm not arguing the point. Just find it all a little bit confusing for sure. For instance, I buy an early oil-head (huh... wait, that's not a fer instance... ) and its FD pooches on the road and I'm so upset that I push the bike off a cliff allowing it to land 500' below in a crumbled heap, still but barely recognizable as a BMW. I can sell it before I push it off the cliff to some other dolt who thinks it's worth fixing. No problem. I can let it land and then, in an epiphany, recognize it as "art" and sell it to the local gallery. No problem. But I can't take a picture of it in all it's heap-ness and sell that image?

 

[grafikfeat]

Lets say I post a few images of any one of you on a Porn Site.

Would you be upset?

 

[xp8103]

Lets say I post a few images of any one of you on a Porn Site.

Would you be upset?

The site would be taken down for sure, but with "denial of service" attacks!!!

 

[grafikfeat]

Hmmmm..... I'm pretty sure that is what Napster had in mind too??

I don't disagree with anything you say and I'm not arguing the point. Just find it all a little bit confusing for sure. For instance, I buy an early oil-head (huh... wait, that's not a fer instance... ) and its FD pooches on the road and I'm so upset that I push the bike off a cliff allowing it to land 500' below in a crumbled heap, still but barely recognizable as a BMW. I can sell it before I push it off the cliff to some other dolt who thinks it's worth fixing. No problem. I can let it land and then, in an epiphany, recognize it as "art" and sell it to the local gallery. No problem. But I can't take a picture of it in all it's heap-ness and sell that image?

Nope. You don't own the 'likeness'.
One further... You get a picture taken at a professional phogs studio.
You go to kinkos to copy it. They say nope. It's copywritten.
butbutbut... It's ME!
You bought the use of the image. Not the right to reproduce it.

Easy way to remember it: Did you 'create it'? If no... You don't 'own it'.

There are many gray areas. Libraries loaning CD's etc. Yes you can dupe it.
This is why iTunes music downloads are encoded. Know what? I applaud that.
If you can't afford 99 cents for a song you can't afford the MP3 player you are listening to it on.

But I digress.
Change the identifying marks on the motorcycle (with that legal copy of photoshop on your computer),
and you will most likely get past BMW Legal.

 

[Visian]

You bought the use of the image. Not the right to reproduce it.

now if i could only get clients to pay for the use of my creative themes......

also important to note is the concept of "work for hire"

 

[Visian]

This is why iTunes music downloads are encoded. Know what? I applaud that.
If you can't afford 99 cents for a song you can't afford the Apple MP4 player you are listening to it on.

fixed.