BMW suing Turbosquid over car models

[John Dollus]

bmw sues turbosquid over models-

 

http://www.protectingdesigns.com/bmw-group-files-suit-against-turbosquid

 

Interesting that Ford decided to ink a deal with Turbosquid while BMW decided to lawyer up.

 

http://www.carbodydesign.com/2015/06/ford-starts-selling-3d-models-for-rendering-and-3d-printing/

[Devin Johnston]

This is just greedy on BMW's part IMO, there's no way Turbosquid is getting rich off of these models and in any case there just a 3rd party they don't make the models. Just think about all the models we use today of products that other people make, what if they all decide to do what BMW did? Hopefully they can settle on a reasonable reimbursement scheme that makes both parties happy.

[Francisco Penaloza]

it is just ridiculous IMO. can' you imagine if Turbo squid has to pay them??

so what about Evermotion, or any other 3d content provider.

and the problem is that, BMW won't have a website where you can download their cars to be used freely on any 3d presentation.

That's it I won't use any BMW that I have in my library, revolution start now!!

LOL

[harryhirsch]

@ Devin, ''just greedy on BMW's part'' do you really think that BMW needs turbosquid money?

@Francis what is ridiculous? peopel in the US sue for dumb reasons, and the have a reason....a lot of people make money with the BMW cars...

 

Look at this statement '''Implying that it stops creators using the cars freely, is exactly their right, and what they want. They dont want people randomly using the cars without their verification because it can show them in bad light'''

He has a point.

[harryhirsch]

''Interesting that Ford decided to ink a deal with Turbosquid while BMW decided to lawyer up.''

Who knows why? I dont see much Ford models whiel BMW models are widely used. Perhaps Turbosquid is not willing to pay the amount that BMW wants to have....

 

Evermotion Shop EULA:

''1. This Agreement does not convey to Licensee any intellectual property rights or copyrights.''

[Scott Schroeder]

BMW has to protect it's logo and copyright. I am not at all shocked by this. Turbosquid should have known better than to sell cars with actual 1:1 BMW logos on it.

 

Read the court filing, it's pretty clear cut as to why they are going after them:http://www.protectingdesigns.com/images/Nguyen-2016-05-09-bmw/2016-05-03-bmw-group-complaint.pdf

 

Anyone here in New Jersey and want to check in on the jury trial (if it goes that far)?

 

Rockstar didn't get sued by any car manufacturer for GTA 5. They changed them up just enough so they are similar to their real world counterparts, but different enough that they are not rip-offs.

 

If there is one saving part to Turbosquid, it is that most of these models are hopefully sold under an editorial license and that explicitly states you can't use them for commercial, non-news, purposes. What the buyer does with the model, whether they break the rules, Turbosquid can't be held accountable for that. Whatever happens, it may set a precedence for how 3rd party sites like this sell models. And if they all go overseas to areas that are black holes for IP protection.

[Francisco Penaloza]

@Francis what is ridiculous? peopel in the US sue for dumb reasons

yep and that is ridiculous too.

 

so after the good read that Scott share with us... I still wonder if I want to use a BMW in a rendering I will have to buy it directly from BMW? or some one that has licensed car model?

[SkylineArch]

Most people using BMW models in renderings or games are not using them to sell or make money off the BMW brand. BMW should be honored that people think (thought) highly enough of them to place their products in the image. Besides, it's free advertisement for them.

 

So, good luck if a new BMW dealership wants a rendering done, you'd have to fill the parking lot with Mercedes and Fords! hahahahah

[Chris MacDonald]

So, good luck if a new BMW dealership wants a rendering done, you'd have to fill the parking lot with Mercedes and Fords! hahahahah

 

Hah! That tickled me.

[Ernest Burden III]

Is the issue the reproduction of the BMW logo or the arrangement of electrons to resemble the shapes of their cars? You cannot patent a design, you patent a process. Designs are copyrighted and/or trademarked.

