can you get even more greedy ?!

[samuel_bubat]

The funny thing is, we sometimes work indirectly for BMW through architects and Communication Agencies using Turbosquid Models as it´s nearly impossible to get CAD Models if you do not work very tight with BMW directly. It doesn´t seem they had a problem with that in the past. I would understand it if they would go against a specific project that uses their cars in an innapropriate way. But at the moment they´re basically going against the whole industry. It´s probabely just a matter of time until lawsuits against other 3D Model sites will follow. In my opinion that´s just ridiculous.

Rockstar Games could now make some extra bucks by selling their fantasy cars from GTA for visualisation

[Wilyman]

If the clients wants these brands in the project because he is actually selling them and thus creating profit for those brands...whats the big deal about it? Why would they mind?

They almost certainly wouldn't. But as BMW have no control over what people do with one of these models, they don't know whether it'll be used as one of 20 cars in a car park, or as the main component of AJ's Hitler/Puppy extravaganza.
In which case, trying to stop any unauthorised use seems like the only real option.
Also, these models are never quite accurate to the real cars, so there's an argument that it's a misrepresentation of their brand. Not a very strong argument, admittedly, but an argument nonetheless.

Thats where ia see the absurdity of it Thorsten, no matter how i look at it.

Even with Thorsten's T-Shirt analogy?

I don't think anyone in this thread is actually in support of BMW's actions. Just a lot of us think they've got a right to do so if they wish.

Cheers,

John

[samuel_bubat]

So it doesn´t seem to be as easy as "BMW owns the design and can do whatever they want".

This is about the Turbosquid/BMW lawsuit.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/06/...ringement.html

[Syclone1]

This is not the first time that something like this has happened and it wont be the last. I remember a couple years ago a mustang car club made a calendar featuring their own classic mustangs that they restored and they were going to give the profits to a charity I think as most car clubs do stuff like that, somehow Ford heard about it and their lawyers made the car club destroy the calendars as it wasn't approved or sanctioned by Ford.

Some companies will welcome stuff like that but most car manufacturers are like cranky toddlers and if you touch their toys or products then they are going to throw a tantrum.

[glorybound]

These companies have lawyers on staff, so I guess they feel like they have to use them. It kind of makes sense. I can't make baseball hats with Mickey Mouse on them without paying royalties. Heck, I can make a hat with a mouse that remotely resembles Mickey Mouse. So, technically they are probably rights, but it seems frivolous.

[PIXELBOX_SRO]

Can you imagine Bobby you woudl have to to ditch all the cars from the scenes because some corporate lawyer woud suddenly decide they don tlike their cars to be portrayed next to the house types youre doing??? And i cant imagine calling the car producers to ask them if i can ))

So yes it makes perfect sense but it seems to me that justice these days are only on the side of the powerfull ones.

Google pays no taxes in EU, Volkswagen doesnt have to give money backl to the EU customers, AD is charging us subscriptions every year for nothing, ZARA is stealing peoples designs and so on. And it will get worse as the Orwellian prophecy is closer to our doorsteps.

[glorybound]

Capitalism at its best! We'll have to tell our clients they'll need to pay a premium to use branded cars. If they are not willing to pay the premium, then they get no-name cars. But, it'll get pretty difficult to make no-name cars that don't resemble some known car. I see the cost coming from the person selling the car. For every car they sell, they have to pay a royalty.

[Ivan1982]

But what's to stop me buying a BMW model, popping Hitler behind the steering wheel and having him drive over a load of puppies? That's where the concept of 'free advertising' falls down.

Yes you have every creative artistic right to do so... if you really want to do so you can model BMW yourself. They do have big exposure through TS lets not kid ourselves as most people make "normal" stuff.
I was talking about that TS doesn't have any input to anyone who bought model.

If BMW is so paranoid and doesn't want their models used in any way they should start selling their cars on moon or mars as what they want is impossible on earth... what is next they will forbid people to write down BMW...

[^Lele^]

But what's to stop me buying a BMW model, popping Hitler behind the steering wheel and having him drive over a load of puppies? That's where the concept of 'free advertising' falls down.

Or genius is born.
Made my day. ^^

[^Lele^]

So it doesn´t seem to be as easy as "BMW owns the design and can do whatever they want".

This is about the Turbosquid/BMW lawsuit.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/06/...ringement.html

Thanks for the link, but hey, the writer clearly is new to the concepts.
Sentences like

"Does selling a virtual object directly infringe a trademark or design patent that contemplates, or is in fact limited to, a physical good?"

to people like us is clearly sounds a moot point.
Or i could create a site, and sell copies of vray nightlies, or Bobby's renders, because, what the hell, they're a digital good.

Further, the article elaborates on the specifics, and they revolve around the fact that turbosquid claims to sell the cars for videogames, while BWM claims they do their own licensing of IP to game makers (GT, Assetto Corsa, Project cars, you name it, they paid through their teeth.).
Minutia, really, compared to the broader scope.
We'll see where this goes, in court: whichever way it'll lean, it'll set quite the precedent, given the players involved.

[Ivan1982]

Thanks for the link, but hey, the writer clearly is new to the concepts.
Sentences like

to people like us is clearly sounds a moot point.
Or i could create a site, and sell copies of vray nightlies, or Bobby's renders, because, what the hell, they're a digital good.

