RE: Mercedes has Gullwing replica crushed
Discussion
MSPV12 said:
BarnatosGhost said:
You don't think owners of priceless original Cobras get fed-up of people asking them if they built it themselves in their garage?
You don't think lots of potential owners who'd actually love a Cobra think "f
k that, if I'm going to spend £1m on a car, I want it to look like a £1m car, not a £15k wife-avoidance hobby".
The Cobra's 'legend' status in the perceptions of the half-interested has been crucified by the tens of thousands of crazed glass-fibre replicas farting around the countryside with 2.0 pinto engines and Fiesta seatbelts.
You think people who own a proper GT40 are touched to be impersonated by Gareth from Accounts Payable clambering out of his Tornado outside Charlie Chalks for a 'meet' with other adenoidal OEM-branded-clothing-wearing motorsport enthusiasts who all know a lot about Le Mans? Not cool.
Of course a replica devalues an original. If it wasn't a de-valued version, everyone would just buy the original.
But you see, the values of originals are what they are. Have you noticed any discounted original GT40s? If there was such a stigma to owning a real Cobra, then perhaps the value of them would be less, because these people for whom you choose to speak, clearly wouldn't bother buying one for fear of being perceived as "Gareth from Accounts"! I suggest they don't give two shakes of a widget what people think?! Neither does it matter one jot, what Mavis O'Reilly in Sigma Street street thinks of a DAX, Tornado or anything else.You don't think lots of potential owners who'd actually love a Cobra think "f
k that, if I'm going to spend £1m on a car, I want it to look like a £1m car, not a £15k wife-avoidance hobby".The Cobra's 'legend' status in the perceptions of the half-interested has been crucified by the tens of thousands of crazed glass-fibre replicas farting around the countryside with 2.0 pinto engines and Fiesta seatbelts.
You think people who own a proper GT40 are touched to be impersonated by Gareth from Accounts Payable clambering out of his Tornado outside Charlie Chalks for a 'meet' with other adenoidal OEM-branded-clothing-wearing motorsport enthusiasts who all know a lot about Le Mans? Not cool.
Of course a replica devalues an original. If it wasn't a de-valued version, everyone would just buy the original.
The value of my daily driver is not affected because a company makes replica's of it! Ask me how I know? Don'tbother, I'll tell you. I know this because I had to pay the market price for it. What a knob I would have looked if I walked into the showroom and asked for discount because there happens to be a replica available on pistonheads and my mate's granny is going to take the p1ss out of me and ask me every day if it's real!!!
If there were no replicas then the market price of the originals would be higher.
MSPV12 said:
Twincharged said:
He's half right though- we have laws, but we must question whether these laws are still appropriate under the circumstances, or whether the laws need to be revised. In terms of IP law holding mankind back, I wouldn't say it does as a whole, as it allows people and companies to invest money in design and development of products without fear of copycat products appearing on the market from day 1. Whether the term for protection and the subject matter covered by it are appropriate is a different, and much broader question.
I'm not enough of an expert to comment on German IP law, but one would assume that the law in this case has allowed them to seize the replica and crush it- otherwise there would be a big uproar. In the UK, any design rights would have long since expired, and I think any attempt to rely on "passing off" would be somewhat tenuous (unless it has Mercedes badges on it).
I can live with being half-right. I'm not enough of an expert to comment on German IP law, but one would assume that the law in this case has allowed them to seize the replica and crush it- otherwise there would be a big uproar. In the UK, any design rights would have long since expired, and I think any attempt to rely on "passing off" would be somewhat tenuous (unless it has Mercedes badges on it).
The Law is ever evolving as it should be. So is Mankind. That is why I sound frustrated by certain comments here stating, "it is what it is" and "it's the LAW so it must be right". Plus I like challenging ideas generally, perhaps making me a pot-stirer? However and whatever I may be, I most certainly am not a Marxist!
I'd imagine Mercedes are able to do what they've done due to registering the shape as a trademark.
I was interested to note recently that unregistered design rights only last for 3 years under EU law. You have protection in England and Wales for longer than this, though after (I think) 5 years, you would be obliged to offer companies the facility to copy under licence without unreasonably withholding.
The conundrum is that, for small companies, the cost of registering designs, especially throughout the EU, is expensive, so your only realistic opportunity is to develop your product over a short timescale to render copies obsolete.
julian64 said:
BarnatosGhost said:
You're getting it the wrong way round. They aren't valuable because they're often copied; they're often copied because they're valuable.
