AAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH !!!!!!!

marcus · 23 Jun 2000, 17:13 (Ref:18994)

just went over to sportscarworld.com to see what the latest goosip is and came across this interesting letter posted on the main page of the site.

Current Difficulties
The nightmare scenario arrived. In January, or the second week of June? January saw a threat to the original domain name from a Lotus parts and slot-car retailer based in Texas. Advice received here, legal and otherwise, was essentially that "you can't lose." Unfortunately, what no one realised at the time was that agreeing to have the dispute resolved by the governing body of the internet was the kiss of death. The Texas-based company have had a trademark since 1982, and with this UK-based site being perceived to be a multi-faceted operation, the resolution came down on behalf of 'the little guy' in Texas. It was resolved amazingly quickly, so fast that the 'YOU'VE LOST' answer arrived at the beginning of June, instead of the designated date just before Le Mans, at which point there should have been a 14 day period of grace to cope with the most important race of the year.

No such luck. Three days before departure for Le Mans, there began a frantic scramble to make sure that there was a domain on which to continue this site. A hasty decision saw 'super' added to the domain, on a new server. Thanks Nick and Tim. An amazing response. But 'super' drew a firey reaction from Texas and protracted legal wranglings while the team representing this site were doing their best to cover Le Mans. Somehow, Le Mans coverage happened, but with one exception, it wasn't at the level envisaged.

Whatever the public perception, the reality is that this site was created by one person, with zero finance, and it grew thanks to the efforts of a group of supporters/writers/photographers, most or all of whom are in full-time employment. As coverage expanded, so the pressure to provide something approaching '24/7' reporting and posting grew too - to the extent that the Editor has only just taken his first days off of the year. Designing, writing, posting, marketing (?), organising, accounts (?) etc. etc. all happened in a blur of stubborn determination to continue providing the best possible coverage in the circumstances.

But you can only push yourself so hard for so long before complete meltdown arrives. It arrived this week. An inability to pick up the pieces while recovering from Le Mans, legal wranglings, legal debts, conflicting advice...it's never ending.

Currently, there is no plan on what to do next. Of immediate concern is a need to wrap up Le Mans with a range of John Brooks photographs (the race itself plus recognition of the achievements of the debutant Skea Racing International Team). Then it will be a break to think long and hard about where to go next. The prospect of organising and posting material on eight races in July is too frightening to contemplate right now.

A sincere thank you to all who have helped during the last four years. Maybe we can recreate this site in due course - but it won't be an immediate re-launch, or anything like it.

It's difficult to make a request of this sort when plans are so uncertain, but if anyone would care to help with legal bills, the extent of which are fortunately unknown right now, the Editor's contact details are at the foot of this page.

Best regards to all readers of this site.

Malcolm Cracknell
mcc@pavilion.co.uk

Now that really bites. this is one of if not the best sites covering sportscar racing and I for am sad to see its demise. I dont know exactly what the legal problems are that the site if facing but by the reading of this letter it doesnt sound too good for them...such a shame as i only found the site about 6 months ago and enjoyed reading its huge content ..but it seems it has all come to an end and I will have to find another site for the latest gos.

sad day indeed

**Craig** · 23 Jun 2000, 17:27 (Ref:18996)

This is not good news. In fact it is terrible news - not just for the loss of a great site, but for the future of 'fan' sites such as sportscarworld.com and 10 Tenths.

Following on from Bernie trying to shut down that site because it includes F1 in it's title, I received an email from a much smaller site this week pleading for help as they have receive a solicitors letter from McLaren International ordering them to remove all photographs of their cars forthwith, else legal action will be persued.

Now, I can understand them not wanting unauthorised images appearing on third-party sites, what worries me is the part about not being able to reproduce their livery - crazy. I notice that McLaren have just this week appointed a new boss - and he is ex of a large international legal firm, which really doesn't bode well. See for yourself:

Quote:

ef: MAH/fb/f4688/2.16(20)/0.8.18

20 June 2000

Mr Jean-Francois Gosselin
Nick Heidfeld Online

Dear Mr Gosselin

UNAUTHORISED USE OF IMAGE

I have been instructed to write to you by McLaren International Limited
(`McLaren=), a company within the TAG McLaren Group of companies.

