Logo

Surreal · 11-16-2008, 11:08 AM

Toyota Claims Ownership of Fan Wallpapers

Quote:

This ‘Way’ is probably not communicated to its lawyers in great detail, which is why Desktopnexus, a site that provides desktop backgrounds, has been contacted by them. In perhaps one of the most wildly arrogant demands in DMCA history, Toyota’s lawyers are demanding the withdrawal of all wallpapers that feature a Toyota, Scion, or Lexus. The site’s owner, Harry Maugans contacted Toyota to clarify. He was told that all images featuring Toyota vehicles should be removed, even images with copyright belonging to others.

Speaking to TorrentFreak, Maugans said: “Their lawyer, Garrett Biggs, told us that if we wanted them to specifically identify their images, we would have to pay for them to do so”. Maugans also said he was afraid it would come to a lawsuit, fearing the attrition effect that is so common now in copyright disputes. Toyota, with cash assets of over $23Billion can surely afford to spin out the legal costs in an attempt to bankrupt the site – the same strategy that is often used to ‘encourage‘ a settlement in RIAA cases.

Eirik · 11-16-2008, 11:39 AM

WTF

Right now I'm glad I didn't get that job for Toyota. What a shite company.

I'd have expected this bullcrap from Sony or EA perhaps. But Toyota?

This can't even be legal. Isn't the copyright of a photograph held by the photographer? If this is illegal, then when will my architect sue me for putting a picture of my house online? And can Converse sue me because I'm wearing Chucks on a picture on facebook?

**Vivianne Draper** · 11-16-2008, 11:41 AM

Not only that, unless the car in question actually belongs to toyota, i don't see how they could claim ownership

Richie Waves · 11-16-2008, 11:48 AM

they must be bored out of their minds and need something to do with their day :/

Chip Midnight · 11-16-2008, 12:33 PM

If he's using their logos without permission they have a case, at least as far as trademark goes, but the copyright issue is preposterous unless Toyota owns the images being used (and sounds like they're claiming to own at least some of them). It's a stupid claim since it's just free advertising for Toyota and doesn't compete with them in any way, but I can't say I have any real sympathy for the guy. "Don't violate copyrights that don't belong to you" isn't exactly a difficult principle to adhere to. If the guy isn't using photos he doesn't have permission to use then he should tell Toyota to stuff it. If he is, then he was asking for it.

Aodhan McDunnough · 11-16-2008, 12:39 PM

If they come from Toyota brochures, posters, press kits or other official prints Toyota can claim copyright violation.

One reason they might want to hit him is income he gets from his websites whether he sells the posters or runs ads. Not that the money would make a difference to Toyota but the principle of it.

Tess Whitcroft · 11-16-2008, 01:06 PM

It sounds to me like they are requiring the website owner to either

At his own expense become an expert in Toyota so that he could identify every real Toyota, ancient and modern, on the web site

Remove every image that "might" be a Toyota

Pay Toyota to tell him what images are really theirs.

Aside from being stupid this is just wrong in many other ways.

For example. What if I go to the near by Ferrari dealership and park a Toyota in the midst of all the Ferrari's and Lamborghini's and get a small group of well dressed folk to gather around it staring at it and ignoring all the fancy cars all around. I take a picture and make a desktop background of it and put it on this website.

It could well turn out to be a popular desktop. It is funny and yet speaks well of Toyota. I took the picture myself. I have the permission of the Ferrari Dealer and the owners of all the cars in the picture including the Toyota. And yet if I read corrently the web site owner is being told to remove it?

Can Toyota really even do that?

Tess

**Beebo Brink** · 11-16-2008, 01:11 PM

More and more interesting:

Quote:

Yet, Toyota has also been cagey. These demands have not been sent in the form of a DMCA notice. While sending such a notice would require the takedown, it also requires that the person sending the notice legally certify that they are legal representatives for the copyright holders at issue. Making a false statement is ‘punishable under penalty of perjury‘, which is not taken lightly in US courts.

Alt Foxtrot · 11-16-2008, 02:22 PM

even if they are using brochure pics, if they are not SELLING the wallpapers, Toyota can't really do anything about it, can they?

**Beebo Brink** · 11-16-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alt Foxtrot

even if they are using brochure pics, if they are not SELLING the wallpapers, Toyota can't really do anything about it, can they?

Intellectual property rights can be violated even without sales. Any image on a Toyota brochure is obviously their property and cannot be used without permission. But Toyota's objection appears to be of any image that includes their cars, no matter who took the image. Which is daft.

Alt Foxtrot · 11-16-2008, 02:42 PM

Toyota has opened a whole new can of worms here, and possibly a can of whoopass as well. i can't wait to find out how this resolves.

Malachi · 11-16-2008, 02:53 PM

Copyright Office Basics

What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
...
Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

There is a specific case that covers photos of things that you can see on a street, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Google Street View would not exist but for that protection.

