BMW suing Turbosquid over car models

VelvetElvis

http://www.protectingdesigns.com/bmw-group-files-suit-against-turbosquid

While I can understand the use of a logo in a model, what is different about this one is that they are also going after design elements of the digital model of the cars.

Marshkin

Interesting. I'm surprised I haven't heard about this happening more often.

SnowInChina

to be fair, it is their design and their trademark
i can really see both sides there, the thing is, where does this all stop ?
if every manufacturer will sue  you for modeling a chair or tool you are doing, just because they have the rights to the design, its going to be a nightmare. if this goes on you won't be able to model anything in 3d except your own designs, and even then you could get in trouble because you modeled something that looks similar to something some company in absurdistan has patented you haven't even heard of....

for games this should really be considered fair use (trademarks should still be a no no)

slosh

I think you can model a similar shaped car and easily get away with.  GTA does this a lot and have never been sued for it.  You obviously can't use the logos and you have to change the design enough that it's not exact.  

pior

This totally makes sense, and there is really no surprise here.

PyrZern

Welp, time to start making dragons then...

*gets sued by D&D*
Fk!

MagicSugar

They're probably afraid car manufacturing fakers will use the cheap files to 3d print or laser cut molds to help produce their clones.  Heard of the Land Win?  Rip off of the Range Rover.

throttlekitty

So why now? This has been going on for a long time.

RyanB

Marshkin said:

Interesting. I'm surprised I haven't heard about this happening more often.

Happens all the time in lots of industries.  We are just insulated from having to deal with courts and lawyers.

Example:

Kohler Claims Rival Knocked Off Its Kitchen Sink Designs

http://www.law360.com/articles/275523/kohler-claims-rival-knocked-off-its-kitchen-sink-designs

SnowInChina

RyanB said:

Marshkin said:

Interesting. I'm surprised I haven't heard about this happening more often.

Happens all the time in lots of industries.  We are just insulated from having to deal with courts and lawyers.

Example:

Kohler Claims Rival Knocked Off Its Kitchen Sink Designs

http://www.law360.com/articles/275523/kohler-claims-rival-knocked-off-its-kitchen-sink-designs

well, thats something completly different.
thats simply plagiarism

but we are talking about 3D models for games/visualisations
the created 3D models are a completly different medium and target group from the physical cars.
one reason could be that bmw is selling 3d models of their cars for marketing purposes and they don't want anyone buying the cheap knock offs from turbosquid.


most likely they got sued because they have bmw signs in their packages and the infringement on the design is just an extra

VelvetElvis

Arkaria said:

Maybe I'm missing information. Did the person make an EXACT replica of BMW's vehicles? And did they add the BMW logo? If they did either of those things fine, but if they just made a vehicle that only looked similar.. I mean personally I don't know anything about cars and most of them look the same to me. I don't know how you can make a 3D model of a car without it looking somewhat like a car that exists. It's like trying to make a 3D model of a pen without accidentally making yours look too much like any real pens that exist

Yes, the cars in question were literal copies of BMW cars. The logo used was the exact same one as you'd find on their vehicle as well.

VelvetElvis

For reference, this is from the now non-existant models on Turbosquid

PyrZern

It's probably the same reason we don't make 3d model of Prince Arthas, and sell it. Blizz would sue my ass off.

monster

I agree with pior. To me the actual surprise is there isn't more take down or C&D for game and cartoon IPs. For example, I'm pretty sure 0% of these are licensed:

http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-model/disney/
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-model/star-wars-movie/
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-model/nintendo/

xvampire

turbosquid has been allowing copyrighted materials for sales , 
I saw some complain from some smaller or indie creator having their design or model being sold in turbosquid without permission
when asked for takedown turbosquid often does not cooperate. 

http://kouotsu.tumblr.com/post/34584552625/soill-try-to-sum-up-whats-happening-here-in


so yeah, go BMW, sue them as much as possible ..

Jonas Ronnegard

yeah this shouldn't be a surprise, they had blueprint modeled models on their website, more surprised they haven't done anything about it sooner, more surprised about the pixar disney stuff that was linked above though, they have sued for a lot less then that.