Part of the value of rare cars is in their rarity, and their perceived rarity. I would desire a real cobra more if i didn't see a replica every weekend from March to October
If potential owners of real cobras feel the same then that will artificially suppress their values. A real cobra would be worth more if it were not constantly mistaken by the general public for a replica. Mercedes naturally want to prevent that happening to the gullwing, owned as it is by some of Mercedes' very best customers.
Manufacturers owe nothing to people who want to look like an owner, but don't actually stump up the money. Manufacturers will look after owners. Quite rightly.
its a shame you don't give further thought to your arguments. What sort of world would we live in if someone had copywritten the wheel, fire, and a whole host of other basic, but invented stuff.Part of the value of rare cars is in their rarity, and their perceived rarity. I would desire a real cobra more if i didn't see a replica every weekend from March to October
If potential owners of real cobras feel the same then that will artificially suppress their values. A real cobra would be worth more if it were not constantly mistaken by the general public for a replica. Mercedes naturally want to prevent that happening to the gullwing, owned as it is by some of Mercedes' very best customers.
Manufacturers owe nothing to people who want to look like an owner, but don't actually stump up the money. Manufacturers will look after owners. Quite rightly.
Do you consider if intelectual property for mercedes to have designed a car which is the same as any other car on the road apart from a bit of bodywork, and call it interlectual property.
Arguably mercedes invented the first car. Do you think its okay they exercise their property rights on the 'car' as pretty much all cars after are complete copies of the one wheel at each corner and an engine in the middle.
In summary, you are legally right, but you are also spouting nonsense of the sort that Judges are masters at.
Why should anyone bother to innovate if there is no protection from theft?
Why should Kia have a styling department when they could just build Volkswagen replicas?
Two concerns.
Firstly there is a popular misconception with the Caterham case.
Caterham never actually won a decision in court against Westfield. The matter was settled between Caterham and Westfield. As we know Westfield continued to produce the style of cars subject to the dispute. But they never again use the term 7 or Super Seven or similar descriptions.
The more interesting and directly relevant case subsequent to the Caterham case was the Birkin Cars V Caterham Cars as in : http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1998/44.html,
where the judgement on the same question went AGAINST Caterham.
If this aspect interests you as it does me it is well worth reading the judgement. Which was at Court of Appeal level.
In essence this judgement emphasises the reality of Copyright limitation.
The fact is that the shape of a car and the style of a car is almost impossible to protect. Changing the door, wings or whatever would almost certainly remove copyright protection from a design.
This must be particularly true nowadays where IMO all cars look very similar.
What is clearly and unequivocally protected is the Brand of the car.
Thus if a car is badged in the UK or Europe or pretty well anywhere in the world as a clone and purports to be something it is not, then the owner of the brand could and would win litigation against that clone.
Thus if a car is badged as a Ferrari or Mercedes or whatever the Brand owner can stop that deliberate cloning dead. If he wants to.
Some manufacturers do: some do not.
Indeed where the clone is offered for sale without being identified as a clone and in fact NOT an original whatever, then it becomes dangerously close to deliberate misrepresentation to me.
The consequences of such misrepresentation are obvious to all.
But copyrighting the shape or style? Much more difficult.
Firstly there is a popular misconception with the Caterham case.
Caterham never actually won a decision in court against Westfield. The matter was settled between Caterham and Westfield. As we know Westfield continued to produce the style of cars subject to the dispute. But they never again use the term 7 or Super Seven or similar descriptions.
The more interesting and directly relevant case subsequent to the Caterham case was the Birkin Cars V Caterham Cars as in : http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1998/44.html,
where the judgement on the same question went AGAINST Caterham.
If this aspect interests you as it does me it is well worth reading the judgement. Which was at Court of Appeal level.
In essence this judgement emphasises the reality of Copyright limitation.
The fact is that the shape of a car and the style of a car is almost impossible to protect. Changing the door, wings or whatever would almost certainly remove copyright protection from a design.
This must be particularly true nowadays where IMO all cars look very similar.
What is clearly and unequivocally protected is the Brand of the car.
Thus if a car is badged in the UK or Europe or pretty well anywhere in the world as a clone and purports to be something it is not, then the owner of the brand could and would win litigation against that clone.
Thus if a car is badged as a Ferrari or Mercedes or whatever the Brand owner can stop that deliberate cloning dead. If he wants to.
Some manufacturers do: some do not.
Indeed where the clone is offered for sale without being identified as a clone and in fact NOT an original whatever, then it becomes dangerously close to deliberate misrepresentation to me.
The consequences of such misrepresentation are obvious to all.
But copyrighting the shape or style? Much more difficult.
BarnatosGhost said:
The market price of cobras, GT40s and gullwings encompasses whatever suppression results from the existence of replicas.
If there were no replicas then the market price of the originals would be higher.
