Right. A business is using the logos of other businesses to advertise their business…those vehicles are directly the subject of the video. That’s not allowed; it doesn’t make it not the case simply by the location filmed. Put it this way, I make a video and say my restaurant is great because restaurant B gets low health scores, then I plaster restaurant B’s logo all over my video to advertise my own business. Why would the fact that I stood on a public sidewalk make a difference?

(Note: I’m only talking about your described example.)

▲

mindslight 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

They are not using logos to advertise their business. They are using footage of their business operations to promote their business. This footage happens to contain logos of other businesses, because those other businesses put their logos places where they might be incidentally filmed. Trademark law does not give one the right to police any time your logo appears, nor does it protect one from criticism.

Your analogy misses the mark. A more appropriate analogy would be someone taking a promotional selfie while walking down the street, which includes businesses' signs in the background.

▲

Animats 2 days ago | parent [-]

One of the videos mentioned: "Speeding Trailer with 50,000lb of Melons Rolls Over & Rips Open"[1] It shows the practical problems of uprighting a trailer that's torn at the seams. There wasn't enough structural integrity left for a simple crane lift. So they needed inflatable air bags, wooden blocks, and multiple cranes to get the thing upright. Then they moved it a bit with the cranes to unblock a lane of the freeway ramp. Then it took tens of people from CALTRANS to unload 50,000 pounds of melons so the damaged trailer could be removed empty as one piece.

Everything that could identify the trucking company or even the source of the melons was blurred out, which is a lot of work for the towing company guy who does these videos between tow jobs.

There's no copyright issue; all pictures were taken by employees of the towing company.

There's no trademark issue; showing a logo for identification purposes is legal.

There's no customer confusion issue; it's clear that the towing company isn't in the melon business.

There's no trade secret issue; this was a very public event, on public property, with TV news coverage.

There's no intent to defame issue; the towing company was there because the California Highway Patrol called them to clean up the mess, not because someone didn't like the guy who rolled over his truck.

There's no right of publicity issue for a wrecked truck.

There's no ownership right to the video because the trucker didn't contract with the towing company; the California Highway Patrol did. (The trucker will be getting a big bill from the state.)

There's no issue of "interfering with police" - the cops called in the towing company and guided them to the scene.

There's nothing in IP law that applies here.

Just fear of YouTube.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M5RnQlSJ58

	▲	therealpygon 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That instance sounds like a clear cut abuse then, why isn’t a fine being sought as allowed?

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]