McLaren has had brought to its attention the Quick-Nick website and of the West
Competition Team's F3000 racing cars. The site features a number of pictures
of Nick Heidfeld and of the West Competition Team's F3000 racing cars. The
publication of these images has not been authorised and amounts to an
infringement in the copyright to the photograph and to that which exists in the
livery of the car itself.

The website acknowledges that the relevant pictures are copyright to mclaren.net
but such a notice does not validate the publication of a copyright work. The
purpose of copyright law is to prevent unauthorised reproduction of photographs,
as in this case, and not merely to require an acknowledgement to the owner of
the copyright.

Furthermore, the livery of the West McLaren Mercedes Formula One and West
Competition team F3000 cars are artistic works as contemplated by the Copyright
Design and Patents Act 1988. This livery was created at substantial expense and
with the input of many man hours. The livery is now widely recognised as one of
the most innovative and distinctive in motor sports. The publication of the
photograph of this vehicle constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the
design of its livery. I must advise you in this respect that we have recently
taken Leading Counsel=s advice to support this in a similar situation to this
and thereafter took High Court proceedings in the English courts against a well
known High Street retailer which resulted in an agreement to pay substantial
damages and costs to McLaren International Limited.

It is important to note that Nick Heidfeld has rights over the use of his image
which are protectable in many jurisdictions. Therefore, imagery featuring Nick
Heidfeld should not be used without the driver's express permission.

In the circumstances, unless I receive by close of business on Friday, 30th June
agreement to the terms outlined below, I will be instructing our external
solicitors to commence proceedings for damages and injunctive relief without
further notice to yourself:

1. You will whether directly or indirectly or whether by your servants, agents
or otherwise howsoever immediately remove all imagery of Nick Heidfeld, the West
McLaren Mercedes Formula One car and the McLaren F3000 cars from the
nick-heidfeld.com and any other website, and shall not at any point in the
future print, copy, reproduce or otherwise publish any such image in any form in
any media whatsoever.

2. In the event that you agree to paragraph 1 above but shall breach any of the
terms thereof then McLaren reserves the rights to issue proceedings for damages
and injunctive relief based upon the original cause of action in addition to any
breach of paragraphs 1 above. of this letter.

Yours faithfully

Mark Hubbard
Legal Adviser

As for sportscarworld.com, I intend to drop them a line to see if there is any way in which we can help out - not, unlike these other idiots, because of some form of commercial gain, but because I believe that we have to put our foot down with a firm hand and ensure that this doesn't get totally out of hand.

marcus · 23 Jun 2000, 17:37 (Ref:19000)

so what your trying to say Craig is we are not allowed to post pictures of anyone any more ???

what if i went to a GP and took a picture of a Mclaren driving past me and then posted it on the internet ..is this violating any laws..im not sure but i do know I own the picture and they cannot take the picture away from me but do they have any hold over me doing what i want with it ???

and what can we do about this ??? this is terrible and is going to cost some people alot of money ..its all ****** to me but I agree we should take a stand ..but im not sure how

**Craig** · 23 Jun 2000, 17:57 (Ref:19004)

Basically, yes, that is what they are saying. I would imagine that it is only a threat, and they would have trouble bringing action against anyone who is not seen as making a profit from doing so, but i'd not be taking any risks if I were served with such a notice.

I myself will be seeking legal advice in the coming week over how these recent developments might affect us. If the news is not what I want to hear, I may sadly have to consider changes on this site too.

I don't know about Malcolm's site, but this site is run on a 'non commercial' basis - ie if 10 Tenths get sued, it'll be me personally who is liable for any damages. The soluion may be as simple as registering it as a limited company to protect me, but it may not. If any changes need to be made, i'll keep you all posted.

KC · 23 Jun 2000, 20:07 (Ref:19018)

This had become a major issue in the US with so many fan based sites concerning motor racing and many other sports in whole. The copyright infringement laws were never designed to acomodate the multimedia explosion the internet, digital photography, and diligent fans have wrought. As far as the photos I have taken at Silverstone, the chili Bowl Nationals, and other various sporting events, I consider them mine. I paid for the trip, ticket, film, development, and whatever. This same battle rages on in the music industry as the general public has more and more options to duplicate and otherwise violate copyright laws.

