McQueen Family Suing Ferrari

Copyright laws are ridiculous.

 

Please, Ferrari sues everyone they can for unauthorized use. About time someone turned the tables on them.

 

No, no please. Copyright laws are ridiculous when Ferrari uses them too. I wasn't taking sides.

 

This isn't a copyright case, it's trademark infringement. Neither copyright nor trademark are ridiculous, they are vital to protect a company's property from misuse.

The McQueen's met with Ferrari in 2011 and instead of making a deal they punted and continued to use Steve's name in marketing materials. Ferrari needs to pay up. I wonder how many millions of $ Ferrari has collected for the same thing?

 

I create copyrighted material. Have studied copyright law since the 80's. If I say it's ridiculous, that's a fact, not an opinion. It's laws made by lawyers - who create nothing, produce nothing, and offer nothing - to steal money from the work of creatives. None of the original artists are even alive for a lot of the copyrighted material in those vast portfolios held by Sony, Disney et. al. It's immoral that anything over fifty years old is not in the public domain. If you create a cultural icon, it should become a part of the culture after a reasonable amount of time. Forever is not a reasonable amount of time.

It is a historical fact that McQueen owned a brown Ferrari. Ferrari should be able to celebrate that out without Chad thinking he's owed anything. Nobody else made a stink, unless I missed something.

Only a lawyer could rationalize that copyright and trademark law is not ill.

 

Perhaps if they hadn't associated Steve's name with a station wagon...

 

Again, this is a trademark case, not a copyright case. While similar, there are differences. If the McQueens have made a business of licensing Steve's name, and Ferrari misused it, they are right to take F to court. Do you complain about other IP such as music, art, etc?

I'm not a lawyer but I did work in a business where copyright was important. The 95 year thing is excessive. But on the other hand I've seen the damage done-on both sides-when copyright has been abused. I saw a publisher nearly bankrupted when an editor was plagiarising copyrighted material. And I saw a client avoid expensive licensing fees by recreating photos licensed by a publisher. They spent about $5 per photo over what they could have bought them for. Jumping over dollars to save pennies.

We can agree to disagree on both copyright and trademark. I definitely see the value.

 

The article is pretty lame. The "offending" car was a California T, yet they illustrate the article with a GTC4 Lusso without identifying it as such. Apparently the company did not use McQueen's name on the Cali T so I don't know that the family has a solid case (I'm not a lawyer). Maybe they've used his name more blatantly elsewhere, I don't know. It would be interesting to know if any of "The Actors" has re-sold, and at what price.

Aside from all that, I doubt that McQueen would be a fan of the Cali T or Portofino, or any other modern Ferrari for that matter. He'd probably own one just to abuse it.

 

Amen!

 

I'm surprised that Ferrarichat.com didn't get sued for using the name "Ferrari".

 

I compose music. That is where my hatred of copyright law began. I give away some of my work - classical guitar arrangements of popular music, mostly - just so no robber-baron company like Sony or Disney ever gets a cut of it (And some of my arrangements are played by classical guitarists in many countries around the world. I get nothing but the satisfaction). I'd like to do an album of those arrangements, but securing the permissions would be more trouble and expense than it's worth. I shouldn't have to do anything. Arrangements should be considered fair use, especially since there is very little potential for profit anyway.

I favor the life of the composer plus ten years, BTW. If there's a significant residual income when the creator dies, ten years should be enough to allow the family to diversify. Then everything should automatically become public domain.

I don't get a family making a business out of licensing a dead ancestor at all. That's in another moral dimension than the one I inhabit.

 

Rob talked to Ferrari about it long ago. We're good.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

It's my understanding at one point they tried to come down on any business / independent shop that used the word such as "Ferrari Service of XYZ" I've been told that didn't hold water.

 

I always wondered how Wayne Carini got way with the F40 motorsport logo he uses for his business.

 

Gerald Roush and his fabulous publication was forced to reduce/re-arrange certain words and letters on the cover (from July 2006 onwards).

Marcel Massini

 

Different font.

 

This part is pathetic

"Despite the change, the McQueens reportedly remain upset that Ferrari continues to use Steve’s name in marketing materials, which make a point of mentioning the aforementioned 250GT Berlinetta Lusso. The McQueen family, cognizant of the automatic price premium an association with the actor confers on objects for sale, is seeking a statutory demand of $2 million per violation of registered trademark, plus punitive damages."

So Ferrari says that Steve Mcqueen owned a ferrari (fact), used it (fact)in their marketing material etc..and they still want to sue.
Mcqueen is seen as the king of cool, his heirs suing for something that stupid certainly arent.

With that said, it's fitting considering how Ferrari sued its own fans over stupid trademark BS..

 

MMmmmm....well Steve did buy Ferrari's so that's history. Since when can't history be used in marketing?

If Ferrari said "this car is one that Steve would have liked" -- for sure that's a problem. But to state a historical fact is public domain.

 

Again, you are not a lawyer specializing in trademarks.

I have been involved in Trademark disputes. If you do not go after EVERYONE, then someone can win a case against you for not protecting what you own. As stupid as it sounds, you have to go after everyone.

There was an independent VW repair shop owned by from friends of mine in LA that was sued by Volkswagen for their name "Dr. Volks". The repair shop LOST -- and had to change it's name to Dr Boltz. The reason they lost is VW claimed trademark infractions and that it might "confuse people" that they were perhaps authorized service.

Blame the legal system, not Ferrari. Someone is just doing their job.

 

The example you cite is fine. Ferrari has sued people making a single f1 model in their garage from scratch and for no commercial purpose unlike your example. Sure you can claim they are not allowed to reproduce something that was designed by Ferrari..but then where does it end? If i draw an F40 on a napkin, will they sue me?

 

His name and likeness must be trademarked. If Ferrari used either, they should pay up.

 

Depends.... There is a gray line here.

 

There was a discussion about this not too long ago. I person's face or alike cannot be trademarked.

 

Absolutely - Ferrari themselves would, and do, demand no less ..... and their lawyers will remind you if you forget.