I'm currently making a city map for a game. I'm working on modelling some cars for the level using real pictures of cars for textures. I'm planning on taking the car models/manufacturer names out of the textures. Seems legal to me.....?

If the car is in the exact same shape, I think they could still bust you for copyright infringement. But if you change the shape, you are basically just sampling texture from photos, and that should be alright. At least nobody should be able to tell what car you used. In the music industry, if you can't tell what song was sampled you should be kosher. As a side note, you may find, as I did, that the reflections and gleams on the car make photos unusable for dynamic in-game situations. GL

You are most likely violating the IP rights of the car manufacturers.

Read Tom's FAQ 61.

This seems overly restrictive. How do TV shows get away with showing cars without having licensed them? Due to trademark law you can't use the names or symbols associated with the car's shape (in either TV or video games), but I don't see why you can't use the shape itself, as long as you don't associate it in any way with the trademarked names or logos.

Didn't Sega have a similar problem with the first Outrun? They had to remove the logo from the car on the re-releases of the game IIRC.

Quote:

How do TV shows get away with showing cars without having licensed them?

The major film and production studios all have agreements with auto manufacturers.

They have to get permission from lots of groups for their movies. They have legal agreements with the providers of their props. They have permissions for airplanes, cars, boats, and motorcycles. They get permission to use building architecture. They get permission to use distinctive furnature and clothes. One movie (I forget the title) about two years ago had to refilm a scene because they couldn't find the IP owner for a distinctive chair. In Monsters Inc., Pixar wanted to use a different sound for the monster crossing the street, but ended up going with a chicken cluck since Disney couldn't acquire permission for the sound they wanted.

Another recent case is the movie "7 Km da Gerusalemme" (Seven Kilometers From Jerusalem) which was pulled right before going on sale because there was an unauthorized Coke can in one of the scenes. The cola company apparently thought about licensing to them, but then decided they didn't want their product in the film and demanded they cut the scene from the film. Even though discs were already shipping to warehouses, the film company decided to not risk bankruptcy and recalled the movie, re-releasing it without the scene last May.

NPR had a great line that describes this: "Jesus is not an authorized representative of Coke."



If even Jesus can't drink a Coke on screen without proper legal permission, imagine how badly you would fare.

Quote:

The major film and production studios all have agreements with auto manufacturers....They have permissions for airplanes, cars, boats, and motorcycles.

What part of IP law would they be breaking by showing a car, if they didn't show the name or logo?

Quote:

If even Jesus can't drink a Coke on screen without proper legal permission, imagine how badly you would fare.

Right, but what if you have a coke can that's labeled "GENERIC SODA" or has all labeling removed? Isn't that more similar to the question the OP is asking?

Quote:

Original post by venzon Quote: The major film and production studios all have agreements with auto manufacturers....They have permissions for airplanes, cars, boats, and motorcycles. What part of IP law would they be breaking by showing a car, if they didn't show the name or logo? Quote: If even Jesus can't drink a Coke on screen without proper legal permission, imagine how badly you would fare. Right, but what if you have a coke can that's labeled "GENERIC SODA" or has all labeling removed? Isn't that more similar to the question the OP is asking?

A car's body design is distinctive. There are many people who can just look at a car (without a nameplate or logo) and identify it. Even if the specific body design isn't a registered trademark, it is still a valid trademark.

If there were a "generic soda" which was in a cylindrical can, and there were no distinctive marks on the can, then it would have been fine.

And finally, no, that isn't the same as what the OP posted. It's would be similar to using a Coke can, with their distnctive twisting line and colors, and just replacing the word "coke" with a stylized label "generic". Because the stylized elements are recognizable or easily confused with the real thing, it still unlawful trademark use.

For the OP, because all the stylized elements and creative design of the car are still present, the trademark stays intact. Removing just the name might actually make the situation worse, because it shows that you knew something about IP, and realized that you might be violating their rights.

It isn't that hard for artists to make up their own vehicle designs. I've worked with enough artists and seen it enough times to know it isn't a big deal. You just start out with a similar basic shape and modify edges until you get something that looks reasonably car-shaped, then make something that looks exciting. Pick a flat color then paint on a few texture details at the end. I can make a passable car with Maya in about an hour, and I'm not even an artist.

Hmm... I think you know a lot more about this than I do. I'll concede -- it sounds like trademarks could be argued cover a distinctive 3D shape.