Michael Porter raises an interesting point when he says:
So, likely, BMW would have to note the copyright infringement, show proof
that they legally owned the rights, contact the courts and Ken Bertschy
and issue him a cease and desist order, and prosecute for damages if he
failed to comply, all of which are unlikely.
On the issue of copyright per se, I doubt that BMW would actually go that
far. Tat said, I haven't visited the site myself - and I probably won't
either. However (and I know this is something where I've trodden on toes in
the past - though with the best interests of the individual clearly in
focus) the copyright may go by the board providing that a trademark does not
appear alongside it. The point I think everyone should be in no doubt about
is that the former logos and symbols used by BL in the past (e.g. the
Triumph world symbol in its original form and if copied from a document) is
still a registered trademark with very specific conditions governing its
use. BMW (in the person of Rover) still owns those trademarks and is more
than a little twitchy about them appearing - especially if the person or
company using that trademark for whatever purpose is not authorised to enjoy
that use. Beware anyone wanting to do things with the MG octagon! With the
rapid expansion of the internet on its global scale, there are many clubs
and private individuals using those old trademarks to 'pretty up' their
websites and they certainly add authenticity. However, the fact still
remains that this is an unauthorised use of a world trademark and as such is
illegal and subject to prosecution if the offender persists in its use.
I doubt anyone would want to risk using the IBM logo to add website
credibility if they had nothing to do with IBM because IBM still has
'clout.'
But it's not all gloom and doom. I believe anyone can legally modify and
change a trademark while still retaining some of its original identifying
features so that it's immediately apparant that it relates to something
immediately identifiable. The only obvious proviso is that the modified
version is not passed off as being original - but what purpose would that
serve? If however you use written material that may or may not be copyright
protected and its use is essentially for enthusiasts, I think I'd want to
play on the safe side and remove the trademark if it appeared anywhere on
that original documentation. Within those parameters, it's my guess Ken is
pretty safe - though I'd be reluctant to put money on it!
Jonmac
|