Fine art sales of vintage cars

What's the latest? In the past I had read that sales of pictures of vintage cars as fine art was being stopped.

Is that still the case? Can pictures taken at a public auto show of vintage cars be sold as fine art? And if the answer is technically no they can't, have manufacturers nonetheless stopped sending out cease and desist notices?

What were they using as an argument about why the companies retain that level of control?

If you are actually worried then I would say talk to a lawyer in your region. About the only thing that I'm aware of that they can have a real case on would be if you were using their trademarked logos and such in your advertising for your sales, and even then they possibly have to prove that there is potential for confusion over whether your work is actually connected with their company in anyway beyond content.

As I understand it, it was trademark issues. Reports of car clubs being stopped from producing fund-raising calendars, pictures being sold as fine art, etc. were numerous.

Images will not be used in advertising, only for-profit art sales. Still, I did not want to spend time processing and posting only to wind up getting a cease and desist notice.

Old car pictures are popular within a sector, and they sell but why waste the time if everything is shot down by lawyers?

You can't infringe a trademark by selling an art print of the logo or a print of a car that has a logo on. You can infringe if you use the trademark to actively sell your prints or your service. (IE having a page with "Ford Prints" plastered all over it. Also having a big Ford logo on the front cover of your calendar might be viewed as infringement - more likely it would be viewed as "passing off" - trying to make your calendar appear to be an official Ford calendar. But if you just had a designer create your own "Vintage Car" logo for the cover of your calendar, which was filled with images of vintage cars, then the images are the product and your made up logo is your trademark so there is no infringement.

You also have to be careful how you use trademarked terms in text. Having "2014 Classic Ford car calendar" might be problematic. They can claim that the trademarked name is being used to sell the calendar (or at least "pass off"). However if you had "2014 classic car calendar" as your title and then text under that stating "includes 13 images of classic Ford cars from 1930 to present day" then you are merely referring to the brand, not using it as a trademark.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17111184
As I understand it, it was trademark issues. Reports of car clubs being stopped from producing fund-raising calendars...

Pretty sure this is what you're referring to: Black Mustang Club calendar.

Thanks, Dan. That went a long way to clearing it up. It appears to be all about "intent." I have no intention on focusing on and making money from anybody's logo or other trademark. I have tons of vintage car photos taken over many year, all makes, that I am thinking about using. It's a niche interest, but if I root around in it well enough, there's a few bucks to be made.

No, Road Dog, what I was talking about was years ago. But your article is a good catch because it shows Ford is still at it. If I remember correctly, it was FoMoCo that, years ago, was stopping car clubs from raising funds by selling calendars.

Like it says in the article: "...but to attack a group of people who, clearly, love the product in question simply for showing their love of that product is, well, idiotic and more harmful ...". It is something I could never understand. Why any company would attack people who love their product and are promoting it in a purely positive light is beyond me. Perhaps it simply means Ford Motor Company has a few too many staff attorneys, and they have nothing better to do.

Thank you gentlemen.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17112988
No, Road Dog, what I was talking about was years ago. But your article is a good catch because it shows Ford is still at it. If I remember correctly, it was FoMoCo that, years ago, was stopping car clubs from raising funds by selling calendars..

Uh, the link RoadDog supplied says the BMC/Ford/CafePress dispute was over the club's 2008 calendar.

The owner of a car could go after you for not having a property release, but it's tough to say how effective that would be.

mltn wrote in post #17113618
The owner of a car could go after you for not having a property release, but it's tough to say how effective that would be.

1. Anyone can sue you for anything; doesn't mean they would win.
2. There is no basis in law for the concept of "property release" so no basis for them to sue.
3. The few cases that have come to court have been won/settled in favour of the photographer/person or company using the image.
4. If property releases did exist then it would seem logical that they would work in the same way as model releases and relate only to "commercial use" (advertising/marketing​/promotion) so the OPs fine art sales wouldn't be affected.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17112988
No, Road Dog, what I was talking about was years ago. But your article is a good catch because it shows Ford is still at it. If I remember correctly, it was FoMoCo that, years ago, was stopping car clubs from raising funds by selling calendars.

The link I provided is to an article written almost seven years ago.

Road Dog wrote in post #17114409
The link I provided is to an article written almost seven years ago.

Three posts above yours:

AZGeorge wrote in post #17113156
Uh, the link RoadDog supplied says the BMC/Ford/CafePress dispute was over the club's 2008 calendar.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17114761
Three posts above yours:

Yeah, I reply to posts as I read them. I don't read entire threads and then go back and reply.