 

USC 17 Fair Use makes it so that a news crew doing a live shot is not in violation when a FedEx truck drives through their shot, featuring their logo on the side. So if we are saying that using the BMW logo is the problem, then it should never show in a for-profit movie. And so would be the case with the shapes of the cars if that is found to infringe.

 

I am puzzled about out classification of things. When is a drawing of a car the same as a car? I recall that the owners of the Chrysler Bldg. here in NY tried suing anyone who had a photo of their building for infringement. If I cannot make a computer model of the BMW could I draw it by hand into my rendering? Can I put anything or anyone in?

 

This is all so weird. Everyone is in a scramble to grab 'rights' to every aspect of everything they touch, whether they created it or not. The more ways we come up with to create the more ways someone tells us 'but you cannot without paying us'.

 

There was a commercial for British candies with John Cleese saying to the Colonies "and let's not forget that you pinched our language. If we hadn't forgotten to copyright that you would be paying us the most amazing royalties every week".

[James Vella]

Awesome, what a good reason to tell clients we arent using that shitty bmw again in a nice way

[John Dollus]

 

This is all so weird. Everyone is in a scramble to grab 'rights' to every aspect of everything they touch, whether they created it or not. The more ways we come up with to create the more ways someone tells us 'but you cannot without paying us'.

 

Well, Citi sued AT&T over Citi's trademark on using thankyou so.....

[albertoburon]

Hmm, when I think about this objectively I can't really argue against BMW's legit reasons for wanting to protect their brand. I would be fully supportive of a ruling that made using brands harder. You can't use that live broadcast/fed-ex anecdote because nothing we do is random. A BMW car will never randomly appear in your scene.

[Ernest Burden III]

You can't use that live broadcast/fed-ex anecdote because nothing we do is random. A BMW car will never randomly appear in your scene.

 

No, but the point was about the logo. The FedEx logo appearing in the newscast is considered fair use. Perhaps we might have a problem using the logo on a truck in a rendering, except maybe not.

 

 

The question that this case should be looking at is the design of the object--be it a car, a phone or an existing building--is THAT protected to the point that producing a work of art that includes an interpretation (meaning a translation into another medium) can be controlled by a rights-holder? A BMW is a car. A model on Turbosquid is an arranged pattern of magnetism that is sold as a patterned collection of statements (yes/no, is/is not).

 

Whatever is decided, this will be interesting. I really hope it goes to trial and isn't settled without a ruling.

[Ernest Burden III]

There are three issues at play.

1. reproducing a logo

2. producing an image of a physical object

3. producing a digital model of a physical object

 

I'm not sure which of these, or all, are being litigated.

 

But think about a Hollywood CG-heavy movie. It may look like a photo, but every object in a shot is modeled. Would that require that each object either be licensed to be modeled or each model must be sure that it is NOT a Ford car, NOT an Eames chair, NOT a bottle of Sapphire Gin?

 

And what of the BMW commercial--is that Armani suit on the actor licensed? The shoes? We see a kid playing with a ball outside--did you get rights to show that product? Is it a real Schwinn bicycle in the commercial or a CG model? Perhaps every commercial, every show, every movie, will have litigation from rights-holders claiming we made a 3D model of their Pottery Barn bed, and we must pay up. Meanwhile, someone is suing Pottery Barn for their catalog shot of the bed because there is a kite seen out the window.

 

Cats and dogs, suing each other.

[Francisco Penaloza]

There are three issues at play.

1. reproducing a logo

2. producing an image of a physical object

3. producing a digital model of a physical object

 

I'm not sure which of these, or all, are being litigated.

 

But think about a Hollywood CG-heavy movie. It may look like a photo, but every object in a shot is modeled. Would that require that each object either be licensed to be modeled or each model must be sure that it is NOT a Ford car, NOT an Eames chair, NOT a bottle of Sapphire Gin?

 

And what of the BMW commercial--is that Armani suit on the actor licensed? The shoes? We see a kid playing with a ball outside--did you get rights to show that product? Is it a real Schwinn bicycle in the commercial or a CG model? Perhaps every commercial, every show, every movie, will have litigation from rights-holders claiming we made a 3D model of their Pottery Barn bed, and we must pay up. Meanwhile, someone is suing Pottery Barn for their catalog shot of the bed because there is a kite seen out the window.

