Just read this article. Seems BMW Group, which includes the Rolls-Royce Motor cars, has filed a lawsuit against Turbosquid, the 3d model marketplace for professionals. Filed in May of this year, BMW Group is claiming the company is violating trademark and copyright infringement by selling models of their cars! I have to admit, there's some really nice cars over there, but looks like they will have to remove them if they don't win this.

You can read the entire article over at SolidSmack here.

Well, well, well. How's that going to pan out.

Not surprising, and probably long over due, far too many people playing fast and loose with both trademark and trade dress, and I can't imagine the digital marketplaces selling these models aren't aware of it. There's a BIG difference between modeling a car for your own use and selling said model when you don't have the rights to do so.

Be interesting to see how it plays out [without knowing if BMW has sent cease and desist orders to TurboSquid, or what other actions may have transpired prior to filing] I suspect the likely result will be the removal of infringing models, and perhaps TS is a bit more vigilant of what models are uploaded in the future.

I don't see any way BMW will get the all restitution they're seeking tho for a couple of reasons. Its a different market than BMW usually trades in, ie BMW doesn't produce and sell 3D models, which undermines, to an extent at least, their claim of lost revenue. Secondly, BMW has seemingly turned a blind eye to this for, what, considerably more than a decade now? Its not like this is something that just started, its been going on as long as TurboSquid has been around and its hard to believe this is the first BMW has become aware of it. Lastly, I can't imagine TurboSquid's ToS doesn't have a blanket clause stating that the uploader of the model assures TurboSquid that the design is their own, or that they have the appropriate rights to distribute said design.

Still should be interesting to see how it plays out, and what sort of precedent it sets for digital marketplaces going forward.

Yup, it's sure interesting. I wonder how many of those models have ironically shown up in BMW-sponsored commercials or movies, and maybe some were even used in a few of BMW's own car commercials. On a similar note, I know for a fact many of the IKEA furniture models that were on Turbosquid and other model resource sites not so long ago were actually modeled for use in IKEA's own furniture showcase magazine (which happens to be 90% CG renders now, not photographs), and yet they filed suit to have them taken down.

Most of the "cars" we see in commercials these days are very much CG, and a lot of high-end studios license models from Squid and other places in order to make deadlines, so there's a decent chance some of those were actually used in a car commercial at one time or another. I can see how reselling the models under the BMW name can be interpreted as an infringement of Trademark, but I can't see how these models could possibly have harmed BMW or their subsidiaries in any way financially, so I'm not sure they can claim damages here. I think they can only have them removed.

WTF are BMW worried about?? They don't sell 3D models of their cars last I heard. Smart artists would have simply removed all the words BMW from description and titles, and they would be safe.

Damn right some of those models were used in their car commercials. I have no doubt certain time after production of ad commercial or VFX job, the studio NDA and legal crap binding the artist expires, they once again retain rights to use their own models elsewhere, and decide to sell them on TS to make a few extra bucks. BMW is trying to bite the hand that feeds.

SinnerSaint posted at 3:53PM Thu, 25 August 2016 - #4280369

Smart artists would have simply removed all the words BMW from description and titles, and they would be safe.

Not true in the least. They'd also have to remove the BMW logo[s] from the model, and I'm sure the BMW grill would be actionable under trade dress. There are likely some other aspects of the car, if not the car as a whole that might be actionable under trade dress as well but that gets a little murkier.

Warlock279 posted at 8:25PM Mon, 29 August 2016 - #4281078

SinnerSaint posted at 3:53PM Thu, 25 August 2016 - #4280369

Smart artists would have simply removed all the words BMW from description and titles, and they would be safe.

Not true in the least. They'd also have to remove the BMW logo[s] from the model, and I'm sure the BMW grill would be actionable under trade dress. There are likely some other aspects of the car, if not the car as a whole that might be actionable under trade dress as well but that gets a little murkier.

I'm sure they do have the grill and some other aspects trademarked, but all it would take is just a few simple changes to the model. We're talking about a car company suing artists who made digital representations of their vehicle, not actual physical items, so I can't imagine damages for such a thing holding up in court, although I'm not a lawyer and crazier things have happened. I'm sure they will be forced to remove the products if they haven't already, but that should be all. If nothing else, BMW brand was getting FREE advertising from these models. There's no way it was hurting their bottom line, so I can't see them seeking damages.

