Whats going on with car models?

#17

I think the issue for car companies is that their designs are often quite distinctive. Also their logo’s are quite prominently displayed on the front.
Also remember in shows and movies where ‘suits’ are quite prominent. Armani, or other tailored garment manufacturers are credit-listed.
Even to the point as to which actor was wearing them sometimes.
So check that point again.

Basically what it all comes down to this.
Any manufacturer -of anything- can try to enforce their copyright no matter what it is. Any artist can choose to ignore it. So its who has the money to win if it goes to court.
Also you can factor in which country you live in as well. Some countries just can’t or don’t enforce this stuff for anybody.
To sum up. It doesn’t matter how ‘right’ you are.
Its how far are you willing to go to defend yourself -artist or copyright owner- as it all comes down to money in the end and who is willing to spend it to be
in the ‘right’…

#18

“personal none commercial work or prototyping a game dev idea” doesn’t make you free from copyright issue.
Often people think this money issue. But, it is not.
It is about control.

If you make a nice car model and enjoy alone, who would care?
Other than that, making money doesn’t matter.

#19

Sometimes its pure money, sometimes it is a brand identity/affiliation & control issue or some combination of both.

In the current online climate of people trying to “monetize”
everything they put online,
it is of little surprise that we see more rigid enforcement by Trademark & copyright owners of every type, not just Automobiles.

Using someone else’s brand to add value to your monetary solicitation or promotion of your commercial interests
has long been not legal in many nations.

I am reminded of the "Star Trek Axanar"Debacle.
The sheer hubris of people who would establish an entire commercial studio for the purpose making films based
on IP they did not own was bad enough.

However the Axanar Rabble went about raising Hundreds of thousands of USD on crowd funding sites.
While claiming to be the sole arbiters of what a “true” Star trek film should be like, and publicly Disparaging Paramount inc.
the very owners of the IP they were using without permission.

#20

years ago I was into Flight Simulator, there were many airliners painted after real world companies, guys would fly real world routes etc. Well one of those airline companies suddenly decided to throw a major hiss fit over use of their logo even though nearly ALL of the models were free, they issued cease and desist order from their lawyer to several websites and individuals from said company saying they WOULD pursue legal action if those models were not removed. they did not want money, they just did not want their logo used PERIOD. needless to say it was done and said company became persona non grata in the flightsim community.

so, in short and as said above, it is about control of their image/logo.

#21

You are right about the clothing being credited, car companies have also been credited for as long as I remember. But you seem to be referring to the stars’ wardrobe or the stars’ car, things so prominently featured as to necessitate a conscious choice on the part of the producers. Those are all likely pre-arranged deals. I recall Volkswagen not wanting Michael Bay to use the Beetle in the new Transformers movie. But does that prohibition also pertain to incidental cars appearing in the background?
I guess what I’m saying is that CG artists, game designers etc. are trying to recreate the world they live in. No car company would have ever thought to complain about one of their cars being passed by in a live action film 20 years ago. But if that scene becomes a VFX shot and you want to show that car flying through the air, then you’ll need a model of it. And supposedly that is where the copyright infraction occurs. I’m only thinking that taken to its logical conclusion any production set in the world could eventually become financially infeasible.

#22

There is a difference between an actual car of a manufacturer beeing used as a simple background prop in a film and someone recreating the design of a car and selling the model. In the later case the manufacturer might acually loose the copyright to his designs if they do not act against infringement.
I don’t know what legal legs a company has to prevent the use of it’s products in a movie, chances are that it is simply much easier and cheaper to do with the support of the manufacturer instead of against it.

#23

Wallace and Gromit have a SMUG fridge.

#24

Via a cooperative SMEG.
http://www.smeg50style.com/oc/smegazine/wallace-smug-with-smeg-fridge/

As long as there is a mutual agreement - no fowl.

#25

I saw part of a festival film the other day where there was an older Citroen car speeding and driving crazily
through the streets of a European city for about 4 minutes followed by a
camera on a another car.

In total, I saw maybe 100 different model/maker parked cars being driven past, and several near-collisions
with a variety of other cars being driven.

So - did the filmmakers get permission for every car that was in this 4 minute shot? All 700 or 800 of the parked cars that were driven past?

Hollywood is a different beast - Hollywood gets paid 10s of Millions of Dollars to deliberately put Apple, BMW, Mercedes, Armani crap into their movies.

The crediting here is required because the manufacturer paid lots of money to have the product displayed.

Also - what law anywhere states that you need any kind of permission to show an everyday object that exists in the real world in a film or TV show?

Maybe if you had a shot of a BMW hitting another car and bursting into a big fireball - whereas a real BMW would not burst into flames at all - then maybe
the car maker could argue that you made their car look far less safe
than it is.

But seriously, requiring permission to show a completely public, out-in-the-open everyday object - car, furniture,
clothing, watch whatever?

What law in what country actually requires that to happen? I’ve never seen one.

#26

It’s more about how the laws are interpreted and how the attorneys can argue how the current laws applied to their current case should be interpreted. There are big dollars available to the big IP holders, so users may just loose based on “not having enough money to play their hand” - poker reference.

its all just business.

