The exotic cars were used as high-end props to give a classy, elite feel to the website. That's the reason Benz want's the cars removed. I'm not a Benz executive .... I'm just blabbering about their reasoning.

In the recent Bond movies, and others, companies actually pay to get their car product placement within the film.

However, in most cases, Hollywood production companies rent prop cars from companies that have releases with specific prohibitions attached (not to be used in explicit sex scenes, etc).

How much do you think Ford paid to make the new Knight Rider car a Mustang?

Here is something even more bizarre. Knight Rider had already finished taping, using Will Arnett's voice as the voice of Kitt (the car), and GMC had a hissy fit, forcing the producers of the show to hire Val Kilmer to do the voice instead:

http://www.muscularmustangs.com/imag...dergt500kr.jpg

ADG

I warn people about this stuff time and time again. Anyone suggesting they should fight it in court has very little idea what the time and expense would be involved to do so and frankly the case law will not be on their side. As Mutt correctly pointed out product placement in movies is big bucks advertising but if Mercedes chooses not to advertise in porn then that is their choice to make. Lambasting them for it is pointless and shows a lack of respect for copywritten and trademarked content.

Companies like Mercedes have firms all over the world to deal with this kind of stuff and ignoring them will be the quickest way to learn a very expensive lesson.

You can bet that if you're seeing a "brand" featured somehow in a movie, they the producers have gotten some sort of funding from the product's company. Paid product placement is a big thing these days. Use someone else's money to fund your movie :winkwink:

notice that when properly notified a respectible company like FTV immediatly acts on this and removes the images to the best of their ability. Shows class. :thumbsup

personally i think this wasn't cool on benz's part, owning one myself I know thier customer service is the worst of any car company i have ever had to deal with.

but at the end of the day benz is right, you need their permission to use their logos for staged commericial shoots and if they don't like it you have to take it down or get sued.

Just as I'm sure FTV would object to their copywrite images being used for commerical purposes in a manner they don't agree with and felt may potentially harm their company or investors/shareholders.

Does this all mean that later some car manufacturers will require to remove their cars from affiliate program designs? I see a lot of them using Ferrari's, Lambo's and others. Any thoughts?

Yep, I think they just don't want their premium cars to be affiliated with any kind of redlight/pimp/porn (they don't distinguish) stuff...because most of their customers hate anything remotely "Bling, Bling" related.

Remember Jay-Z and Cristal champagne ? He even mentioned it in his songs, but Roederer wasn't happy about it.

imo... just a matter of time before they have problems too. Also in my opinion... the benefits do not outweigh the liabilities.

I don't see a problem with Lambos, Ferraris or Porsches, these brands have a whole different customer structure, mostly wealthy individuals.

The real problem (in terms of keeping the brand "clean") for Mercedes and BMW are the huge corporate customers, the vast majority of their overall sales.

exactly ... this is the point of whole thing

anyway it's quite common problem in every part of production, from low res photography to HD adult video

I own 2 Mercedes cars and I wouldn't like my cars to be associated with porn .... fuck that shit.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I got one for Donkey Kong once...

Moral of the story is...

No one buy a Mercedes.
If everyone got rid of the mercedes in this business they would feel it.
That has to be at least 400 less car's a year sold.

I say we boycott them fucks...

these companies that are fierce about protecting their trademarks are everywhere - i have no idea how they do it. I grew up in a small city of 45,000 people, i remember my sister when she was in 11th or 12th grade was part of the high school yearbook committe - so anyway the kids designing it and doing the layout put Peanuts characters, Snoopy and Woodstock, in it - lord knows how the company that owns the rights to Peanuts found out but the school heard from them and told them to get the characters out.

ftv shoots some pretty tasteful stuff, it's not like they are shooting gangbang orgies around the car...

I can hardly wait for the papers from the lawyers for the Bart Simpson on my right butt cheek, the Bam Bam from the Flintstones on the left butt cheek and the Roadrunner and Coyote under my left arm.

:winkwink::thumbsup

We received one from Porsche a couple of years ago...lol

wow, that's pretty fucking retarded.

:1orglaugh

Lrn to humor.

Thank god I never launched that site of mine. www.fuckedinthehummer.com
I would have been sued within a week. :)

Mercedes = stupid ..

This is a crazy case. I have to admit, I didn't know you couldn't take a pic by a car and use it.

That almost infringes on some civil liberties in a way. Is it illegal to take a pic while you are eating a big mac as well?

Commercial photography has different rules than editorial or photojournalism. Simple as that. It's copyright law.

It's also what has been said a few times... depends on how good their lawyers are and how big their hard on is to try and make you stop. It's their image, their branding and their right to protect it.

A candid snapshot of a girl flashing in front of a Mercedes posted on a blog is 10000 percent different then staging a shoot around the same car and placing it in an arena where people have to pay to see it. Regardless, Mercedes will probably treat them both the same, as is their prerogative.

That's....... Disturbing... :Oh crap

Just out of boredom, I started researching trademark law (as this is what is being talked about). A quick review brought up this thought to me.

Wouldn't a disclaimer under the images (on each page) stating that Daimler-Chrysler neither endorses or seeks endorsement nor has any affiliation with FTV or whomever has shots with their cars in it be enough? Seems to me that it would be. I mean seriously... if this were totally legitimate, you couldn't take pictures of just about anything without violating someone's trademark of something.