@sinner: BMW doesn't care about free advertising, they're already well established. Besides that, they are at the point where they can afford to license their brand out to other companies and projects who themselves would benefit from using a BMW in their productions. That is to say BMW is known well enough now to where using their name in a production can benefit that company, not the other way around. So all BMW cares about in that regard is protecting their image. If they are going to continue to license their name out, they absolutely need to protect their interests by managing closely who does and who does not use their brand for profit.

I know it's a difficult concept to grasp sometimes, because we should all be so lucky in life as to have something of such value, where people are constantly willing to pay us to use our brand in their works, but this is where BMW is at now, so why should they let anyone make money off their brand likeness when there's plenty of opportunity for them to be paid well for it?

maxxxmodelz posted at 10:40AM Wed, 31 August 2016 - #4281633

@sinner: BMW doesn't care about free advertising, they're already well established. Besides that, they are at the point where they can afford to license their brand out to other companies and projects who themselves would benefit from using a BMW in their productions. That is to say BMW is known well enough now to where using their name in a production can benefit that company, not the other way around. So all BMW cares about in that regard is protecting their image. If they are going to continue to license their name out, they absolutely need to protect their interests by managing closely who does and who does not use their brand for profit.

I know it's a difficult concept to grasp sometimes, because we should all be so lucky in life as to have something of such value, where people are constantly willing to pay us to use our brand in their works, but this is where BMW is at now, so why should they let anyone make money off their brand likeness when there's plenty of opportunity for them to be paid well for it?

In your earlier post, you seemed to think they couldn't claim damages and I agree! But reading this, you would think they were losing money by people having these models out there. There's no way anyone could say BMW was financially threatened by this. Seems very unlikely.

I don't know the law for this type of thing, but I'm sure a company with the deep pockets BMW has, along with some excellent representation could get whatever they want out of the situation. If they decide not to go for damages, there won't be any payouts. If they do, well Turbosquid could be in for a long ride. If they are capable of getting those damages is one thing, but anything is possible when you have millions to spend. We will see I guess.

It would appear that Turbosquid has removed them ;-) "Sorry, no results were found for your search."

... and a curious bunch of other cars are now "free" with what I think is called a disclaimer.

Yeah, they're all gone from Squid now. Looks like you can still see preview samples of them when you type it in the search box, but the results go to a 404.

Hey guys, my name is Chloe, and a crew of us made a program that Encrypts your 3D assets. It's called D3CRYPT3D. We just launched the beta today and would love for you to register, test it out, and give us any feedback you may have. We just want to make an amazing product and finally get 3D artists the credit they deserve.

Here is the link to download the software- http://www.d3crypt3d.net/download.html

Thanks!

d3crypt3d - I am sending you a site mail as I think this is a wonderful idea and thank you so much for sharing it with us

Kristi,

Thank you so much! I hope that you all test it out and benefit from using it. Please share any feedback you have

hmm. Interesting! I wonder if anyone realised in light of all this that Blender.org website has two different scene files in their demos downloads page that contains detailed BMW models? One is for a Cycles render scene example, the other for realtime render scene example, both by the same guy. They even mention BMW in the description. I guess because the models are given away free, with free software they can use the name and likeness? So this should mean Turbosquid can still distribute BMW models if they are free too? Do they need permission if there is no profit being made from the stuff?

SinnerSaint posted at 6:20PM Fri, 28 October 2016 - #4280369

WTF are BMW worried about?? They don't sell 3D models of their cars last I heard. Smart artists would have simply removed all the words BMW from description and titles, and they would be safe.

Damn right some of those models were used in their car commercials. I have no doubt certain time after production of ad commercial or VFX job, the studio NDA and legal crap binding the artist expires, they once again retain rights to use their own models elsewhere, and decide to sell them on TS to make a few extra bucks. BMW is trying to bite the hand that feeds.

I see I'm a little late to this conversation, but I believe it may have something to do with the rebirth of BMW Films. There are quite a number of digitally produced shots of their cars in this film series, and so now the digital reproduction of their automobiles are an asset they need to protect for obvious reasons. They certainly wouldn't want amateurs making films which confuse the general public, or portray their branding in a way they wouldn't approve of.

http://bmwfilms.com/?&origin=bmw_search_brand_google_tier1_national