I understand Mclaren International and West Tobacco's rights as far as imagery goes, but this is going too far. Perhaps a nice letter to the public relations department of West and Mercedes is in order explaining the situation and how it is affecting their perception to the general fan base. After all, they are spending billion in advertising. If the website in question was using the logo and artwork to some sort of profit then the owner of said logo has the right to ask for compensation, but this is clearly not the case.

KC · 23 Jun 2000, 20:16 (Ref:19019)

I have had another thought concerning this matter. International copyright laws being what they are, does this business in Texas have an international copyright on the name? If he does then the company which the domain name was registered with can be held liable for selling a domain name already used in copyright. They have in fact sold something they do not own. If the company does not hold a global copyright license, then it is up that individual to do so. They may ask to purchase the name from the offshore user. The offshore user, SCW if they are not located in the US, can always refuse to sell or place too high a value on the domain name to assure ownership. I am not sure how this can be affected when the site is accessible from US based net users, but they should not back down or otherwise fold up. They must defend their position.

**Craig** · 23 Jun 2000, 21:18 (Ref:19028)

There are several issues here...

McLaren
Copyrighted photographs - agree with McLaren's position here - they own the copyright on the images, and the site involved should have asked their permission before using them. However, as it is plainly a non-profit site, a friendly note pointing this out and a password to access their press area should have been enough.

Liveries - as far as I can see, it is totally unacceptable for them to try and impose restrictions on peoples work, simply because it has a McLaren happens to be in the photo. I can understand their position if, for example, a memorabilia manufacturer were to bring out a range of merchandie featuring their logos in a blatant bid to rip them off. However, surely there is such as thing as 'fair use' ? In any case, do they not realise that it is these very photos which are building their branding ?

sportscarworld.com
As for the trademarked domains, IIRC, you have to electronically 'sign' an agreement with Network Solutions or whoever you are registering the name through to the effect that you (ie the person registering the domain) accept full responsibility for all and any legal action resulting from that registration. I think it also says that you don't actually own the domain, you're simply paying to have use of it for the 2 years & that they (the registrar) basically don't want anything to do with copyright or trademark infringement.

Whether this is fair or not, I don't know, but if you agree to it you cannot drag the registrar into the problem - the problem is purely between yourself and the party claiming infringement. This is where my problem lies. A domain name and a trademark are very different things and, in any case the way I see it, first come, first served. If the person owning this trademark had a problem with that domain name, they should have registered it before the other party.

As for standing your ground - sadly that's an expensive business. This will drive many sites like ours into the ground - unfortunately this is a fact of life when big companies take action against the 'man in the street'

TimD · 23 Jun 2000, 21:18 (Ref:19029)

Not having come across the site in question, and having tried it today and come up with a bunch of Scalextric cars - is there a currently running address for the PROPER sportscarworld?

If so, and they have the same kind of clickthrough banners as ten-tenths, then even the pennies that will generate is better than nothing.

On private photographs of cars and livery, I suspect that although McLaren International are trying it on, they won't succeed. Moving images are slightly trickier. The conditions of entry to most circuits require written permission to be gained from the circuit and organisers of any event before moving images can be broadcast, hired out, otherwise disseminated etc etc...

But a still shot from your own camera would be pretty much unstoppable. Unless it was a McLaren photographed at Lydden - which is private ground owned by McLaren.

**Craig** · 23 Jun 2000, 21:24 (Ref:19030)

http://www.supersportscarworld.com

As far as McLaren go, they are not necessarily talking about photos of their cars - they are talking about anything which shows the livery of their car

Liz · 24 Jun 2000, 00:01 (Ref:19074)

Well, since I hate McLaren and all who dwell therein (except DC) anyway, I think I will post off a note to Mr. Legal Bloke and inform him (with a copy to Ron Dennis) that from now on I will not be purchasing anything bearing their logo, nor supporting their team including boycotting their sponsors, and that this is the direct result of their ****ant attitude. If they would like to keep their stupid logo all to themselves, let them do it with my blessing. I will even tell them (not in this letter but privately) where they can keep it if they want to know.