Justin Meisse

@PyrZern model a dragon, just don't copy an illustration from a D&D handbook or any existing artwork, what's so hard about that?

VelvetElvis

monster said:

I agree with pior. To me the actual surprise is there isn't more take down or C&D for game and cartoon IPs. For example, I'm pretty sure 0% of these are licensed:

http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-model/disney/
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-model/star-wars-movie/
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-model/nintendo/

Check the usage details on some of those. BB-8 is listed for "editorial use only" which that use skirts copyright laws as it is considered news. This is from the website's usage rights for BB-8, "The intellectual property depicted in this model, including the brand "star wars", is not affiliated with or endorsed by the original rights holders and must be used under editorial use restrictions." Rule #5 in the restrictions states that it can't be used for commercial purposes.

This is where I think Turbosquid is going to set their defense. If they list models as editorial use only, but someone else doesn't follow then they will claim they can't be held responsible for that. Though you can't access the BMW models anymore so I can tell if they had that usage restriction up or not.

PyrZern

Justin Meisse said:

@PyrZern model a dragon, just don't copy an illustration from a D&D handbook or any existing artwork, what's so hard about that?

It was a half joke >_>'

Savannakhet

You sort of wonder how far auto companies go to copyright design language like the kidney grills or the Hofmeister kink. Is it even possible to copyright aesthetic automotive details? Obviously the Chinese firms copy the western marques pretty closely, but China is a sort of IP blackhole. Or is car styling closer to fashion and architecture where everybody plagiarizes everyone?

kanga

I reckon if you want to make and sell vehicles but cant design them you should get in contact with a designer and pay them a percentage. We all like getting paid for our work and designers and developers are no exception regardless of how successful they are

ExcessiveZero

This really shouldn't suprise anyone, I am more surprised this hasn't happened sooner.

Kevin Albers

Not surprising at all. As an Outsource Manager and artist, I've had to deal with this sort of issue many many times. In particular, it seems that vehicle and weapon companies get can very picky about someone using a design too close to the actual product designs. And they pretty much have to do it. In order to keep a trademark you need to be able to show that you are 'defending' it. So if they are proud of, for example, their design for the front grill of a car, you better not include that EXACT grill in your 'lookalike' vehicle model.

From the game maker perspective, it's quite a pain in the ass at times. Concept art is not free, and ultimately this legal stuff means you need to do lots of extra concepting for high profile assets.

Zitch

Arkaria said:

VelvetElvis said:

Yes, the cars in question were literal copies of BMW cars. The logo used was the exact same one as you'd find on their vehicle as well.

Oh that's completely different lol of course they would get sued for this

Yeah I don't get it. Common sense to change logos and stuff if you're going to sell. At least spoof the name and change the features a bit.

MosherMax

I think this is a fascinating topic. I just sat for the Massachusetts Bar Examination and I spend an enormous amount time modeling and animating with the Blender platform. 

Over the course of many years I have read so many anecdotes from artists complaing about plagiarism, theft, etc.. Sometimes I wonder how well informed of the law artists are. Intellectual property law is incredibly complicated, and obtaining and enforcing legal rights in artistic work is hard (particularly the enforcement).

I am not licensed to practice law yet (therefore offering legal advice might get me disbarred before I have a license to practice), but I am sure that I can offer a good ear to an artist having an intellectual property issue. Also, I am sure that hearing from artists will be an education on my part. 

Biomag

What people forget is that the car companies are spending a lot of money on design - not just engineering. Then someone comes in and offers it for sale as a 3D asset without permission/license. What's the difference to copying a X-Wing or Tie-Fighter and selling those on Turbosquid? Its the same as taping yourself reading a Lord of the Rings and selling those tapes - no one would be surprised if they shut you down. As Kevin Albers said it, companies are even forced to go after such infrictions, so the biggest surprise to me is how many copyrights are actually infringed on sites like Turbosquid and how little is done.

gfelton

I've always been curious about how things like gun design copyrights are given the 'ok' for games. Do all big dev studios have to go after some of these gun designers like FN Herstal or Armalite and ask for permission or is stuff like this considered fair use as long as they're not selling the individual models?

