Replicas, why bother ?? | Page 9 | FerrariChat

Replicas, why bother ??

Discussion in 'Ferrari Discussion (not model specific)' started by moretti, May 19, 2013.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. noone1

    noone1 F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    Jan 21, 2008
    4,612
    Los Angeles
    Full Name:
    Mike
    Are you sure you wouldn't appreciate these cars more if you just had photographs of them on the Internet to stare at? :D
     
  2. TheMayor

    TheMayor Nine Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    98,534
    Vegas baby
    #202 TheMayor, May 24, 2013
    Last edited: May 24, 2013

    You don't know anything about copyright laws do you? Classic literature is considered public domain. So is classical music before 1912. After that, laws were put in place to protect people like me against people like you who don't give a crap if they steal someone else's work.

    Did you know that every Hot Wheel car that is of a specific design is made under licenses and a fee is paid to Ferrari or Porsche or Ford? Did you know you can't put a car in a video game without paying rights for it?

    So why the heck do you think you're entitled to make a full scale knock off just because you want to?
     
  3. noone1

    noone1 F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    Jan 21, 2008
    4,612
    Los Angeles
    Full Name:
    Mike
    I'm aware of public domain and licensing fees, I just think it's hilarious and retarded that your feelings about copies/replicas are determined by what the law says you should feel at any given time.

    "I like copies before 1912, but I hate copies of things after 1912 because they are now illegal. If the laws changed and copies were legal, I'd be ok with them again."
     
  4. TheMayor

    TheMayor Nine Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    98,534
    Vegas baby
    What baloney. You don't like losing, do you?

    When there is no clear title to a property, no one owns it. That's the way the laws were set up in the 20th century. Without these laws today, you wouldn't have an entertainment business. No music, no TV shows, no movies, and no unique industrial design. Why should you invest time and money when the next guy can just copy it?

    You're right. I have no problem following the law while you chose to ignore it for your own personal pleasure.

    Tell me, do you steal the plasma TV from the guy next door too? I just want to know if you condone theft of one kind do you automatically apply that to another form.
     
  5. Bullfighter

    Bullfighter Two Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jan 26, 2005
    22,352
    Indian Wells, California
    Full Name:
    Jon
    Meh... the Mayor is correct on this one. It's not a matter of viewpoints. It's theft of intellectual property, and harm is done to the owner of the design.

    Whatever polls we take here regarding fun, craftsmanship, or quality of the replica, the bottom line is that the owner of the design isn't being compensated. Quantity doesn't matter, nor does not being able to afford an original grant a license to create a replica, nor does "not caring what other people think". The law doesn't recognize "not caring what other people think" as a defense.

    It's not complicated or subjective at all.

    Waiting to see a legitimate answer to your last question...

    The only correct answer is that you're entitled once you negotiate a license with Ferrari, Porsche, Shelby or whoever owns the design.
     
  6. wingfeather

    wingfeather F1 Rookie

    Feb 1, 2007
    3,653
    rock bottom
    If I'm not mistaken, you can make all the replicas you want & it is not considered "theft of intellectual property" unless you go into business selling your creations.

    If not, then we all need to go to jail for retelling jokes we heard on TV or in movies - we stole those jokes & used them as our own. What a joke...
     
  7. noone1

    noone1 F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    Jan 21, 2008
    4,612
    Los Angeles
    Full Name:
    Mike
    And slaver traders were honest, good men at one point too, right?

    There is nothing dumber than mindlessly applying laws for the sake of applying them. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean exercising such a right is a good idea or the right thing to do.

    You may be a good lawyer, but you don't know **** about business and marketing, that's for sure. Yes, let me go send out my lawyers to crush the cars of my biggest fans who want nothing more in life than to own one of my products -- products that aren't even for sale anymore and which are completely out of reach for just about everyone. Yes, let me tell him how wrong he is to dedicate a bunch of time and money just so he can drive around and provide me with free advertising while telling everyone he meets about my cars.

    Ferrari fans who can't afford Ferraris are 100x as important as the guys who own the rarest ones. Did you ever stop and think for a second just how important those people are to the brand? Have you considered how many people buy Ferraris just because they are admired by people who can't afford them?

