cross-posted from: https://lemmus.org/post/15293533
Article: Tesla Allegedly Disables Rapper’s Cybertruck After Song Critique.
cross-posted from: https://lemmus.org/post/15293533
Article: Tesla Allegedly Disables Rapper’s Cybertruck After Song Critique.
This is purely nominative fair use.
If it was just plain old trademark/copyright law, you’d be right.
It sounds like Tesla are basically saying that you signed an NDA/non-disparagement clause when you bought the vehicle, and therefore it’s a contract dispute.
Doh.
I am sick and tired of the war on our property rights.
i don’t see that anywhere in the notice and such a clause would be unconscionable, IANAL.
All the notice claims is “violations of [ToS], including misuse of Tesla’s trademarks and brand identifiers in media content that falsely implies endorsement, sponsorship, or affiliation with Tesla.”
ToS is effectively a contract.
This interpretation of the ToS could be deemed unconscionable, but that seems like the kind of argument that takes a judge and 5-6 figures in legal fees to settle.
An arbitrator is just going to read it, say ‘yup, you broke the rule’, and side with the company.
And yet they just bricked his car and terminated any contract they had with the Artist, so… recording a sequel now!
While not a “review” in the traditional sense, I hope it would fall under the CRFA anyway.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/consumer-review-fairness-act-what-businesses-need-know
They can’t necessarily use a “contract” as a defense.
I would hope so. CFRA seems to be the only explicit protection.