frob:

Why did you reported that guy? I did find him just by accident, didnt want to cause any harm to him, was it really a necessary move??

Because TurboSquid happens to be quite careful about following proper attributions.

This is an everyday common thing for them. It is a common license issue. They won't ban him or anything serious.

Basically their moderators click a check box and type in "Mars, Inc."

It adds a warning to the asset that individuals need additional license clearance.

Edit: And looking at the object on TurbySquid now, five hours later, it has the little notice attached. They didn't take it down or anything, just clarified that it needs additional permission.

BTW did you know about anybody (freelancer i mean) who got sued because of this kind of stuff?

I know three individuals off-hand who have had C&D orders, which is a common preliminary step usually followed before filing a suit. In each case they took down the materials because they didn't want to face a lawsuit.

As businesses, I've seen it happen first hand several times. The most interesting I was in the room meeting with the bosses when there was a knock at the door, the secretary said they needed the boss to sign for receipt of legal papers, and he signed the paper brought in by a suit, likely a lawyer. The boss asked what it was, the suit said it was a trademark legal service, the boss sighed deeply and signed the paper. Turns out another company was complaining about the colors used in their logo (purple and green pertaining to child care).

Technically, if I produce a film that shows someone's trademarks in the background (e.g. my character walks past a Subway™ and eats a Snickers™), I'm not guilty of trademark infringement. I'm also not actually reproducing their packaging, so I'm not guilty of copyright infringement. They might sue me anyway though.

Actually, it is a trademark violation in many nations, including the US.

For US law, the list includes "is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person".

Usually a prominent placement implies connections through sponsorship or approval.

Working on The Sims for so many years, one item that we got in trouble for was the design of the Smart Phone in Sims 3. It a few rows of four icons on the screen. We were contacted by the legal department that Apple had contacted them, and we needed to modify it so it does not have any connection with their devices. After questioning what they meant, we modified it. A few seconds searching shows an image of the in-game object we got in trouble for. Implied endorsement and all that.

Actually, it is a trademark violation in many nations, including the US.

For US law, the list includes "is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person".

Usually a prominent placement implies connections through sponsorship or approval.

Working on The Sims for so many years, one item that we got in trouble for was the design of the Smart Phone in Sims 3. It a few rows of four icons on the screen. We were contacted by the legal department that Apple had contacted them, and we needed to modify it so it does not have any connection with their devices. After questioning what they meant, we modified it. A few seconds searching shows an image of the in-game object we got in trouble for. Implied endorsement and all that.

You've cited threats, not a clear law.
Whether or not something is implied and whether something is fair can be debated in a courtroom.

As I said, it's commonplace in books to use real products and trademarks to creative believable worlds.
In visual media, it's commonplace for people to cave in to threats (or use the opportunity to gain money from product placement!).

In other EA games, they have decided to go ahead with reproducing real-world products despite the risk of litigation... in fact they went on a pre-emptive legal attack to try and create precedent.
Unfortunately, both sides ended up dropping their attacks on each other and settled out of court, so no legal precedent was created.
To quote from the interwebs:

The action [is] basically a pre-emptive lawsuit against Textron ... asking a federal judge to rule that it has a First Amendment right to depict real-life [products].
[EA] asked a judge to rule it had a right to the depictions because they were part of a creative work protected by the First Amendment.
EA asserts that its depiction of the [products] "are protected by the First Amendment and the doctrine of nominative fair use."
EA reasoned that a film about the U.S. military doesn't have to pay royalities to Textron for using its aircraft, so why must a video game?
Textron made counterclaims of trademark infringement.

If I make a movie about "Thomas the Toyota", then yeah, I'm probably creating an implied endorsement.
But if I make a documentary where someone happens to travel in a Toyota, that should be legal.
But for some reason if I do the same thing in a video game, I'll likely be sent threats. That doesn't mean that the people making the threats are right, and that I'm actually infringing. Their complaint may well be spurious.

True enough.

It would be interesting to watch play out in the courts, though. Because for me personally, when I watch a movie and notice that actors frequently have a Coke can in their hand that is always positioned so the logo is perfectly visible, and a Coke machine is in the background, and people mention going out to get a Coke... I'm pretty sure that's an endorsement.

Even smaller items, like the movie Tomorrowland where the actors walk into a transportation building clearly marked "Tesla", I'm pretty sure that's an endorsement.

Now, would the judge say that a product appearing in a specific instance appears to be a product placement endorsement, or just part of a scènes à faire? That's going to depend quite a lot on the specifics of the case.

I can see a strong argument for it in traditional film where they record walking down an established street in an established city and there happens to be a McDonalds and a Burger King and a Subway on three corners of a distant intersection, that isn't really implying sponsorship, that's just the location in a generic city scene. But it would be much less defensible in a video game where every asset must be crafted and intentionally placed. They didn't happen to already be in the scene, they were specifically crafted and placed in the scene.

Either way it would be decided, it would be an expensive litigation for both sides, and results would be very specific to an individual case.

You've cited threats, not a clear law.
Whether or not something is implied and whether something is fair can be debated in a courtroom.

It would be interesting to watch play out in the courts, though.

And expensive for the party being sued.

Interesting thanks for responses, could you elaborate more on this:

"I know three individuals off-hand who have had C&D orders,"

Whats a C&D order and if i got it correctgly nothing really happened to them, they just got some notice, took their product down and it was done, no lawsuit, not lawyer, no fees, no fine?

Whats a C&D order and if i got it correctgly nothing really happened to them, they just got some notice, took their product down and it was done, no lawsuit, not lawyer, no fees, no fine?

Correct.

It is a notice sent by a lawyer to someone. It basically says the group hired the lawyer to defend their rights, that they believe you are violating their rights, and that they demand you "cease and desist" violating those rights.

They don't demand money, they aren't looking for a settlement.

Basically it is the legally polite way to say "I caught you stealing my stuff, stop it." At the same time it provides a paper trail in case the group decides to sue later.

Sometimes groups won't bother with a C&D letter, especially for clear and obvious IP violations. In that case they'll jump straight to the lawsuit and settlement agreements.

Jumping to lawsuit is increasingly common in photography where their registered artwork is taken and the watermarks removed. Professional photographers have mostly stopped with the polite "please take it down" C&D letter since it doesn't work. These days more and more professional photographers start with "You are being served with a federal lawsuit for willful copyright infringement. Contact us if you wish to negotiate a settlement, otherwise prepare to be nuked from orbit."

interesting, and if you receive such C&D letter, and you react and take that product down, dont you with this act also in reality admit that you have done something wrong and give the other side a nice legal "proof" (if they change their mind and decide to sue you even though you have taken the product down?).

It a few rows of four icons on the screen. We were contacted by the legal department that Apple had contacted them, and we needed to modify it so it does not have any connection with their devices

..the phone even has apples icons on its screen in the same default order as an iPhone :)

interesting, and if you receive such C&D letter, and you react and take that product down, dont you with this act also in reality admit that you have done something wrong and give the other side a nice legal "proof" (if they change their mind and decide to sue you even though you have taken the product down?).

Nope, it does not admit to guilt of breaking any law.

It is simply one side demanding you make a change and citing strong legal reasons for their demand.

The other side can do anything from ignore their demand on one end to doing everything listed on the other end. They are not required to do anything upon getting a C&D letter, and even if they do make changes they could declare they were doing it for other reasons and it had nothing to do with the C&D letter. ("We were redesigning that part of the site already.")

There's the concept of 'fair use'. It would be impracticle to blur out every chevy logo in movies, every car, every tshirt. I am not sure how far this goes, though. Movies and tv get tons of releases from various companies, so it does not extend to all cases.