#27

Probably not. Typically, if a car/product is in the background (with no logo visibly displayed) and not onscreen for very long, you’re usually ok. In your example, it’s likely they either got the release for the Citroen, OR are just playing the odds (as XLNT-3d mentions).

#28

Its all pretty controlled by somebody if the project is large enough to be ‘visible’ (and therefore get in trouble if not trying to play by the rules).
They are pretty careful about ‘what’ gets on screen. You come across film shoots all the time here in Montreal. My wife used to work on them.
Very controlled. And car wrangling contracts signed. And not just randomly pointing the camera at ‘anything’.

Anyone remember the original Knight Rider TV show for the 80s?!
Remember how careful they were never to have any other ‘Trans Am’ anywhere in the shot? just Kitt?! (which was basically a ‘Trans Am’ with funny lights)
Even though this was one of the most popular cheap muscle cars of the 80’s and they where everywhere in reality.
As a kid I thought to myself: “I see what they did there…”

#29

I think it is also important to note that more than a few global auto brands we see today can be linked too wartime manufacturing specifically those companies supporting Axis aligned regimes during WW2. Indeed BMW as one such company listed in the OP was contracted to produce aircraft engines for the Luftwaffe amongst other assorted equipment using primarily forced labour. So highly probable to assume that a renown manufacturer will not in the following context exert it’s control protecting copyright infringments when for example 3d models of a Porsche designed Tiger 2 or Skoda T-38 or Volkswagen Kubel or Mitsubishi Zero…etc are currently residing online in various resource libraries awaiting purchase. Anyway as far as I’m aware the statute of limitations for German WW2 patents was 70yrs so if like me you’re into modelling German tanks, I’d say pretty much good to go.

#30

Then, in Near future can the animal activist make problem for the animal models? or even harsh you cannot mention a persons name . because it is someones name . He owned it. then if someone shoot a film in a country and when you have to pay 30% of your earning to the country. just for shooting or may be if you are showing and earth model you can only show your own country not any other country else you need to have permission for them.

No wonder why darkweb exists.

#31

Plenty of cool looking 3D cars out there that are not complete copies of existing cars, I don’t see any problem with using those instead.

Unless you really need to use a specific existing car model, for whatever reason… but those cases are the exception imho and if it’s really that important to get a specific car model then maybe it’s only fair to contact the manufacturer anyway. Even though Ferrari is known to be difficult to get a license from (based on my experience with racing games).

#32

Throughout the rest of 2018, GM’s crossover sales should be strong enough to support margins despite costs from new truck launches, CFRA analyst Efraim Levy said in a note Thursday. By 2022, almost 73 percent of all consumer vehicle sales in the United States are expected to be utility vehicles of some sort, and about 27 percent will be cars, according to auto industry forecasting firm LMC Automotive. Subway Surfers Psiphon Hill Climb Racing

#33

Meanwhile it is the opposite in Europe. Many roads are scary too narrow for most anything larger than a ‘compact’ SUV.
Even their utility trucks are compact. And ‘pick-ups’ are a no-show. Also standard transmissions are a must.

So both markets will likely continue to exist ‘driven’ by local conditions, markets and unique priorities.

#34

I do not think those situations are congruent at all.

It is a basic IP control issue. It is one thing to have your product in the wild, completely different to allow yourself to be associated with a deliberate and controlled message. Maybe they do not approve of the story / character, and do not want their product associated with it in any way. Or they do not know or support the creator or producers enough to trust them with their IP.

I think it is a legitimate ask. Especially in this world we live in now; where a single “outraged” twitter user become leverage for a national story, and companies are getting slammed left and right for nothing more than being loosely associated to anything controversial.

All it takes for for said film-maker to have an 10 year old tweet taken out of context, or be accused of racism / abuse, and everyone gets caught in the net cast by the outraged masses. Then the SJW come out and demand that any company remotely associated with said production (even unofficially) be boycotted, if they do not actively denounce this person or take some other immediate and proactive action to something they may not have even known about.

You know it happens. So, I can completely understand why companies are being more restrictive with their IP these days. Why take a chance?

#35

free3d.com seems to have a lot of cars still

at the end of the day… google search finds what’s there…

#36

What it most reminds me of in law is expectation of privacy. If I leave the house and end up where news is breaking I may end up on TV. My rights to privacy end when I leave the house, attend certain events, or when working as a public servant such as a politician or law enforcement. I feel that when a product is released into the wild it should be treated similarly.
Essentially the IP control issue as you have described comes down to what “they” want. I understand not wanting your product shown in a work you don’t support, used in a situation you don’t support, or associated with a person you’d prefer not to support. But why have we decided that that preference is something that should be protected? We know that murderers own cars, that disgraced individuals wear clothing and own furniture. Could Ford have blocked CNN from airing the OJ Simpson chase because it depicted their car unfavorably? Should CNN have an obligation to ask permission to show OJ driving his Ford Bronco after having possibly committed two murders? And, after having become a well-known vehicle, why should a producer be expected to seek permission to use the likeness of that vehicle in a recreation (e.g. flashback, dream sequence, parody…) of that event?