Welcome to the world of commercial photography.

they arent selling the pictures, im pretty sure they are the sole owners of their content.

First off... I'm not about to put a disclaimer on my blog saying that FTV doesn't endorse Mercedes or what not.

Second.... I can't take a picture of my home office without displaying Dell products. However, I'm not making a profit off of any pictures of my home office (unless perhaps they end up getting stolen and used on some gay site). But you get my point.

Speaking of Dell, remember the OJ trial and that great big massive monitor on the judge's desk with the huge Dell logo on the back of it? How's that for product placement?

nope,our industry has a problem with rules.everyone else has to follow them what makes us so special? lol

http://www.2oceansvibe.com/images/pa...s-ad-thumb.jpg

http://videos.pinkbaboon.com/media/i...ltoncarlad.png

http://www.kahsoon.com/images/carls-parody.jpg

http://img289.imageshack.us/img289/3...mburger2hx.jpg

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/5880/bk9ba.jpg

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...70529.300w.jpg

ADG

100% fight it, or even just make the first steps to fight it. If PR'd correctly, the publicity could be massive.

How the fuck can they send a C&D because a car in is a porn video? He owns the car he paid for it, it's his.

That's like saying a builder has the right to stop you from fucking and filming it in the house he built for you. No way would I cave in on that.

FTV has always had cars in their pictures and videos. I'd tell them, to see me in court just on principle.

btw "coke" isn't the same as it's a product.. A car has a title and a owner.

its the rules, no not fair clause.

Pics removed.

Well, Dell obviously didn't MIND the free product placement there. If they HAD, I'm betting the logo would have been covered asap. Dell has the right to make that choice.

It's a no-brainer that some companies aren't going to want their products associated with porn, no? I would have thought so.

Suppose you created some home cleaning device that became popular and started making you a LOT of money. Then imagine a few porn companies found it could be used as a sex toy. If a movement came about that would boycott your product because of the association would you act? Maybe not. Maybe you THINK the free advertising would offset the "nutjob" activists. But, what if Wal-Mart, your biggest retailer, said do something about the association or we're gonna pull your products because WE don't want to sell what's becoming known as a sex toy? Would you act then?

Sure the initial product placement may seem great, but there are other factors to consider.

I wasn't thinking of anyone being special... I was just reacting to what I was reading on trademark infringement. From how I read it, you can only damage a trademark by disparaging the mark, altering it, or saying untruthful things about it. By making the claim that the company has not endorsed the images and also truthfully portraying the product (it's a car.. you left it looking exactly the way it was manufactured)....seems straightforward.. and of course law is never straightforward. Time for a good trademark attorney!!!

I had the same thought about the cabinets, the kitchen sink (Delta, Kohler, Moen), Patio furniture, backyard pool, entry doors, pavers, tennis rackets, any and all clothing (nike, victoria's secret, calvin klein), etc etc etc.

Again, if you are displaying the product within its intended purpose; commercial or not, I don't see how you are violating someone else's trademark. Hell, you are giving them free advertising (which BTW is one of the most common reasons products are blurred out on TV.. they haven't paid for advertising).

There's a big difference between a car being in the background and being the primary focus... I remember seeing some shots of Lia/Alison with the car(s) and wondering if she was actually advertising them.. i.e the focus was on the cars, not her... Those are probably the types of shots that brought about the C&D.

The bigger the production the more red tape involved - guaranteed any big budget movie using anything with a brand has something in writing before releasing it - they also have insurance to protect them from OMISSIONS AND ERRORS anyone who has production insurance should know that this is available if doing something that might require correction after the fact - You cannot copyright the car but the brand of car being used without permission is liability - for example, the mercedes logo emblem on the front of the car, shown in a shot with a naked ass sprawled out over the hood. - looks good but not to mercedes evidently.

wow, I would have thought that kind of promotion is priceless

Damn.. well that sucks

i understand both sites...
if merc feels that this is bad for their image then i think they have a point... especially when it is shown on promo works by ftv
good to see that ftv complied though....
seems like the right move

Like I said elsewhere, BMW has done the same kinds of things in the past. They don't care whether or not it will sell more of their cars, all they care about are the shareholders yelling about the evil pornographers twisting their brand.

Those companies aren't porn companies... People are acting like this is a company vs company thing, this is a porn vs mainstream thing, and in the bigger scheme of things, they don't want anything to do with us on that level. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

FTV may be rich, but Mercedes would bury them in court, much more capital to fight it until the end. Their move was wise, especially from a financial standpoint :P

Hang a naked girl on your Dells and see how quickly they jump. :P

Mercedes has an obligation to protect its trademark in the face of anyone using it without their permission. If a company fails to protect their trademark from dilution or infringement they weaken their case in any future violation or lawsuit.

Basic trademark law guys ........... Did the letter start with "It has come to our attention ....."

I see a lot of porn sites using the Apple logo to advertise compatibility with the Mpeg video format for the ipod and Mac. Does Apple sue them?

No, it shows that they are interested in covering their own ass and don't want any hassle....ESPECIALLY since the owner was recently in the news....

Only a FOOL would not take the pictures down if asked by a big company like Mercedes......So let's all give FTV a pat on the back for doing what anybody who is interested in keeping their ass out of the skillet would do.

(Disregard, I fucked up)