Chip Midnight · 11-16-2008, 03:00 PM

I don't think they're claiming that they own copyright on any image of a toyota. If they were they wouldn't have told the guy he'd have to pay them to tell him which specific images they owned a copyright on. They're just being nebulous in order to bully him into shutting down in order to save them the trouble of issuing a proper takedown notice.

Aodhan McDunnough · 11-16-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebo Brink

Intellectual property rights can be violated even without sales. Any image on a Toyota brochure is obviously their property and cannot be used without permission. But Toyota's objection appears to be of any image that includes their cars, no matter who took the image. Which is daft.

Until we know what kind of images are involved we can only speculate. If it's any image that has a Toyota in it, then yes it's daft. I drive a Toyota ... so that means I must make sure it never gets included in friend and family photos? Not bloody likely.

How about all those satellite photos and google stuff?

FlipperPA Peregrine · 11-16-2008, 03:10 PM

Apple is the worst I've seen at suing their own fans.

If you really want some lulz though, read up on the history of the NISSAN.COM domain.

See here: Nissan Computer Corporation

Regards,

-Flip

Sophia Tantalus · 11-18-2008, 10:14 AM

There's a really interesting case that speaks to 3D design- Toyota v. Meshworks. Tangentially related, but I'm posting it since it may be of interest.

Here's commentary from William Patry:

Quote:

...the digital models created by Meshwerks correspond to the Toyota vehicles they were intended to represent. Accordingly, Meshwerks's models are not protected by copyright law and the Toyota Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Meshwerks's copyright claims."

Sophia Tantalus · 11-18-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aodhan McDunnough

Until we know what kind of images are involved we can only speculate. If it's any image that has a Toyota in it, then yes it's daft. I drive a Toyota ... so that means I must make sure it never gets included in friend and family photos? Not bloody likely.

How about all those satellite photos and google stuff?

Lol- this makes me think of the hoops that filmakers must jump through.

My father is a painter who's artwork hangs in the Bellagio in Vegas. He was paid $1,000 because a corner of his painting shows up in one of the Ocean flicks for about 2 seconds.

This interview with the creator of Mad Hot Ballroom really shocked me.

Quote:

Stay Free!: There's a scene where a woman's cell phone rings and she has the "Rocky" theme ring tone. I noticed that you even cleared that! I would have thought that could be an example of fair use.

Sewell: I thought so too. It's only six seconds! But our lawyer said we needed to clear it. So I called Sprint, which owns the ring tone master rights, and they gave it to me for free because they saw it as product placement. But then I called EMI, which owns the publishing rights and they asked for $10,000. I said no way--even the classics weren't getting that much. Luckily, we were able to get it for less.

Quote:

Were there any other inconvenient clearances you had to deal with?

Sewell: Well, we had to watch out for billboards and Frito-Lay trucks all the time. But I usually didn't care, we would just shoot. The biggest danger with clearances is when they interfere with documenting real life. Something spontaneous like a cell phone ringing is different than a planned event. If filmmakers have to worry about these things, documentaries will cease to be documentaries! What happens when the girls go shopping and there's music playing in the stores? We were lucky because in our movie the music wasn't identifiable, but otherwise what are we supposed to do: walk up to the store manager and say, "Excuse me but can you turn off your radio?"

Tess Whitcroft · 11-18-2008, 09:02 PM

I am in favor of strong copyright laws but as they are now written and interpreted they are just daft. They seem to put a premium on getting every single penny possible out of a "work" and all those pennies seem to be going to middlemen and not to the actual creators.

Tess

juro · 11-20-2008, 05:03 PM

Looks like Toyota realized they stepped in a big pile o'poo...

Toyota Admits Wrongdoing in Wallpaper Case/

11-16-2008, 11:39 AM	#2 (permalink)
Eirik Anarch I hate you Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Occupied People's Republic of Flanders Posts: 2,991 My Mood: SL Join Date: May 2007 XBOX Leaderboard: 19^th	WTF Right now I'm glad I didn't get that job for Toyota. What a shite company. I'd have expected this bullcrap from Sony or EA perhaps. But Toyota? This can't even be legal. Isn't the copyright of a photograph held by the photographer? If this is illegal, then when will my architect sue me for putting a picture of my house online? And can Converse sue me because I'm wearing Chucks on a picture on facebook? __________________ Visca Catalunya! - Gora Euskal Herria! - Viva Galiza! - Visca Occitània! - Bevet Breizh! - Alba gu brath! - Erin go bragh! - Cymru am byth! - Leve Vlaanderen!

