does Ford still exercise their copyright on that?

I was wondering about that too. I thought there was a time limit on that, like after 50 years patents and copyrights ran out or something like that.

Quote from: Roadrunner on November 04, 2009, 16:51

Pretty soon we won't be able to submit anything.  Just about everything was manufactured or made by someone.  That would leave nature the only subject legally open.  Otherwise we will need a MR or PR for everything submitted.  Wonder if we will hsve to get all releases notarized?

It may be time to find another way.
Roadrunner

Good news for 3D artists. No wonder mevans is doing so well with his port of 3D cars.

They're axing the 3D also. All my 3D motorcycles (which I designed myself) and cars have been removed. 

Quote from: averil on November 05, 2009, 14:15

Quote from: Roadrunner on November 04, 2009, 16:51

Pretty soon we won't be able to submit anything.  Just about everything was manufactured or made by someone.  That would leave nature the only subject legally open.  Otherwise we will need a MR or PR for everything submitted.  Wonder if we will hsve to get all releases notarized?

It may be time to find another way.
Roadrunner

Good news for 3D artists. No wonder mevans is doing so well with his port of 3D cars.

They're axing the 3D also. All my 3D motorcycles (which I designed myself) and cars have been removed. 

That must be a mistake!  Have you contacted them about that?

Quote from: cclapper on November 05, 2009, 16:24

does Ford still exercise their copyright on that?

I was wondering about that too. I thought there was a time limit on that, like after 50 years patents and copyrights ran out or something like that.

Trademark maybe? It's different.

While trademark law seeks to protect indications of the commercial source of products or services, patent law generally seeks to protect new and useful inventions, and registered designs law generally seeks to protect the look or appearance of a manufactured article. Trademarks, patents and designs collectively form a subset of intellectual property known as industrial property because they are often created and used in an industrial or commercial context.

By comparison, copyright law generally seeks to protect original literary, artistic and other creative works. Continued active use and re-registration can make a trademark perpetual, whereas copyright usually lasts for the duration of the author's lifespan plus 70 years for works by individuals, and some limited time after creation for works by bodies corporate. This can lead to confusion in cases where a work passes into the public domain but the character in question remains a registered trademark.

They finally got my generic open wheel race car profile shot. I don't mind, but it was gray, black, no logos... (all the usual things that we remove) on a roadway against some weeds with a bland field in the foreground. Probably sold once, so no loss.

Answer is? Courtesy of dbvirago

Lawyers are the only field where they can both create and solve the problem and get paid for both.

The thing is that taking a photo of something and using it only very rarely infringes on copyright or trademarks - the real issue is how an image is used more so than whether one is taken or available for sale.

The situation where a property owner prohibits a photographer from taking a photo and selling it - is more of a concern for a photographer, but then the remedy isn't one of breach of copyright, but actually an issue of breach of contract or in some cases trespass. In practice these remedies are almost impossible to enforce against photographers, and the damages that would be available to a plaintiff wouldn't justify the expense. 

While I understand the politics of the "guarantee" the issue from the legality point of view is really a case where many of the sites are quite clueless. A far more practical approach from a legal perspective would be to make customers responsible for their own work. Offering guarantees is actually more likely to invite law suits than solve them - you're saying to the world that you have a defendant there with $25K or whatever to spend on legal fees, or a settlement.

Don't confuse what's happening here as being a case of what's right and wrong legally - this is situation is all about marketing, and sites like IS and SS saying that the smaller sites shouldn't be trusted to buy content from, when the substance of the issue is mostly BS.

More broadly the push is to discredit the use of freely available creative commons material and present that as especially risky.

Sales of my car images picked up sharply this weekend on non-SS sites. Saw a similar reaction last year when a few sites decided we can't sell houses without a property release.