Mercedes will say the cars image was used to help sell the product.

What is the world coming too?

Actually, if you don't vigorously protect your companies logo/copyright/trademark you can lose future rights to that copyright.

Welcome to the world of greeking.
It is all about the copyright itself, which typically is the logo and such, rarely if ever can an object itself be copywritten. Does not mean they still can not sue the living fuck out of you and waste your time and cash. Afterall many of these companies have a lawyer or a floor of them already on payroll getting paid if they are working or not so tread lightly.

Mercedes isn't the only car company to bully people trying to make a buck

http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php

Bull fucking shit. If anything, Mercedes should be paying them for free advertising!

No one is going to see a Mercedes and say "Hey, I should sign up to Lia19". But I'm willing to bet people are seeing Lia 19 on that car and saying "Wow, that's a good looking car".

Calm down, everyone knows the cars were used to help sell the product. Were the girls posing with used Yogo's? Of course not. And nobody is going to buy a new Benz because a girls tits were on the hood.

Not bitching at you......

If this rule applies to FTV, then it should apply to every major movie studio also - meaning that Mercedes Benz can never have their car displayed in a movie.

Note that Ford has a habit of getting their cars all over movies. I noticed "I Am Legend" was all Ford products, as well the last James Bond movie. All car companies should embrace this, not fight it.

Then how come Pepsi can have a commercial bashing Coca Cola (with a Coca Cola bottle in the scene)?

Another example would be Miller vs Budweiser.

How do these companies get away with showing other logos? I seriously doubt the competition would give permission for these companies to use their logos to bash their own products...

paparazzi photography is different than commercial photography, thats why you dont need a release form for the britney pussy pics, they are considered editorial/news worthy...
i dont think it matters if the cars are in his name or his company name.
btw, i think Harley Davidson did something similar and to me that was quite shocking..

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