I fear you may be mis-understanding market forces. The 'market' may indeed encompass many considerations to arrive at a value of a product. However, not all 'markets' are the same. I prefer to think that the market for rare cars has certain unique elements. Most obviously, availability, desirability, racing pedigree, all sorts of stuff, including celebrity attatchments to certain models etc etc. Much like a market for rare works of art or fine jewellery. I sincerely dispute your suggestion that Adrian Newey bases the value of his GT40 upon how many Tornado's are out there being driven by Gareth.If there were no replicas then the market price of the originals would be higher.
You seriously think that a car valued at 1M would be worth 1.1M if a few replicars were deleted? Fact is, these things have absolutely no set value until the hammer falls on the day of the sale. They aren't listed in a blue book.
I don't know any other way to put it than, you are wrong.
BarnatosGhost said:
If you don't put a Ferrari badge on it there shouldn't be a problem. Make sure you do a reader's cars thread!
Got around to making one; http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...
This could be a very interesting project.
I remember your PH post on buying the car.
If you can make the car redolent of the style of the cars you are seeking to remember with this project and give the flavour of the character of those cars I think this could be a real winner.
I would avoid badging the car as a clone. That is when the problems start.
But a real project to show what can be done in making a stylish car?
Good luck to you!
I remember your PH post on buying the car.
If you can make the car redolent of the style of the cars you are seeking to remember with this project and give the flavour of the character of those cars I think this could be a real winner.
I would avoid badging the car as a clone. That is when the problems start.
But a real project to show what can be done in making a stylish car?
Good luck to you!
MSPV12 said:
BarnatosGhost said:
The market price of cobras, GT40s and gullwings encompasses whatever suppression results from the existence of replicas.
If there were no replicas then the market price of the originals would be higher.
I fear you may be mis-understanding market forces. The 'market' may indeed encompass many considerations to arrive at a value of a product. However, not all 'markets' are the same. I prefer to think that the market for rare cars has certain unique elements. Most obviously, availability, desirability, racing pedigree, all sorts of stuff, including celebrity attatchments to certain models etc etc. Much like a market for rare works of art or fine jewellery. I sincerely dispute your suggestion that Adrian Newey bases the value of his GT40 upon how many Tornado's are out there being driven by Gareth.If there were no replicas then the market price of the originals would be higher.
You seriously think that a car valued at 1M would be worth 1.1M if a few replicars were deleted? Fact is, these things have absolutely no set value until the hammer falls on the day of the sale. They aren't listed in a blue book.
I don't know any other way to put it than, you are wrong.
Reading the latest bout of posts, it seems that there is a perceived correlation between the number of replicas and the value of the original. I can't think of any factual basis for that argument at all. Cobras are Cobras and have their value. Yes, there are many replicas out there, but then look at a Jaguar C or D-type and you are looking at a value far greater than a Cobra yet there are thousands of replicas out there, with Lynx and Wingfield having made them since 1975 in alloy and then Proteus, Realm and others continuing to do so today. Jaguar do not exercise their right to have the cars crushed because they wear a Jaguar badge, nor do most manufacturers whose models have spawned replicas. It is just that Mercedes, with their germanic efficiency, have decided so to do because they have the right and can. As regards the law, we all know it is an ass but by the same token until it is challenged and changed it is the law we live by. Seems pointless to piss into the wind to me.
I don't attest to a fixed correlation, but I think it is a factor in the desirability of the car.
If I see what looks like a Cobra on someone's drive or in a showroom as I drive past, I don't think "Wow, one of the most legendary cars ever built, right here in my neighbourhood". It might possibly be, but I'll assume it isn't and almost certainly be correct.
But if I was to see what looks like a Gullwing, I would think exactly that. Because there aren't a glut of Gullwing replicas sullying the magic of the car.
So if I were to be thinking about spending £500k on a classic car (haha), the Gullwing would have that advantage over the Cobra, through no fault of the wonderful Cobra itself. So the market gains a buyer, values of the Gullwings in the market are bolstered, their owners are happy, and the reputation of Mercedes as a marque worthy of carrying super-valuable classics is enhanced.
All good things for Mercedes themselves, and the reason why they're quite right in stamping on fakes.
If I see what looks like a Cobra on someone's drive or in a showroom as I drive past, I don't think "Wow, one of the most legendary cars ever built, right here in my neighbourhood". It might possibly be, but I'll assume it isn't and almost certainly be correct.
But if I was to see what looks like a Gullwing, I would think exactly that. Because there aren't a glut of Gullwing replicas sullying the magic of the car.