11-16-2008, 11:41 AM	#3 (permalink)
Vivianne Draper witly verbiage hear SLU Supporter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: DC Area Posts: 4,488 My Mood: SLShopper Ads: 2 SL Join Date: September 11, 2005 Blog Entries: 1	Not only that, unless the car in question actually belongs to toyota, i don't see how they could claim ownership __________________ ~~~~~

11-16-2008, 11:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
Richie Waves Joie de vivre! Is Three apples Tall Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Between Iraq and Israel Posts: 8,990 SL Join Date: 27/06/2005	they must be bored out of their minds and need something to do with their day :/ __________________ My lastfm Oooh, Betty! the cat did a shit in the hat

11-16-2008, 01:06 PM	#7 (permalink)
Tess Whitcroft Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,328 Awards: 1	It sounds to me like they are requiring the website owner to either At his own expense become an expert in Toyota so that he could identify every real Toyota, ancient and modern, on the web site Remove every image that "might" be a Toyota Pay Toyota to tell him what images are really theirs. Aside from being stupid this is just wrong in many other ways. For example. What if I go to the near by Ferrari dealership and park a Toyota in the midst of all the Ferrari's and Lamborghini's and get a small group of well dressed folk to gather around it staring at it and ignoring all the fancy cars all around. I take a picture and make a desktop background of it and put it on this website. It could well turn out to be a popular desktop. It is funny and yet speaks well of Toyota. I took the picture myself. I have the permission of the Ferrari Dealer and the owners of all the cars in the picture including the Toyota. And yet if I read corrently the web site owner is being told to remove it? Can Toyota really even do that? Tess __________________ Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

11-16-2008, 02:53 PM	#12 (permalink)
Malachi the bathwater & the baby fish and bees are inherently sarcastic Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,664	abbreviated but authoitativeish Copyright Office Basics What Is Not Protected by Copyright? Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others: ... Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents There is a specific case that covers photos of things that you can see on a street, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Google Street View would not exist but for that protection.

11-16-2008, 12:33 PM	#5 (permalink)
Chip Midnight That template guy Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,560 My Mood: Business: CMFF XBOX Leaderboard: 9^th	If he's using their logos without permission they have a case, at least as far as trademark goes, but the copyright issue is preposterous unless Toyota owns the images being used (and sounds like they're claiming to own at least some of them). It's a stupid claim since it's just free advertising for Toyota and doesn't compete with them in any way, but I can't say I have any real sympathy for the guy. "Don't violate copyrights that don't belong to you" isn't exactly a difficult principle to adhere to. If the guy isn't using photos he doesn't have permission to use then he should tell Toyota to stuff it. If he is, then he was asking for it.

11-16-2008, 12:39 PM	#6 (permalink)
Aodhan McDunnough exp(ln(Gearhead)) Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,841 My Mood: Beer Tapper Gone Wild Champion! Apprentice : Dairy Queen Champion! SLShopper Ads: 2 SL Join Date: March 28, 2006 Business: Aodhan's Forge Blog Entries: 2	If they come from Toyota brochures, posters, press kits or other official prints Toyota can claim copyright violation. One reason they might want to hit him is income he gets from his websites whether he sells the posters or runs ads. Not that the money would make a difference to Toyota but the principle of it.

11-16-2008, 02:22 PM	#9 (permalink)
Alt Foxtrot aka anneau trois Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 355 My Mood:	even if they are using brochure pics, if they are not SELLING the wallpapers, Toyota can't really do anything about it, can they?

11-16-2008, 02:42 PM	#11 (permalink)
Alt Foxtrot aka anneau trois Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 355 My Mood:	Toyota has opened a whole new can of worms here, and possibly a can of whoopass as well. i can't wait to find out how this resolves.

11-16-2008, 03:00 PM	#13 (permalink)
Chip Midnight That template guy Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,560 My Mood: Business: CMFF XBOX Leaderboard: 9^th	I don't think they're claiming that they own copyright on any image of a toyota. If they were they wouldn't have told the guy he'd have to pay them to tell him which specific images they owned a copyright on. They're just being nebulous in order to bully him into shutting down in order to save them the trouble of issuing a proper takedown notice.

11-16-2008, 03:10 PM	#15 (permalink)
FlipperPA Peregrine Evil Incarnate! Recursion is beautiful! Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 6,378 My Mood: SLShopper Ads: 1 SL Join Date: 2003-11-14 Business: Peregrine Salon	Apple is the worst I've seen at suing their own fans. If you really want some lulz though, read up on the history of the NISSAN.COM domain. See here: Nissan Computer Corporation Regards, -Flip __________________ Peregrine Salon: Flip & Jenn's thang.

11-18-2008, 09:02 PM	#18 (permalink)
Tess Whitcroft Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,328 Awards: 1	I am in favor of strong copyright laws but as they are now written and interpreted they are just daft. They seem to put a premium on getting every single penny possible out of a "work" and all those pennies seem to be going to middlemen and not to the actual creators. Tess

11-20-2008, 05:03 PM	#19 (permalink)
juro Senior Member Sdit Etatus Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 265 My Mood: SLShopper Ads: 2	Looks like Toyota realized they stepped in a big pile o'poo... Toyota Admits Wrongdoing in Wallpaper Case/ __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Logo

Site Navigation