The Pizza Car and the Fair Use Debate - Lehto's Law Ep. 4.25

"CalzoneGolem" (calzonegolem)
03/19/2018 at 13:40 • Filed to: Lehto's Law

DISCUSSION (21)

2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered > CalzoneGolem
03/19/2018 at 13:55

Glad Steve cleared this up.

DutchieDC2R > CalzoneGolem
03/19/2018 at 14:20

Im glad he’s still around, I have some good stuff to listen to during a long drive..

Mercedes Streeter > CalzoneGolem
03/19/2018 at 14:36

TL;DR - If he just removed the Domino’s badging all would be good. Makes sense to me. When taxis are sold around my parts, they’re stripped of their logos and text, even if some of the taxi company design decals (stripes, circles, etc) are still there.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > CalzoneGolem
03/19/2018 at 14:44

I wonder whether the car had the logos on it when it was sold/auctioned. If they didn’t remove them, it’s really no different from buying a pizza from them in a box with their logo. They have very little control over how you use that box.

Now, if it was stripped of logos and he reproduced them, I’d say that Steve is right.

I’m not an attorney, but after years as a wiki bureau that had to deal with copyright violations and fair use pretty often (working closely with the site’s legal team), which is tougher than this case due to the DMCA. This looks like a huge overreach by the pizza company’s legal team in my opinion. It should also be noted that people that work in the legal field are accustomed to everyone else rolling over and doing anything they ask/say just based on a threatening letter/call. Most people are quite ignorant and would rather avoid trouble than actually fight for anything.

When Nike sells a pair of shoes with their logo on it, then wins a lawsuit against someone for publicly beating it on a table when they don’t get their way, they might have a leg to stand on.

CalzoneGolem > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/19/2018 at 14:52

The car was sold with the stickers on it. Dude also bought one without stickers.

I think Steve has a valid point about him driving around in the car and people assuming he represents Dominos.

CalzoneGolem > DutchieDC2R
03/19/2018 at 14:53

He’s still writing books and for Road & Track. I miss his posts here so I figured I’d repost his videos here.

Chuckles > Mercedes Streeter
03/19/2018 at 15:01

It sounds like that might not be good enough in this case to avoid a lawsuit because the company is claiming that this car contains proprietary technology (a built in pizza oven). That’s not to say that the company would win, but they may pursue a lawsuit even if he removes all of the logos.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > CalzoneGolem
03/19/2018 at 15:07

People walk around with shirts plastered with trademarked logos all the time and nobody assumes they’re representatives of the companies they belong to. How is a car so different?

Chuckles > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/19/2018 at 15:07

I think the difference between buying a pizza box with their logo and buying this car with their logo is that the car was never meant to be sold to the public. If I see you walking with a pizza box, I can reasonably assume that you bought a pizza. If I see you driving a custom vehicle with a built in pizza oven and logos on it, it’s reasonable for me to assume that you work for that pizza chain.

Takuro Spirit > CalzoneGolem
03/19/2018 at 15:08

DAMMIT TAVARISH

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > Chuckles
03/19/2018 at 15:16

Then why did they sell it to the public? It isn’t like the guy bought it using some complex nefarious process, he just put in a bid and won an auction of a wrecked car. They could have had it destroyed, but they decided to sell it.

Chuckles > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/19/2018 at 15:27

I’m not trying to side with the company, but I do think that there is a fundamental difference between an end user intended product ( like a logo tshirt or a pizza box) and something only intended for employees (like a work uniform or pizza oven car). Wearing a coca cola tshirt and driving around in a coca cola delivery truck are two different things, and one could reasonably assume an affiliation with the company from one of those things and not the other.

I think that the company screwed up in this case. If that car was totalled and went to auction with proprietary technology, that was their mistake. I think he should be allowed to keep the car if he removes the logos, just like buying a used police car. I just would not be surprised if the company tries to take it further.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/19/2018 at 15:46

Because in driving a car, one is not doing anything differently than what it would have been used for while in service of Pizza Company.

Therefore, one would make the assumption that anyone who sees the car in public would also think it is still in service, rather than private use. There is zero way to distinguish what that car is being used for if the logos remain on the vehicle.

I am not a lawyer, but that is what I think Steve was arguing for.

His Stigness > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/19/2018 at 16:52

When Nike sells a shoe with their logo on it and someone does something with it that’s not cool that would still fall under the “fair use” of trademarks. Steve went over with Coke. A movie used the logo, or the trademark, but they considered it fair use.

In this case I think Steve has a very good hypo with the Dominos car, and why their lawyers have their panties in a bunch. The public assumes anyone driving that car is an employee of Dominos, therefore anything negative they do will be bad press for Dominos. That wouldn’t be the case with Nike since they sell their shoes to the general public.

His Stigness > Chuckles
03/19/2018 at 17:04

I would bet good money Dominos would lose on the pizza oven front. With the logos they can’t argue with a serious face that everyone would know that was a Dominos car.

His Stigness > Takuro Spirit
03/19/2018 at 17:05

So this kid just bought himself a world of hurt (and many legal fees) because he listened to an idiot on Youtube? Something something karma is a bitch.

Takuro Spirit > His Stigness
03/19/2018 at 17:11

He also does questionable repairs to the salvage vehicles he buys... I haven’t watched enough to see if he SELLS these cars, but one VW that he had a whole front quarter welded on he ‘gave’ to a buddy to have sorted out.

The pizza car had damage to the inner fender where the ABS module/pump bolts on.

Instead of fixing it by replacing or repairing he bondo’d it smooth and bolted the ABS pump on top of it, minus one bolt.

Chuckles > His Stigness
03/19/2018 at 17:29

I agree with you about the probable outcome, but I do think that they’d probably still pursue it in the hopes that he gives in to avoid the hassle.

Spanfeller is a twat > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/19/2018 at 18:54

This guy makes money out of a car with the Dominos logo and I can’t blame old chain restaurant attorneys being scared of youtubers after their nieces told them about Jake Paul.

Whether the logo earns him money or not, it could be considered infringement and big companies don’t sue about for pleasure, but for reasons.

This guy should remove the stamps off the car and call it a day.

His Stigness > Takuro Spirit
03/19/2018 at 19:17

So brothers separated at birth?

I wish we could vet people on YouTube so that poor impressionable people don’t actually take what these idiots are saying seriously.

His Stigness > Chuckles
03/19/2018 at 19:18

Depends on how stupid their lawyers are. Unless they decide to “settle” before it goes in front of a judge who berates Dominos.