 

Cats and dogs, suing each other.

 

...and that's the sad part, regarding movies and TV, yes, each element that are shown on commercials or TV shows has to have a license in place.

The only thing you can go is for instance (and this is very common) if you place a macbook in the scene, but you don't want to pay credits or royalties, then you cover the logo of that laptop. I know this because I participate in a small production and that was done to stay within the law.

 

For what I read in the PDF that was the point, the BMW logo and key element of the design considered as identified with the brand (like the front hair grid) was present in the 3D Model. if for instance, turbosquid remove the BMW logo from the 3D Model I think the problem would be less or none existent.

 

Regarding the rendering that you are showing, from what I understand is, if that building is a new warehouse or office for FedEx, I think the client should have the right to display those tracks, now if it is John's delivery service, then he may get in trouble because John is implying he uses FedEx trucks.

Edited August 15, 2016 by fco3d

[Scott Schroeder]

Movie and games people are smart enough to alter that model that ~10% to avoid legal issues and they especially do not use the logo unless they have absolute permission. We just use literal rip-offs. It's funny that I posted this over at Polycount and the general consensus was, "Yeah, this isn't surprising at all that BMW is going after someone for a 1:1 copy of their designs and logo."

 

News can show whatever they want because a news cast doesn't have the same restrictions as a commercial. Now if we can classify architectural renderings as news casts, then we are in business.

[Ernest Burden III]

For what I read in the PDF that was the point, the BMW logo and key element of the design considered as identified with the brand (like the front hair grid) was present in the 3D Model.

 

If that is held true then you could not show those logos or design elements in a photo. The definition of what is covered by a registered US trademark is the issue, then. Is it the image of a shape and/or pattern across all media? Trademark and copyright cover different things.

 

Regarding the rendering that you are showing, from what I understand is, if that building is a new warehouse or office for FedEx, I think the client should have the right to display those ... FedEx trucks.

 

The building IS a FedEx facility in NYC. But my client was the architect, not FedEx. I just put the logo in there because I felt like it. And what of the truck itself? Is that something I can show, if the design has trademarked elements?

 

Now if we can classify architectural renderings as news casts, then we are in business.

 

There is no reason that argument could not be made. Our work is typically for public review, advance notice of pending construction or renovation, submitted for government approvals... The things we draw have a tremendous effect on the public and communicate important information about proposals for our shared environment. For example, alerting people to a coming influx of red Ferraris.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Ernest Burden

[Scott Schroeder]

There is no reason that argument could not be made. Our work is typically for public review, advance notice of pending construction or renovation, submitted for government approvals... The things we draw have a tremendous effect on the public and communicate important information about proposals for our shared environment. For example, alerting people to a coming influx of red Ferraris.

 

This is where this becomes a gray area. What do you classify architectural renderings as? For-profit ads like your more typical product renderings? News and Informational ads? Turbosquid services all industries so i don't think they can argue this point, but for architecture specific there is a lot of gray going on. Heck, is there even a difference for a rendering for a city council meeting and a sales center "buy this condo" rendering?

 

If that is held true then you could not show those logos or design elements in a photo. The definition of what is covered by a registered US trademark is the issue, then. Is it the image of a shape and/or pattern across all media? Trademark and copyright cover different things.

 

Well, I think you get into differences here. If I take a photo of a building that has a parking lot in front of it, and that shows car logos, the spaces is considered "public" and you can generally be considered okay to post that photo around as you are in a public space. Now, if that parking lot is on private property and is restricted, then you lose some of that visible in public protection.

 

The issue is we are not talking about photos or even renderings with the TS lawsuit. This case is about an exact 1:1 digital model of a copyrighted/trademarked/patented design element and logo. BMW is saying that a digital 1:1 model is no different than if I would build my own exact replica of a BMW and start selling it to people. Do those two ideas even belong in the same argument? I don't really know.