Seriously, I am going to write them that letter (purely as a fan of motorsport) and write to the racing magazines about it too, and I suggest that all private citizen racing fans do the same. The more publicity we can give such idiocy, the less likely they are to get away with it. Much like Bernie trying to say nobody can use the term Formula One unless they pay him, this is a power grab and nothing else.

They have to be stopped.

TimD · 24 Jun 2000, 00:08 (Ref:19079)

Just thinking what fun could be had with photoshop or similar.

One could continue using unadulterated illustrations of all non-protesting, fan-friendly competitors, but every McLaren is reproduced in polkadots, or a fetching shade of cerise, or polychromatic two-tone heliotrope or whatever.

And every badge, every logo, every sponsors decal carefully superimposed with its own individual "censored" label.

That should bring in the media coverage that the title sponsors crave, and are paying millions for per year.

Liz · 24 Jun 2000, 11:39 (Ref:19144)

I would also add that it would be helpful to stop covering McLaren in any of your articles, websites et al. and to put a disclaimer at the top of the page saying something like "We apologize for the lack of information on Ron Dennis' team, but we have been informed by Mr. Legal Bloke that we will be subject to severe legal action unless we stop mentioning their team." Then just drop them completely. If they don't want any coverage, don't give them any. Silence a la mort. And let them eat STP.

P.S Can somebody tell me what firm Mr. Legal Bloke is with? Maybe he'd like a letter from one Legal Eagle to another.

marcus · 24 Jun 2000, 15:05 (Ref:19188)

Im not sure who he is with Liz but I agree that if we can we should boycott certain products..but would that really achieve anything ?

Crash Test · 25 Jun 2000, 01:37 (Ref:19314)

This is just something I've learnt from the lower levels of motorsport, people love getting their photo on the net, it gets them and their sponsors additional coverage... Now if i were a sponsor of a car would i be sueing people for giving me additional support? I would be seen as a complete ********!!

They should all just grow up (a lot)....this is just stupid...

Liz · 25 Jun 2000, 16:12 (Ref:19388)

This might be a good tactic to take in writing to the sponsonrs of Ron Dennis' cars - "Are you really going to let this man deprive you of free publicity and probable new customers for which you pay nothing, simply because he wants to grab more boodle for himself?" Okay, put it more politely than that - but that's what it comes down to.

Marcus, perhaps a boycott by me will not bring down the West Cigarette Empire. But as a member of a small but dedicated group who have boycotted Hanoi Jane since the 1970s and have used every occasion to let her know it, believe me that it does have an effect. In the latter case, Ms. Jane has been heard in public quite emotionally fretting about the fact that we still hold her accountable for her treasonous behaviour and will continue to do so as long as she fails to understand the wrong she did. Believe me, they do notice. Besides which it will make me feel better - "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." By boycotting their products and letting them know why, I'm doing something.

**Peter Mallett** · 26 Jun 2000, 14:34 (Ref:19607)

Quote:

Originally posted by marcus
so what your trying to say Craig is we are not allowed to post pictures of anyone any more ???

what if i went to a GP and took a picture of a Mclaren driving past me and then posted it on the internet ..is this violating any laws..im not sure but i do know I own the picture and they cannot take the picture away from me but do they have any hold over me doing what i want with it ???

and what can we do about this ??? this is terrible and is going to cost some people alot of money ..its all ****** to me but I agree we should take a stand ..but im not sure how

Actually the copyright in pictures taken at a GP belongs to FOCA. You would come up against Bernie E on that one.

Not sure how the mags get around this.

Looking at it globally you can understand why companies are worried about this sort of thing. It compares with music being pirated. However they tend to lose sight of reality as soon as a lawyer gets involved.

And when a lawyer does get involved the rest of us may just as well give up. The law in many cases is an ass and it won't change for us enthusiasts.

marcus · 26 Jun 2000, 16:13 (Ref:19625)

peter i understand about the music being pirated as the musicians dont get well derserved revenue for pirated work but a picture ???..ok for example as crash has stated it is publicity for "whatever team" and "whatever sponsor" and as long as it is used in a non profit way i dont see any problem with it..how the heck would i benefit from posting a pic I took of say DC doing a burnout or something..sure it might look good and i was glad i took it and wanted other people to see it but I dont make a profit off of it so it is harmless in my view.