Biomag

gfelton said:

I've always been curious about how things like gun design copyrights are given the 'ok' for games. Do all big dev studios have to go after some of these gun designers like FN Herstal or Armalite and ask for permission or is stuff like this considered fair use as long as they're not selling the individual models?

If I am correct Metal Gear V actually didn't get the licenses (or didn't bothered) and therefore you have just fictional weapons there. So I would guess you have to and it is comon to get it.

VelvetElvis

All you need to do is change the design a bit and you are free and clear from copyrights. That's why Counter Strike has the Desert Eagle and not the IMI/Magnum Research Desert Eagle Mark XIX, which is the gun it is based on. The real life gun does not have slits down the barrel on the .50 cal versions, the CS version does. That little change is enough to get around copyright issues. That and not using the actual name or manufacturer logo.

leilei

Designing all the models for a left handed view (Minh Le is a lefty), and ending up flipping them for the default right handed view helps design dodging too, having bolts and injectors in the wrong places.

[spoiler]though cs did have the guns by their actual names until the 7.1 release. They changed them in 1.0/retail (and also trademarked logos in maps happened to change as well, like Becks->Beoks)[/spoiler]

gfelton

leilei said:

Designing all the models for a left handed view (Minh Le is a lefty), and ending up flipping them for the default right handed view helps design dodging too, having bolts and injectors in the wrong places.

[spoiler]though cs did have the guns by their actual names until the 7.1 release. They changed them in 1.0/retail (and also trademarked logos in maps happened to change as well, like Becks->Beoks)[/spoiler]

I always thought they did this just to show off how fancy their animations were, very interesting.

MosherMax

Idk. I suspect that there may be a little bit more to it than just changing a design slightly. I am no expert, but I doubt a small time artist would fare well in a legal dispute against a company like BMW or Disney. Defending is not exactly profitable considering any profits made will likely be shared with an attorney one will need to decode the legalese in a set of Interrogatories and to make proper objections to inadmissible evidence so that the defense is not railroaded.   Also, maybe one winds up having to defend in a state hundreds of miles from your home because a sale was made in a jurisdiction in which the company argues that they were harmed. 

They will take artwork from an easy target anytime they want. 

MosherMax

Biomag said:

What people forget is that the car companies are spending a lot of money on design - not just engineering. Then someone comes in and offers it for sale as a 3D asset without permission/license. What's the difference to copying a X-Wing or Tie-Fighter and selling those on Turbosquid? Its the same as taping yourself reading a Lord of the Rings and selling those tapes - no one would be surprised if they shut you down. As Kevin Albers said it, companies are even forced to go after such infrictions, so the biggest surprise to me is how many copyrights are actually infringed on sites like Turbosquid and how little is done.

MosherMax

How do you know little is being done? All it takes is a strongly worded demand letter asking for a reasonable sum from a reputable law firm. Turbosquid might feel it's better to settle and keep it quiet than let the public know. 

Prime8

Was actually wondering why this hasn't been done earlier and by other companies as well. Saw some models on paid websites that were so precise, it looked like they have been based off of CAD data.
If the model is very low quality and looks like crap I wouldn't want to have my company name on that either.

Anyone who wants to use a brand product in a commercial project could get in contact with the company and get permission, sometimes even support.

Thane-

Well, to the people that like no-holds bard competition, then whats more competitive than trying to keep up with anyone that can make your stuff.

There IS NOTHING inherently wrong with any copying that has EVER been done what-so-ever. So says physics, but of course we work with emotions based that can be based upon illogical concepts.

Should Disney or any company be able to restrict development of Star Wars stuff when so many people's happiness is literally effected, through no fault of their own, by its continued development, or lack thereof. Not every adult is ABLE to be entertained by lego Star Wars, in their current state of mind (but might have been entertained by Star Wars 1313, -RIP), but might be better served with a game mod about Star Wars tailored to their particular taste. Without patent restrictions, would modders have, for example, made an open source, free or donation-based, Star Wars universe or like a "Open Death Star" game where you could infiltrate a very complex Death Star to achieve various goals.

Where would we be from a game-dev point of view without restrictions on copying i wonder. How high would the pile of free open-source shared 3D resources would have been accumulated by now. How many high poly rock models did we really need?

Just the rocks made with tutorials i've watched probably could have covered the needs of every game out there.