This is borderline example, nightlies are finished digital product same as Bobby's renders, that would be clear infringement. That doesn't prevent anyone else make similar design as Bobby would or using some variation of monte carlo algorithm for render engine...

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/06/...ringement.html


This is not first time someone wanted to do such ridiculous thing, and it is especially pathetic if that is something unimportant like car. Lotus wanted to do similar stuff(top gear kinda took a swing at them for that)

TS does not sell BMW cars or blue prints! They sell creations(models) from other people loosely based on BMW design(as no one have CAD files) they didn't invent car, wheels, steering wheel, windshield, internal combustion engine, gearbox, mirror... but they are making all that.
It is one thing to try and forbid people making exact same product(copying) or in this case trying to bully someone into submission by forbiding to recreate what they saw.

[rivoli]

They sell creations(models) from other people loosely based on BMW design(as no one have CAD files) they didn't invent car, wheels, steering wheel, windshield, internal combustion engine, gearbox, mirror... but they are making all that.

I guess the problem, from bmw's point of view, is not much the resemblance, as detailed as it can be, but rather the use of their logo and most recognizable design elements. if those models are being sold as accurate digital reproductions of bmw cars, then it's really hard not to find an explicit intention of doing just that: making money out the bmw brand. arguably, in a situation like this, it would be quite difficult to claim any fair use of copyrighted material as defence.
this is not to say that I support bmw's actions, it just sounds a bit disingenuous to say those models were loosely based on actual cars.

[^Lele^]

This is borderline example, nightlies are finished digital product same as Bobby's renders, that would be clear infringement. That doesn't prevent anyone else make similar design as Bobby would or using some variation of monte carlo algorithm for render engine...

Nightlies are not a finished product, and they are not sold at ALL by chaosgroup, under NO circumstance.
In fact, the average user never gets to see stuff which pops up in nightlies, and then changes or is dropped.
It'd be my very own development, as it would be to splat a Lele logo on Bobby's renders, which id' ofc recrop a bit.
However, i am telling you the TRICK, what i'd state publicly is that i made some hay into an old project of mine called V-Ray.
Nono, it's not V-Ray V-Ray, it's just Called V-Ray. Yes, Adv. and RT.
No, of course it isn't as if Chaos sold it to you, this is a personal develompent. (but no, TS never even said that explicitly.)
Hey, give me 20 bucks and try it out, what harm can it do, it's 20 bucks only.

And those renders, i do to test the engine, you see.
They go for cheap too, try them at 10$ each for size, when printed they look amazing.
They're loosely based on Bobby's art, being called "Bobby's Render #3" and "Bobby's Churchpoint Render".

When a maker wants poeople to use models of their stuff they PROVIDE for them: IKEA, lighting and appliances manufacturers to name a few.
You make copies of IKEA furniture based on their instruction manual or photos, without explicit permission, and you ARE infringing copyright.
The fact no one will ever come after you is not a negation of the infringement, it just means your work wasn't big enough to get anyone's notice.

So, sorry, you are wrong on the first count, as far as i am concerned.

As for the second, Chaos Group had to drop QMC in favour of their own DMC approach when Bulgaria entered the EU and Mental Images, holders of the patent to some QMC random sequences, threatened to sue.
There was never a COPY of anything.
It was a loose use of concepts, for which unfortunately MI found open roads back in the day, and ran to patent.
Yet, qmc died in V-Ray then and never came back.
So no, no one stops you preventively, but your merry go round will stop before catching any notable momentum.

Turbosquid is huge, and i would have expected them to be COMPLETELY covered by authorisations for the brands they sold; they make an awful lot of money on the public, they ought to do their due diligence.
BMW-X3 means one thing, and one only, without possibility for misconstruction, particularly when paired to a render of it.
Trying to justify anything else is raving lunacy to me, or outright interest.
As a USER you should be pissed at TS, not trying to defend its right to rape IPs for their own benefit, while you paid for models you technically could never have used, and using them put your clients in a worse position still.
Once again, the fact it's not policeable doesn't mean accidents don't happen, haven't happened, and won't happen as long as people stay this liberal with others' work.

If we start cutting thinner slices off what an IP is, there simply is no end in sight.

[VelvetElvis]

"I used to be rich. I owned Mickey Mouse massage parlors and those Disney sleaze balls shut me down. I said "Look, I'll change the logo, put Mickey's pants back on." Some guys you just can't reason with."

I understand why BMW is doing it, especially with the use of their logo. Turbosquid should be smart enough to know that you can't use a direct 1:1 copy of a logo without permission. The fact that they are also going after specific design elements is the interesting part of this case. While the cars in GTA where similar, they were different enough to avoid any and all legal issues. The ones on Turbosquid however, are pretty close to be exact replicas.

But where does this leave the industry if BMW wins on everything? Say I'm working on a college dorm that is going to furnish the spaces with IKEA items. They are going to spend millions on these furnishings and I now need to render these spaces with the furnishings. I need to model them as close as I can, so am I now infringing on copyrights? And no, I'm not going to show Hitler sleeping in one of the beds. Or does this only get sticky if I were to take those models and put them back up for sale on a personal website or something like Turbosquid?

[Dave_Wortley]

I've worked on several automotive projects where the client hasn't been able to get hold of CAD data and we've used models from Turbosquid etc.. at their request!