    BTW, do you apply such virtue to every law or just the ones you care about?
     
  8. noone1

    noone1 F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    Jan 21, 2008
    4,612
    Los Angeles
    Full Name:
    Mike
    It's up to the courts to decide whether or not something falls under fair use.
     
  9. TheMayor

    TheMayor Nine Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    98,534
    Vegas baby
    This thread has turned to the ridiculous. Let's blame rats for the black plague while your at it.


    The FACTS are that if you OWN something -- a possession or an intellectual property -- it cannot be legally copied and sold without permission.

    Doing so is theft.

    End of story.
     
  10. DrStranglove

    DrStranglove FChat Assassin
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2003
    29,137
    Google Maps
    Full Name:
    DrS
    #210 DrStranglove, May 24, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    Which has been upheld on the side of the design owner just about every time.

    Here is an easy experiment for you:

    1) Scan in a copy of the Harry Potter and Twilight books.
    2) Offer them for sale on your web site at a seriously discounted rate since you can store them on gDocs for free.
    3) See how long you last.

    Get back to us with the results.

    As for this:



    but then you follow that up with this gem:

    take this with you....
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  11. TheMayor

    TheMayor Nine Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    98,534
    Vegas baby
    Again, you know NOTHING about copyright laws. It's not up to "the courts". It's who filed a CLAIM and was legally awarded it.

    Do you know if you make a model of the F22, you have to pay Lockheed Martin a fee? They own the design patent on the shape -- even though all of us paid taxes for them to design it and make it.

    Yes, US taxpayers paid for the F22 yet LM gets royalties for every model F22 sold.

    That's how it works. It's not a judge. It's who files the claim and is awarded it in the patent or copyright office.
     
  12. Carbuilder

    Carbuilder Formula Junior

    Aug 18, 2012
    550
    Bolton, ON
    Full Name:
    Rick
    Then why are you making such a big deal on this thread and getting it all off-topic into fake watches and purses? The thread is about replica cars, which are legal to build, own, and drive. So you should "have no problem"; they don't break the law. You can like or dislike the moral aspects of it, but not the legality.

    By the way, Shelby didn't actually win his lawsuit, he just wanted to portray it that way. He was trying to stop companies from selling Cobra replicas. What he actually won was the right to the name "Cobra". Anyone can copy the shape of the car; that's the part he lost. So the law says you can build and sell Cobra replicas, just don't call them Cobras.
     
  13. noone1

    noone1 F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    Jan 21, 2008
    4,612
    Los Angeles
    Full Name:
    Mike
    #213 noone1, May 24, 2013
    Last edited: May 24, 2013
    Um, why wouldn't replica cars fall under useful articles and their designs be patents with limited validity?
     
  14. TheMayor

    TheMayor Nine Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    98,534
    Vegas baby
    1) Replica cars and replica watches are exactly the same thing if made without a license. Car guys love to talk about how they hate "cheap knock offs from China" but don't think twice about a knock off car.

    2) On Shelby, I totally agree. It ended up a bit of a gentlemen's agreement and a "win-win" for those who came to see the advantage or granting a license and paying a royalty. Shelby is a special case because the car was so knocked off by so many, it was the only thing he could really do to get something from nothing. In the end, it worked out pretty well for him and those who sold licensed cars under his license.

    Now, I personally believe that if a car company grants a license for a car to be knocked off, it diminishes the value for everyone who owns "a real one". If Rolex granted a license for a $20 knock off watch, the owners of real ones would have a fit.

    Same for cars.

    This is why it's rarely done. Those people who make knock off 360's and 430's are doing it without a license and therefore should be considered illegal against existing copyright and design patent laws. In Italy, they literally DESTROY them when found -- no matter how good the knock off may be. To me, that should be the same in the US.
     
  15. Zeus

    Zeus Formula 3
    Silver Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2007
    1,072
    Palm Beach
    Full Name:
    Lawrence
    Obviously the answer is that The Mayor loves to see his own words and has a penchant for repeating himself over and over, ad nauseum, even with the same capital letters (like THEFT and STEALING) for emphasis. I guess that's how he has accumulated 35,500 posts.

