McQueen Family Suing Ferrari

That is not a good thing. Then you will be a RED and Col. Jessup will order a code RED. And the Government will hunt you down. The Government that rules all things. Understand ye?

 

I thought it was the opposite?


Who holds back the electric car?
We do, we do!


Although my bet has always been on the Illuminati and their new Grand Master; Tupac Shakur. The word the street is lots of members is shorting Tesla so they can get funding to get the Martian technology developed.

 

Yeah well cheatboxes and Dieselgate and Takata didn't happen to electrics. Plus there is all the petro-kingdoms they've murdered. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, and soon Russia. Then you will see an Oil Shock and lots of shockwaves as well.

 

This is the first time I've noticed the BANNED label. Very appropriate this time.

 

My 328 has what some might call a "Targa" top, but we're not supposed to call it that because "Targa" is apparently trademarked by Porsche....

 

I banned him for trolling.

 

He won't even notice until school lets out this afternoon.

 

Personally I find the obsession with all things McQueen to be a little creepy.

 

Good call. He replied here at 5:43, 2:43 his time.

 

Did you really ban him? Or did his electronics get him?

Or perhaps you are actually Col. Jessup and you ordered a code RED on him!!!! Then the Government hunted him down!!! After all The Government rules all!!! Understand ye?


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, Couldn't resist!

Sid

P.S -- I'm wearing my electrically insulating gloves and dark welding glasses as I type this!!! COL JESSUP WILL NOT GET ME!!!!!

 

True. But...

That was fairly entertaining.

 

In fairness to Chad, there are lots of people who are born into wealth who get to do whatever they want with their lives as a result. He gets more attention for it because of who his Dad was.

I'd also say, celebrity aside, Steve McQueen sounded like he was a good dad who left a big impression on his son, and Chad has tried to follow in his footsteps, first by becoming an actor, then by becoming a racer. If he'd been Larry Ellison's kid and gone into tech, none of us would think much of it. Lots of us follow in our parents footsteps in one way or another, and if you are born with the money to live an exciting life, even better. More power to you.

All that said I think Chad is being ridiculous here. He makes/has made plenty of money of off licensing his Dad's image and name. The idea that if he lets this go he'll be setting up a costly precedent is silly, because if he owns the rights to his Dad's name, he can enforce them or not as he sees fit. Personally I think it's petty and dumb, even if Ferrari is the jerkiest company on the planet about enforcing their copyright and being overly litigious. Two wrongs don't make a right, two entities acting like jerks don't make anything good.

I'm an artist. It's how I make my living. Artists don't make their intellectual property hyper precious. If anything we freely steal from one another all the time, both the living and the dead. Lawsuits like this seem dumb to me. McQueen owned a brown Ferrari. Fact. It seems fair for Ferrari to reference that. In fact, I'll go ahead and give them permission in advance to reissue a special edition car in black over red leather and name it after me! Make it a four seater please!

 

I totally disagree. I make a living from my writing. If anyone steals my IP, I will be on them like a pack of wild dogs. If you do not defend a trademark, then you are subject to losing it.

 

Hmmm. I admittedly have never read any of your books (I think they're young adult books, right?), but I would wager that someone who has, who is familiar with the genre, could probably make the case that you lifted some plots, or character types, or style characteristics from another author that came before you. I've never met a writer who wasn't "inspired" by another writer. If you've written everything you've published in a vacuum, you're unique to the point of being a unicorn, that's for sure. This is not an indictment of you, it is simply how things progress, and it can actually help to strengthen both brands simultaneously. Picasso and Braque "stole" from each other in real time on a daily basis for about 10 years. Neither suffered. Both benefited.

I'd argue the same dynamic is at play in the McQueen/Ferrari debate. They are already linked by popular/automotive culture and history. So this is not a breaking of any ice type of arrangement. The relation is already out there for all to see. It's highly arguable that the booster shot to brand identity that the McQueen name will get in this case is more valuable than any cash they'd receive from Ferrari (because how much could Ferrari really pay out and still make money on those cars). Ferrari may be overly litigious in their own right, but the McQueen camp using that as an excuse for a tit for tat attitude seems juvenile and unconsidered to me. I'm also not sure that simply stating a fact (ie- McQueen owned a brown Lusso which we've used as the aesthetic inspiration for these cars) is violating any IP. It would literally be the same as Ferrari saying "Dave has an 80's Ferrari which we've used as the aesthetic inspiration for this new 812". I could hardly sue for that. It seems to me Ferrari (who clearly have plenty of lawyers) knew that going in, but decided to overreach a bit by trying to get the McQueen camp to endorse the cars. McQueen camp wanted money, Ferrari laughed, McQueen camp got their hackles up and sued. But it seems frivolous to me, unless they're actually stating that it's an authorized "McQueen Edition", like Persol did with their McQueen edition 714 sunglasses a while back. Simply saying "this was inspired by that" is fair game. I made eggs inspired by an Anthony Bourdain recipe the day after he died and posted as much on instagram.... hopefully his heirs won't sue me!

I also disagree with the sentiment that if you selectively enforce your trademark/IP rights you risk losing them. I think that's a line of thinking that's based in fear and a pseudo-feral defensiveness, and not in reality. At least in my neck of the woods, people selectively defend or decline to defend copyright/IP rights all the time, for all sorts of reasons, and one case of letting something go does not necessarily excuse a later infraction, should the owner of the IP wish to pursue it.

 

anyone have copy of the advertising referencing SM ?

labeling the color "the Actor" imho, is a fine line that likely skirts by but the referencing SM by names and or likeness in followup crosses the line. the clear intent is to leverage the SM factor and to get you to buy one.

you dont get to violate IP by arguing your violation allegedly increases the value of the IP you stole....so its ok

 

"the Actor":

https://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/70-anniversary/liveries-1957-1966-2/#32

 

Here's the whole lot of them...
https://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/70-anniversary/

 

FWIW, the ad mentions McQueen owned a brown 250 GT Lusso, but it's not the name of the car, and none of the period photos feature McQueen.

It reads to me like like a sour grapes situation. Chad McQueen was talking to Ferrari about an official "McQueen Edition" car but wanted final say on all design aspects. Ferrari said no, then used one his Dad's cars as inspiration for a special 70th edition. Might not be the most gentlemanly move but I don't see how it infringes on copyright. Uses his name only anecdotally, not in an official title, no image of him in official photos. Any lawyers please school me if I'm wrong.

 

I don't have or even enjoy kids, so no, I don't write YA. I write mysteries and thrillers. There is nothing new under the sun, however, plagiarism is a totally different thing. And I would absolutely go after someone using my name to sell their product. If ads are structured as if the person approves or recommends the product, then that's a violation.

My IP attorney absolutely says I would have to pursue any trademark infringement I am aware of or the next person could argue that the trademark is not valid if I'm not protecting it. Which is exactly why I have not trademarked anything to do with my work. I don't want the hassle of sending take down notices or going to court, inevitably with people who don't have the money to pay the damages in the first place.

 

im not a lawyer either but i see the problem in the combination of the two... "The Actor" and then referencing SM.....

any reasonable personal can deduce the reference and implied linkage, history, provenance.

a 100 out of a 100 Ferrari owners would deduce the reference. Who is the Actor ?