A curious copyright case...or madness?

[fixeighted]

A few weeks ago I posted an image of a scene I made containing a model of a Range Rover that a company in the UK 'pimps up'. It was done prospectively for a client of mine and is derived from photos of the pre-existing car. So no blueprints, no CAD data...all scratch built by me.
Now, my client (who has the 'pimper' as a client, not RR by the way) didn't want me to share a video I made of it and quoted a (actually nonexistant) NDA they had with me as the reason. So I took it down.

A response to one of Kosso's posts of his recent BMW job (very excellent) got me thinking...
Apparently BMW did sue Turbosquid back in '16 and made them take down models....thus insinuating that it is somehow copyright infringement to even make a 3D model of something that already exists.
Can it be thus implied that I cannot 'legally' draw an image of e.g. a BMW and attempt to sell it, or have an image that contains a BMW?

This, by the way, is the only instance of suit that I could find, so maybe it's just BMW that are being petulant in this regard.

Thoughts?

[Neilg]

BMW didnt want other people selling and making money off the models of their cars, or their trademarks being used to market and sell things that they are not associated with.

Think of star wars fan projects - if nobody makes any money, they turn a blind eye and let them exist. if you plan to sell something using the star wars license you will get slapped with a cease and desist so fast it'll make your head spin. it all comes down to making profit from it. You would not get hit with a cease and desist for making a portfolio piece which was clearly labeled as such.

[fixeighted]

The thing I don't get is that if it is my model, a 3D representation, then how in any sane world is that not mine to sell? It's just mad IP legal bollocks and overly protectively greed-based for the most part, I believe.
Same as if I made clay models of the same car and they sold. By the same token they would have the 'legal' right to tell me to stop.
It's a tough one get one's head around.

I can understand that if one is, for example, perceivably misrepresenting their brand identity in a way that makes money by seeming association - a famous Harrods case from years ago e.g. - then fine - but a model of one of their products, faithful and effectively an homage to the design.....I fail to see there is anything gained in pursuing such a case.

Anyway, only theoretical in my case, so just interesting to discuss

EDIT: Just for argument's sake https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-model/tie-fighter

[Neilg]

It's intellectual property. you might have made the model but they own the design.
there's a long and well established legal history of this. star wars is probably the most well known for turning a blind eye as they believe fan films are to their benefit. it's not all that weird

[fixeighted]

I understand about IP but you made exactly the point I was alluding to - it's a choice whether to be litigious regarding anything like this.
If there is perceived damage to a brand, or a compromising of the standards which that brand espouses or wants to project, then I can understand their wanting to shout about it. So yes, doing something like physically copying a Chanel bag or whatever, mass producing it for profit - well that's a clear cut case of infringement.
I argue that making a virtual representation of an existing product, in a way that only serves to publicise more that product and show it in the same favourable light as they would presumably wish, is not the same thing and that any litigation to remove that from sale is arbitrary and based on bad advice on their end. To my mind it is mean-spirited at the least.
Otherwise, why is this sort of case not more widely known?
I had not heard of it before yesterday and can find little about it online, much less any similar cases. It's possible that if there are more then maybe part of the legal process ensures that the party concerned is gagged from publicising it...just conjecture.

As one of of the only forum posts I could find commented; if this were some sort of general rule, which it clearly isn't, one would have to presuppose that any virtual modelling of any existing and (presumably) copyrighted design is to be completely avoided, under penalty of a law suit. I wonder how many of the vast amount of sites have specific licensing agreements for each of the thousands of beds, tables, chairs, cars, tech...... With no actual law in place to make the situation clear, that is a potentially ruinous situation to be in

[dean_dmoo]

I argue that making a virtual representation of an existing product, in a way that only serves to publicise more that product and show it in the same favourable light as they would presumably wish, is not the same thing and that any litigation to remove that from sale is arbitrary and based on bad advice on their end. To my mind it is mean-spirited at the least.

But who are you, or I, to determine whether that representation is what they would want? Burberry destroys left over inventory to keep their products exclusive. The same principle can be used for imaging or representation. If a company wants to control "the narrative" and through which channels their products are shown it's not strange to take this position. If you had a very exclusive product and only wanted to sell through Saks 5th avenue or Harrods you would be pissed off if Wallmart was selling it through a 3rd party.

It is a slippery slope though, I agree. We don't make in house experimental renders of commercial projects for the same reason. And if we did, we check with the client before publishing.

[fixeighted]

In thinking more about this and doing a little research I found this page https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com...t-infringement
Which makes pretty much everything I've been doing for years illegal 0_0
I wouldn't do well in Shawshank...
To think, ever since I was a kid I've been abusing Disney's IP !
Anyone wanna buy a really nice computer?....and all my crayons?