Would this be an illigal picture then a commic version of a BMW, especially made to do the bmw rendering test faster 
As a picture you made for fun it is not illegal IMHO.
As a model you sell it would be because of the trademark usage.
But thatās the original FIAT 500 :eyebrowlift2:
Just keep away from direct copying TM, R, IPā¦
Stylize 
or at least be a bit creative and fuse, obscureā¦ be mystic, naive, cubistic, sur-realā¦ :eyebrowlift:
The use of what seems to be an unaltered logo could be an issue.
Fun fact The Bmw logo is actually a helicopter rotor as they used to make aircraft before concentrating on cars. So just change the rotor to a propellor ditch the BMW lettering and you will be fine plus bonus you have now a flying car.
Just to be perfectly clear despite the assertions of AlmaTalp, forms of objects are NOT protected by copyright per se, at least in the USA. Photos, music, designs (on paper/electronic) ARE protected automatically. So, confusingly enough, the blueprints for a car would be protected, but not the car itself. Physical designs of objects are not protected unless the creator applies for and is granted a design patent. Of course one point Alma makes is right, it only matters if someone decides to sue you, by the time you get to court to argue your case youāll probably be bankrupt anyway.
The protection of the design of an object like a car (i.e. industrial design) varies a great deal depending on what country you are in. In the EU or other places, the law may be different. If you donāt believe me, consult the WIPO: http://www.wipo.int/designs/en/
What OP is talking about (designing parts that are closely inspired by, but not an exact copy of something) is not only legal, but probably totally safe, unless they obviously rip off something very unique and easy to recognize, nobody will care including the law.
Look at most smartphones today. Very similar if not identical to iPhone designs, very similar to each other, hardly distinguishable unless you see the logo. Who is being sued over this? Only Samsung, once, because Apple actually had a design patent. Note: NOT a copyright. Learn the difference, please!
Kemmlerā¦ spot on.
EU is even harder onā¦ it is impossible to patent/protect the form, design. You even canāt trademark a common word ie. apple
Thats not entirely true a shape can be patented but it must meet a lot of criteria the most important been that it serves no functional purpose. Ie the vw beetles design is patented so obviously that shape of it is in no way functional:). When these car companies eventually manage to bribe a judge to allow shape protection regardless of function i have dibs on the circle.
yes, cuz itās kinda work of art (w/o function)ā¦ as Heinz Soup by Warhol.
Love these discussions and how they always turn up. Same basic question, same basic answer.
Q: Can I (insert your copyright/trademark/patent here).
A: Donāt come here for legal advice. Research it and/or seek the advice of an attorney who specializes in this. Canāt afford one? There is the library, gov. websites for copyright and trademark that have correct legal information. Some lawyers will also post some information on their websites for free.
I think threads like this should be closed locked or just deleted whenever they pop up. And there should be a sticky:
Donāt post threads that ask for legal advice.
They should be disallowed altogether.
This is the last place to get reliable information on anything frankly (outside of the Blender support forms), much less legal advice.
on the contrary
Where do you can get advice about topic like these, better then from other artist.
sure we all know BA doesnt offer legal binding (and those can differ per country) but its ok to read about it.
before this thread i didnt knew people had problems posting 3d cars, which makes me for example wonder if i will continue my peugot 306, since most likely it will get banned.
And yep we all know if we would like to live on the edge then copyright / artistic freedom / free speech can be very narrow legal affairs.
Some artist get away with and are respected about it, and others not.
Itās a good place to discuss the specific issues to CG and how you can use othersā works in your own, however itās clearly a bad place to get accurate advice (see this thread as an example - two+ directly conflicting opinions on one question), especially because the community crosses international borders. You can get general advice, but never specific.
The only truly reliable answer is: If you propose to make real money using something which is not 100% your own creation, ask a lawyer first.
For example, I can say that OP is probably fine in the US. But I donāt know where OP is. And, the law could change at any time. There are discussions of totally reversing this situation in the EU, where designs of furniture and things would be under copyright for 100 years. Etc.
Some words:
IP laws could differ in countries, that is right. Defending IP have different ways with specific terms; in my country there are at least 5 ways to cover different types of IPs, design included. Sorry for not appropriate terms I used; Iām not native English and I do not know specific English terms all the time (thanks).
What is typical in EU and the western world both: your IP is your IP. Different methods could be used for defending it, but if it goes to court, the owners with the proof will win it and methods of the law are used for making the case easier to prove.
So there are 2 ways to go for ābusinessā modeling: creating your own stuff from the scratch or getting permission for the stuff you make.
Consider what the various Shrek movies did ā¦ both as a form of humor and to save a ton of money: they populated their town-square with shops whose names and trademarks were a sly parody of established brands.
Come up with a really nice bumper that might feature a circular trademark but that isnāt the Mercedes-BenzĀ® TridentĀ®, and so on.
After all, automobile brands must be fiercely protective of these marks, these days, since there is absolutely nothing different :rolleyes: about the automobiles themselves! 
