FTV receive c&d from Mercedes - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

L-Pink · 02-12-2008, 03:46 PM

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.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 02-12-2008, 04:01 PM

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:

Quote:

A carmaker conflict led NBC to hire Val Kilmer to replace Will Arnett as the TV movie's intelligent supercar, Variety reports.

Arnett -- who played the magician brother on "Arrested Development," the figure-skating brother in "Blades of Glory" and the brother you skipped in "The Brothers Solomon" -- had completed work for "Knight Rider," which airs Saturday at 8. But K.I.T.T.'s new make and model, it turns out, was a no-no.

For years, Arnett has been under contract as the voice of GMC Trucks. But NBC's new supercar is a Ford Mustang, and Ford heavily backs the movie. GM cried foul, so Arnett "had to respectfully withdraw," he told Variety.

And that's how Kilmer became "Knight Rider's" huckleberry.

Six degrees of 'Knight Rider'

ADG

Far-L · 02-12-2008, 04:03 PM

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.

candyflip · 02-12-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

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.

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

SleazyDream · 02-12-2008, 04:20 PM

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.

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.

Yoni · 02-12-2008, 04:26 PM

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?

StarkReality · 02-12-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

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.

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.

Far-L · 02-12-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoni

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?

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

StarkReality · 02-12-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoni

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?

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.

SPP · 02-12-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sherm

But unfortunately not the rights to use it in commercial photography.

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

RudeBoy · 02-12-2008, 05:24 PM

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

ucv.karl · 02-12-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banthis

Thats why you get the dolorean

V_RocKs · 02-12-2008, 05:38 PM

I got one for Donkey Kong once...

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 02-12-2008, 05:48 PM

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...

Mutt · 02-12-2008, 06:21 PM

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.

woj · 02-12-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RudeBoy

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

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

CuriousToyBoy · 02-12-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SimonScans

And no shooting models with Playboy logo tattoos. Imagine finding out someone else owns the copyright to your ass?

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.

LiveDose · 02-12-2008, 07:58 PM

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

aico · 02-12-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlienQ

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...

wow, that's pretty fucking retarded.

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 02-12-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

wow, that's pretty fucking retarded.

Lrn to humor.

Zorgman · 02-12-2008, 08:08 PM

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

fujiko · 02-12-2008, 08:27 PM

Mercedes = stupid ..

Pornwolf · 02-12-2008, 10:23 PM

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?

Kevin Marx · 02-12-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pornwolf

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.

MissMina · 02-12-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSwed

This one?

That's....... Disturbing...

Kevin Marx · 02-12-2008, 11:18 PM

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.

L-Pink · 02-12-2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

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.

beemk · 02-13-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Cheese

if you are going to sell those pics, no...unless you get permission

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

Rochard · 02-13-2008, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

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.

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?

tony286 · 02-13-2008, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

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.

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

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 02-13-2008, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pornwolf

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?

ADG

John. · 02-13-2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlienQ

If I recall right the only thing that would have to be removed is the Mercedes Logo, not the car, however even that may be in question really.

FTV could get an attorney and fight it.
Besides that would be excellent publicity.

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

crockett · 02-13-2008, 12:29 AM

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.

tony286 · 02-13-2008, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

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.

its the rules, no not fair clause.

ronaldo · 02-13-2008, 12:40 AM

Pics removed.

ronaldo · 02-13-2008, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

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?

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.

Kevin Marx · 02-13-2008, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

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

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!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

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.

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).

Tempest · 02-13-2008, 01:11 AM

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.

Red Ezra · 02-13-2008, 01:37 AM

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.

BlueDesignStudios · 02-13-2008, 03:40 AM

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

VeriSexy · 02-13-2008, 04:04 AM

Damn.. well that sucks

Trax · 02-13-2008, 07:08 AM

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

LadyMischief · 02-13-2008, 08:40 AM

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.

LadyMischief · 02-13-2008, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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...

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.

LadyMischief · 02-13-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trax

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

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

LadyMischief · 02-13-2008, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

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?