Liz, sorry i have no idea who you are talking about..in the 70's i was just a whiper snapper and have no idea who Hanoi Jane is..probably a bit to naieve (see i dont even know how to spell it) of me ..maybe you could post something in the gravel trap about this lady and give me a history lesson

TimD · 26 Jun 2000, 17:06 (Ref:19634)

I know it's Jane Fonda - but I honestly can't remember what it was she was agitating about. Two decades, two continents make for a certain absence of detail!

KC · 26 Jun 2000, 17:41 (Ref:19645)

Jane Fonda is an avowed socialist and communist. She posed for publicity photos with North Viet Namese anti-aircraft batteries during the Viet Nam war for propoganda efforts. Our State Department had made it illegal and considered treason to have contact with officials of North Viet Nam during the war, yet she was never held accountable by the law, only by public opinion. She also led the communist movement in Hollywood at the time. I do not watch anything she stars in, do not watch anything her husband Ted Turner has anything to do with.
[Edited by KC on 26th June 2000]

KC · 26 Jun 2000, 17:47 (Ref:19646)

I am curious about something I noticed in the letter. Mr. Cracknell says that his dispute went before the governing body of the internet. Who is this? As far as I know there is no governing body of the internet. Both sides of the political equation in America have been trying to establish some sort of guidleine system for the Web to no avail. The Christian Coalition wants to ban all things they consider pornographic and not in the tenets of Christianity. The Clinton-istas want to ban all anti-liberal viewpoints. It goes on and on. Has some other country created some Advsory Council or other legal body to govern the web? Or has SCW's ISP just decided he is in the wrong?

**Craig** · 26 Jun 2000, 19:02 (Ref:19653)

As far as I am aware, the body he is talking about is the Internic - the registry of domain names. Without these domain names, you could only access the site with an IP address - but not when the server is using HTTP 1.1 bu ti digress...

Liz · 27 Jun 2000, 02:27 (Ref:19731)

Well, since I loathe [silver cars] anyway, I am just not going to mention them anymore. And I'll leave a blank line when doing race results, with a disclaimer that says due to being leaned on by a lawyer bloke, no mention can be made of their cars. Like Eero calling them Mc[Censored].

Besides that though, what about Restraint of Trade? Seems to me we could get them on that.

Devlin · 27 Jun 2000, 14:50 (Ref:19828)

Liz, I could not agree with you more! They're obviously starting to lose grasp on reality. I mean, forchristsake, who are they racing for? Themselves? Just recently I recieved a catalogue of a major UK motorsport merchandise retailer, and the big news was that they were able to strike a deal with some foreign company about IMPORTING THAT team's merchandise...I'm only worried that other teams might follow in their footsteps...If that happens, I'm definitely going to say goodnight to this farce. However hard it may be. But, then again, I've managed to quit cigarettes...Bottom line (in Beavis&Butt-head's words)- Ron Dennis (he doesn't have a copyright to his own name, does he?) and your team, you suck!

KC · 27 Jun 2000, 14:56 (Ref:19830)

I don't think that InterNIC can have it both ways. They cannot sell you something and then claim that they are not responsible for it being incorrect, copyrighted, or otherwise not their possession to sell and then come back later and take it away from you and give it to someone else. Obviously they cannot be held responsible for what you do with a domain name. I believe that Mr. Cracknell has the right to file a claim of 'failure to provide service for fees' with his local magistrate. This should not require him to retain an attorney.

**Craig** · 27 Jun 2000, 16:38 (Ref:19846)

They don't sell you anything - like many software companies nowadays - they simply sell you the right to use something for a limited time and as long as you abide by their rules. And, as far as I can see, the site signed away any remaining rights which they had by agreeing to go before an arbitrator whose decision was final.

This is a very stupid case, which shouldn't have been brought in the first place. But it was, there was a decision, and it's not going to get overturned. The problem I have is that it was allowed to be brought in the first place. They should have had the sense to realise that they should have purchased that domain before the existing owner did if it really meant that much to them. As they hadn't, they should have had the sense to buy another one - not go crying to whoever will listen until something is done about it.