    As you noted, this thread has digressed from the original OP's intention of discussing the pros and cons of replica cars to discussing the pros and cons of copied handbags, fighter jets, Greek and Roman statues, movies, jokes, music, literary works, watches, art and other non-automotive objects. Although many of us have different opinions on the subject of whether one should "bother" (the OP's words) with replica cars, any notion that either building or owning a replica car that is no longer manufactured is stealing from anyone where the manufacturer has no possibility of an enforceable civil claim for damages resulting from that ownership, and where no criminal statute pertains thereto, is ridiculous.

    Case in point, how anyone can claim that the builder or owner of a replica Shelby Daytona Coupe is either stealing from anyone or diminishing the value of an original is beyond me. As I stated in an earlier post, there were only 6 ever manufactured, and they were designed solely for competition. They will never be made by Shelby again. The few that still exist are kept under lock and key, and cannot and will not ever be driven on the road. Their owners could give a damn if they saw one driving down the street or at a car show. Very few people will ever get to see a real Daytona Cobra in person during their lifetime. Without the replicas no one would be able to experience what it's like to drive one of these great cars or appreciate, in person, their beauty. Furthermore, the replica market has not affected the value of the original cars one iota. Between 2009 and the present, the market value has risen from $9.25M to $12M. One could argue that the replica market has indeed added to the awareness of these awesome cars, and perhaps even enhanced their market value. No Daytona Coupe replica owner is stealing anything from anybody, or pretending to anyone that they have the real thing. To think otherwise is ludicrous. Nobody has lost a single penny. The same can be said for other automotive replicas. We're not talking about replica 458s, 360s or the like.

    IMO, although everybody interested has likely already chimed in, this thread should be kept on the original question presented.
     
  16. TheMayor

    TheMayor Nine Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    98,534
    Vegas baby
    #216 TheMayor, May 24, 2013
    Last edited: May 24, 2013
    A design patent can be renewed as can be a copyright or trademark (for example, a name of a product).

    You cannot tomorrow start a new Duesenberg car company. Someone owns that name as a car company even though a car hasn't been made in 70 years. You would have to get the permission of the owner of the name Duesenberg first.

    You can't even use a name that is similar. For example, George Lucas sued Google for "Android" as it's OS name. -- and won. Lucas claimed he owned the name "Droid" from the Star Wars movie and that Android was too close --- even though it existed before the name Droid was used. So, Motorola called the phone's system "Droid" and pays Lucas for it.

    To this date, whenever you see Android in ads, it says something about used by permission of Lucasfilms.

    As I said before, Ford lost the name "GT 40" by not filing for it way back in the 60's. Someone bought it or filed for it and when Ford wanted to use it, they could not reach an agreement on the terms. Ford said "screw you" and just called it the Ford GT.

    Here's another thing. You have to DEFEND a trademark. If you don't and you allow people to actually use it and not take legal action, you can lose it permanently and it will become public domain. This is how the name Kleenex came from Kimberly Clark to be a generic term that anyone can use.

    So, if you have a trademark, you must protect it or you will lose it.
     
  17. boxerman

    boxerman F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    May 27, 2004
    18,647
    FL
    Full Name:
    Sean
    Stepping outside your legalistic argument which is not entirely correct. Ferrari did not trademark the designs oif its 50's cars, they are more like the bible. designs and trade,arks might never be registered and they can certainly be abadoned. Ferrari owns the orancing horse not the shape or engine design of all its old cars.

    You objection actualy is to all recreations whether licensed or not. You think it diminishes the value of old build owners. The rest of us are car guys we like the machine for what it is.

    You buy a feerrari and sell it 500 miles later because its a goood deal. we buy a ferrari and keep it for a lifetime because we love it for what it is. You are serial car purchaser who loves to have the latest and greatest, that is what it means to you, I wonder how much time you havce soent at speed, have you ever been on a track. You buy a rolex because its a rolex and all that inplies, I buy a fine watch because I appreciate it, and usualy one that only someone that knows can even figure out.