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

L-Pink · 02-13-2008, 09:00 AM

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 ....."

faxxaff · 02-13-2008, 09:11 AM

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?

BVF · 02-13-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

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.

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.

L-Pink · 02-13-2008, 09:21 AM

(Disregard, I fucked up)

02-12-2008, 04:03 PM	#53
Far-L Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 6,065	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. __________________ HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982. Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."

02-12-2008, 04:20 PM	#55
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	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. 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. __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

02-12-2008, 04:26 PM	#56
Yoni Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 846	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? __________________ See my latest works on twitter.com/yonidesign

02-12-2008, 05:24 PM	#61
RudeBoy Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 290	I own 2 Mercedes cars and I wouldn't like my cars to be associated with porn .... fuck that shit. __________________ " Richard (03:37 PM) : how are one touch cockie."

02-12-2008, 05:48 PM	#64
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	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... __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \| Last edited by AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE; 02-12-2008 at 05:50 PM..

02-12-2008, 03:46 PM	#51
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	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.

02-12-2008, 05:38 PM	#63
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,422	I got one for Donkey Kong once...

02-12-2008, 06:21 PM	#65
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	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. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

02-12-2008, 07:58 PM	#68
LiveDose Show Yer Tits! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Out there... Posts: 25,792	We received one from Porsche a couple of years ago...lol __________________ Scammer Alert: acer19 acer [email protected] [email protected] Money stolen using PayPal

02-12-2008, 08:08 PM	#71
Zorgman Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 6,103	Thank god I never launched that site of mine. www.fuckedinthehummer.com I would have been sued within a week. __________________ ---

02-12-2008, 08:27 PM	#72
fujiko Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 566	Mercedes = stupid ..

02-12-2008, 10:23 PM	#73
Pornwolf Drunk and Unruly Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 22,712	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? __________________ I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade... Webair, bitches.

02-12-2008, 11:18 PM	#76
Kevin Marx Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,888	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.

02-13-2008, 12:29 AM	#83
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	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. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator. Last edited by crockett; 02-13-2008 at 12:31 AM..

02-13-2008, 12:40 AM	#85
ronaldo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: ICQ#: 272000271 Posts: 5,475	Pics removed.

02-13-2008, 01:11 AM	#88
Tempest Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: West Coast, Canada. Posts: 10,217	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.

02-13-2008, 01:37 AM	#89
Red Ezra redezra.com Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vegas Baby! Posts: 4,680	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.

02-13-2008, 03:40 AM	#90
BlueDesignStudios Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 9,492	wow, I would have thought that kind of promotion is priceless __________________ Blue Design Studios - Adult Design Specialists! Email me for a free quote: [email protected]

02-13-2008, 04:04 AM	#91
VeriSexy Join The Royal Family Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 25,463	Damn.. well that sucks __________________ Looking for a KICK ASS TEEN SPONSOR? Check out ROYAL CASH - THE KING OF TEEN! Incredible webmaster tools FHGs, Morphing Blog and RSS Feeds, Embedded FLV & WMV Videos. With TOP RATIO Sites like TeenStarsOnly.com - Earn $$ with our New Site & Bonus Payouts!! ATMovs.com \| iTeenVideo.com \| TeenSexMovs.com \| TeenSexMania.com

02-13-2008, 07:08 AM	#92
Trax [----------------------] Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,486	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

02-13-2008, 08:40 AM	#93
LadyMischief Orgasms N Such! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Ontario Posts: 18,135	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. __________________ ICQ 3522039 Content Manager - orgasm.com [email protected]

02-13-2008, 09:00 AM	#97
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	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 ....." Last edited by L-Pink; 02-13-2008 at 09:02 AM..

02-13-2008, 09:11 AM	#98
faxxaff Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Marina Hemingway Posts: 2,134	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? __________________ Asian Babes

02-13-2008, 09:21 AM	#100
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	(Disregard, I fucked up) Last edited by L-Pink; 02-13-2008 at 09:22 AM..