There is nothing wrong with discussing this subject. As a subject it should be brought up more often. Because most artists are clueless about it. Which is why this is the last place you want to come here to ask for what you can or can not or should or should not do.
There is a large difference between discussing it and getting advice or asking for it.
As far as specific advice. Sorry no. You are incorrect. This is the last place you should come. And the last place you should ask. And other artists are the last people you should think about asking for reliable information. Because as I said, most are clueless.
Additionally many artists have an axe to grind with this issue. Which is interesting considering that you as an artist have your own intellectual property to protect.
There are very specific guidelines for free speech and fair use. They vary from country as well. Yes. There are also plenty of court cases that set precedence for situations that come into the gray area.
It is a layers job and area of expertise to be up to date on all of the court cases that would apply as well as any law changes that occur. Much of a layerās work has to do with the study of case law. That which has gone before. And all the time there are new challenges to meet with the changing technology and other factors.
The bottom line is, where you will wind up if you violate any of these laws is at best, looking at a letter from a law firm that may or may not even be fair or within their right to ask you to cease and desist. This happens. There are some cases where IP is in the public domain yet are perused aggressively and illegally by a corporation or foundation. So knowing the law can also protect you. And in the worst case you will wind up in court and sued. And loosing or unable to afford defense and loosing anyway. Right or wrong.
People take this subject far too lightly. And it is not a defense to say you did not know. And I love these people who upload videos and say āI do not own this. This belongs to the copyright holderā or some other such nonsense. It is actually hilarious how stupid people are on this subject. As if that disclaimer would save them. Like walking down the block with a stolen Rolex and getting caught, then pointing to an engraving on the back that says, āI donāt really own this watch. It isnāt mineā, and then having the cops laugh at you all the way to the jail cell.
So the bottom line is. The best thing you can do is get yourself educated. It is not hard to do and the resources are there. Then you wonāt have to come here and ask stupid questions and get a load of equally stupid answers.
And for those things that are hard to understand there are lots of lawyers who offer free advice.
This site here lists a bunch of them. And as you can see you can scroll down and see the number of articles these lawyers write. It is a great way to advertise. A little free information to catch some clients who need some kind of real help and willing to pay. It is also a great source of education on the subject along with the government sites.
http://www.hg.org/law-firms/usa-copyright.html
Here is a UK site with some articles:
Gov Sites
USA:
UK
i know thereās a discussion already about this subject, but i would like to go specific about licenses. the question is, for example, if i have a model of a car, that i want to sell on the blender market or any other 3d market platform, what should i have to be aware for? do i break any copyright law or something? or it is the buyer that must be aware of using it in the right way?
update:
ok, my post has been moved to this thread, and i am very sorryā¦i shouldāve searched better!
anyway, thanks for the information
I was minutes before opening almost the same thread, because I am wondering about the same stuff. Also if I make a model in blender can I write my own licence for it or it is under gpl and when someone buys it can do whatever he/she wantās with it?
i guess if the design is yours, if you created the model from scratch entirely i mean, you can put it under standard royalty free license
https://support.cgcookiemarkets.com/article/126-standard-royalty-free-license
GPL is for code based products, which allow the purchaser to do whatever he wants with it basically.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
This is completely wrong, in fact the European Apple vs Samsung design patent case predates the one fought in the US. Either cases were about ābroad similaritiesā, not exact designs. Apple eventually lost, however it took lengthy legal proceedings to determine that.
Nobody on Blenderartists - not even a lawyer specialized in IP - can tell you what is and isnāt okay in such cases. Thatās for the courts to decide. There is no way to be perfectly safe from litigation.
Having said that, you almost certainly can not use some trademark (e.g. the BMW logo) without permission. The fact that this is commonly done anyway only tells you that in many cases, there are no legal repercussions. If there isnāt any money involved, the most likely reaction from a trademark holder is something like a cease & desist letter.
Which, in many cases, is a valid legal defense.
Everyone involved carries some legal risk, including the marketplace. You are certainly not legally entitled to use anyone elseās trademark, unless there is some agreement in place. Still, people may do it anyway and people may get away with it.
As long as you do not incorporate anything from Blender itself (script snippets, say) then the Blender license (GPL) doesnāt impose anything on how you license your work.
ā¦ No it isnāt. You can make whatever you like privately, even for āfun,ā but itās not fair use in the sense I think you think it means.
UK law:
Section 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 98:
Criticism, review and news reporting.
(1)Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement [F1 and provided that the work has been made available to the public].
[F2(1A)For the purposes of subsection (1) a work has been made available to the public if it has been made available by any means, includingā
(a)the issue of copies to the public;
(b)making the work available by means of an electronic retrieval system;
(c)the rental or lending of copies of the work to the public;
(d)the performance, exhibition, playing or showing of the work in public;
(e)the communication to the public of the work,
but in determining generally for the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.]
(2)Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(3)No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of current events by means of a sound recording, film [F3 or broadcast where this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise].
From here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/30