    So to you its all about value. Perhaps you have had designs and things ripped off, and in the media industry this is certainly a valid claim, but certain things are never trademarked, others become part of the public domain.

    in any event you are not going to stop recreation, its happeneing and here to stay, there is a large pool of enthisiasts who care more about the machine than the badge.

    Its funny that you excorciate auction houses for driving hobby car prices up out of the range of enthisiasts yet you dont liek recreations because you think it slows the price rise of old vuilds.

    I see it in your political comments too, no balance, you take one side and thats it, no undesrtanding of alarger picture. I think whatever your age you are an emotionaly immature person, even though I do agree with your politics which is another subject.

    Out of production ietems will be produced again, ferrari does it at classicje all you need is a data plate, and those subcontractors proiduce cars without the badge for others.

    Point me in the direction of someoen making a real 288 recreation for under 300k I am a buyer and you can keep the horsey and posuer sheilds off mine, preferably not red.
     
  18. noone1

    noone1 F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    Jan 21, 2008
    4,612
    Los Angeles
    Full Name:
    Mike
    I don't believe you can renew design patents, and so long as you don't use their brand names/logos you'd be spared trademark infringement I believe, as you cannot trademark physical objects.

    Copyrights perhaps apply, but I would think a car would fall under useful articles.

    Clothing can be duplicated 100% legally so long as you don't use the trademarks. Why would a car without marks be any different?
     
  19. Bullfighter

    Bullfighter Two Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jan 26, 2005
    22,352
    Indian Wells, California
    Full Name:
    Jon
    Why not try to market your own soft drink in a bottle shaped like the classic glass Coke bottle and see how it goes? ;)
     
  20. TheMayor

    TheMayor Nine Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    98,534
    Vegas baby
    Exactly. What you do is update it slightly and resend it in. Anyone who tries to get close to you --- wham! Lawsuit city.
     
  21. boxerman

    boxerman F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    May 27, 2004
    18,647
    FL
    Full Name:
    Sean
    Classic coke is still sold in the bottles which are trademarked.

    The same is not true of a pontoon fernder TR wheich has not been produced since the 50's.
    Now if you put a prancing horse on it, that is different, unless of course you cut up an old ferrari, win which case its a ferrari rebody as you have a ferrari chassis plate and engine block
    so you can put ferrari badges on it yo your hearts content and call it a ferrari. I guess its licesnsed then so toatoaly ok, in fact your system garauntees cutting up old cars, bravo.
     
  22. DennisForza

    DennisForza Formula 3

    May 23, 2006
    1,800
    Arlington, VA
    Full Name:
    Dennis
    Ford did it with the Gt40/GT!
     
  23. noone1

    noone1 F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    Jan 21, 2008
    4,612
    Los Angeles
    Full Name:
    Mike
    I think it's tricky. I'm not sure why a bottle design could be protected but not clothing designs. Could you fight it? I dunno, maybe, but I don't think anyone has pockets deep enough or a reason to, so we may never know.

    Besides, how much of a car do you need to say you're restoring it? How much of car must you have for it to be simply a restoration? My car blew up and all I have left is this wheel. Can't I try and fix it?
     
  24. s2mikey

    s2mikey Karting

    Nov 1, 2003
    169
    Upstate, New York
    Full Name:
    Mike B
    I always wondered that too. Cobras are the worst offenders by far.... I realize that the orignals are very pricey but a fake is a fake. No one is fooled. Its just a back yard project once you start making replicas. I dont care how good the workmanship is either. Its not a real car. That ends that.

    The Countach was another car that got replica'd a zillion times. Just a lousy idea.

    Real or No go deal.
     
  25. bobzdar

    bobzdar F1 Veteran

    Sep 22, 2008
    6,367
    Richmond
    Full Name:
    Pete
    What if you are not and have no intention of making more of the original? How are they hurting you? You design something, manufacture and sell it for 4 or 5 years and then 30 years later somebody replicates it because you no longer make it and originals are difficult/impossible to find, how does that hurt you in any way whatsoever?
     

Share This Page