| Author | Message | ||
| Aaron Williams (Aawil)
New member Username: Aawil Post Number: 16 Registered: 8-2002 |
That interesting Gm filed for a patent on the semi auto trans back in 1993. Patent # 5425686.Looks like the same type of system the celica and lexus have. | ||
| Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Junior Member Username: Future328driver Post Number: 236 Registered: 12-2001 |
William, Ferrari has some design patents not only on the overall design of some of their newer cars, but also on body parts - in particular, the side scoop panel on the F50. I would love to do Ferrari IP work, but my firm is in Dallas and that is not our cup-of-tea. Glad to meet another IP/Ferrari combo on here  | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 591 Registered: 12-2001 |
Hey, Ken. Only design patent case i was ever involved in was Chrysler v. Haur Tay, the latter an aftermarket supplier of cheap replacement sheetmetal for cars and trucks. Chrysler claimed a dp in a pretty prosaic fender, and when all was said and done, the p was declared invalid, and we got every nickel of atty's fees back as an extraordinary case. Cafc was intrigued by arguments over '59 cadillac fender, by way of comparison. regards from another ip & ferrari geek. | ||
| Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Junior Member Username: Future328driver Post Number: 235 Registered: 12-2001 |
Ferrari is notorious about protecting its brand - as we all know. They own design patents on the F40, F50, 355, 456, 550, 360, 550, and 550 Barchetta. This is is how they go after the people who make after market kits for Fieros and the like. As an intellectual property attorney and F-car nut, I really enjoy legal issues about Ferrari's mark. In fact, I have the cover pages of the design patents for the F40, F50 and 360 framed in my office. If anybody is interested is looking at the design patents, go to www.uspto.gov and search the patent database for design patents assigned to Ferrari. If you want to see a very funny fair use case, Mattel just lost a Motion for Summary Judgment against a British woman who was taking the head of Barbie dolls and placing them on doll bodies wearing S&M bondage clothes. The court ruled that her use of the Barbie head was fair use as a parody. Ferrari is one of the top 5 most recognized brands in the world. They have to act aggressively to protect that tradition. No one on F-chat would ever want the Ferrari logo to enter the public domain as did Kleenex and Xerox. | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 590 Registered: 12-2001 |
Good one. The original paintings may be, and obviously, when you get into those museum quality reproductions of the paintings as postcards, the justification may still be there, but if the Warhol image of Mick and MInn adorned stationary, i'd say not. The fair use cases tend to be all over the lot. one of my favorites was the "Mutants of Omaha," a poster for activists complaining about the non-eocological penchant of that noteworthy company. Political speech? Nah! IT was held to be infringement. So, too, rebroadcasts of the Reginald Denny beating, on videotape. By several courts. Oh, yeah, and i forgot about Jeff Koons, who lost every case he litigated on the subject. But, then again, when he starts with the proposition that he practices in an ouvre called "appropriation art," that may have something to do with it. | ||
| James Napolis (Napolis)
Junior Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 104 Registered: 10-2002 |
WM I own Warhol's Mickey there's no copyright or TM. on it except for Warhol's signiture... Fair use?? | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 588 Registered: 12-2001 |
Pretty good answer, Jay. But there are nuances here,too. The photographer owns the rights in the work of photography, but has no right to exploit the image of the person shown in that photo for any commercial purpose, absent a consent (which in many states, must be in writing, eg. a "model release"). So, if Arlie were to take a picture of a ferrari at a track (logo and all) and then use that photo in an ad for some product or service, he could run into problems, not because of the copyright in the photo, but because the image of the ferrari product and trademark, much like the human model's, was not his to exploit for commercial purposes. Interestingly, works of art (including photos) are, however, usually given a pass when they are sold as such. But convert the photo into a poster, and i'll bet you'd get a different reaction from a court. The borderline case would be one where postcards were being sold of a ferrari (with logo) at the racetrack. Is it art, or a product? A couple of other things are at play here as well. One is the doctrine of incidental reproduction, which says, in effect, if that otherwise protectible image just forms part of the background of a shot, its probably ok. This has its trademark equivalent in the doctrine of "fair use", which is the truthful, nonconfusing use of another's trade indicia. You may be interested to know that Warhol actually got permission from Campbell's to do his famous images... But this was probably more than you needed to know. | ||
| James Napolis (Napolis)
Junior Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 103 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jay as bizarre as it may seem a court recently ruled that you can in fact take pictures up womens skirts in a public place. | ||
| James Napolis (Napolis)
Junior Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 102 Registered: 10-2002 |
If you go to Washington and look at the document encased in argon gas you'll notice a section that begins with the words "Congress shall pass no law.." Photographs that depict a news event are protected thereunder. Stealing the copyrighted or trademarked work of others isn't. | ||
| J. Grande (Jay)
Member Username: Jay Post Number: 780 Registered: 10-2001 |
When you photograph something you own the rights to the subject matter, just like an artist. That is why if you take a picture of someone in a public place you don't need their permission to reprint it, even if they don't want to be in the photo. There is a line however when it comes to peoples "privacy" but that is not clear cut. For instance you can't put a camera on your toe and take pictures up someones dress, but you can take a picture of them walking down the street. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 409 Registered: 5-2002 |
If I were to start manufacturing cloth shoulder patches with the Ferrari name and prancing horse logo without proper legal permission, I could get slapped with a lawsuit by Ferrari. If I went to a racetrack and took a photograph of a Ferrari that had the same Ferrari name and prancing horse logo stuck on its side, and then duplicated the photograph and sold them at flea markets, it wouldn't raise anybodys eyebrows. WHY NOT? The Ferrari logo is in the photograph, and I didn't have permission to reproduce it, so why can I reproduce a photograph of the logo but I can't reproduce a cloth patch of the logo? Any input? |