So if I were to be thinking about spending £500k on a classic car (haha), the Gullwing would have that advantage over the Cobra, through no fault of the wonderful Cobra itself. So the market gains a buyer, values of the Gullwings in the market are bolstered, their owners are happy, and the reputation of Mercedes as a marque worthy of carrying super-valuable classics is enhanced.
All good things for Mercedes themselves, and the reason why they're quite right in stamping on fakes.
hairykrishna said:
Steffan said:
I would avoid badging the car as a clone. That is when the problems start.
But a real project to show what can be done in making a stylish car?
Good luck to you!
Thanks. Whatever it ends up looking like, it certainly won't have any Ferrari badges!But a real project to show what can be done in making a stylish car?
Good luck to you!
The only reason Mercedes were able to do what they did was a combination of the fact they trademarked the design and a peculiarity of German law. As long as you don't claim it as original and don't refer to or badge it as an original you should have many years of enjoying the finished car. I have taken advice and know that, for my own particular project, the manufacturer never registered the design and cannot now do so retrospectively. Even if they had done so, the design copyright would have expired after 15 years.
Remember this ....
Shelby tried and failed to prosecute replica builders of the Cobra. Now there are many more replicas than real ones. Ford (who aren't short of a bob or two) couldn't name their new car "GT40" because the name had been trademarked by a replica builder! They ended up calling it a "Ford GT".
lowdrag said:
Reading the latest bout of posts, it seems that there is a perceived correlation between the number of replicas and the value of the original. I can't think of any factual basis for that argument at all. Cobras are Cobras and have their value. Yes, there are many replicas out there, but then look at a Jaguar C or D-type and you are looking at a value far greater than a Cobra yet there are thousands of replicas out there, with Lynx and Wingfield having made them since 1975 in alloy and then Proteus, Realm and others continuing to do so today.
You have defeated your own argument against BarnatosGhost. There are more Cobra replicas in the world than Jaguar C/D Type replicas.Edited by XJ13 on Thursday 29th March 10:31
BarnatosGhost said:
I don't attest to a fixed correlation, but I think it is a factor in the desirability of the car.
If I see what looks like a Cobra on someone's drive or in a showroom as I drive past, I don't think "Wow, one of the most legendary cars ever built, right here in my neighbourhood". It might possibly be, but I'll assume it isn't and almost certainly be correct.
But if I was to see what looks like a Gullwing, I would think exactly that. Because there aren't a glut of Gullwing replicas sullying the magic of the car.
So if I were to be thinking about spending £500k on a classic car (haha), the Gullwing would have that advantage over the Cobra, through no fault of the wonderful Cobra itself. So the market gains a buyer, values of the Gullwings in the market are bolstered, their owners are happy, and the reputation of Mercedes as a marque worthy of carrying super-valuable classics is enhanced.
All good things for Mercedes themselves, and the reason why they're quite right in stamping on fakes.
I am 100% certain, that because you 'chose' to buy a Gullwing and not a Cobra, the Cobra market has not bee unduly effected by your particular purchase or logic behind your choice. For you, it is clearly of pressing importance that everyone else knows that your car is an original. For me, I choose what I like and do not base my choices in life on what others may think of either me, or my choices.If I see what looks like a Cobra on someone's drive or in a showroom as I drive past, I don't think "Wow, one of the most legendary cars ever built, right here in my neighbourhood". It might possibly be, but I'll assume it isn't and almost certainly be correct.
But if I was to see what looks like a Gullwing, I would think exactly that. Because there aren't a glut of Gullwing replicas sullying the magic of the car.
So if I were to be thinking about spending £500k on a classic car (haha), the Gullwing would have that advantage over the Cobra, through no fault of the wonderful Cobra itself. So the market gains a buyer, values of the Gullwings in the market are bolstered, their owners are happy, and the reputation of Mercedes as a marque worthy of carrying super-valuable classics is enhanced.
All good things for Mercedes themselves, and the reason why they're quite right in stamping on fakes.
MSPV12 said:
BarnatosGhost said:
I don't attest to a fixed correlation, but I think it is a factor in the desirability of the car.
If I see what looks like a Cobra on someone's drive or in a showroom as I drive past, I don't think "Wow, one of the most legendary cars ever built, right here in my neighbourhood". It might possibly be, but I'll assume it isn't and almost certainly be correct.
But if I was to see what looks like a Gullwing, I would think exactly that. Because there aren't a glut of Gullwing replicas sullying the magic of the car.
So if I were to be thinking about spending £500k on a classic car (haha), the Gullwing would have that advantage over the Cobra, through no fault of the wonderful Cobra itself. So the market gains a buyer, values of the Gullwings in the market are bolstered, their owners are happy, and the reputation of Mercedes as a marque worthy of carrying super-valuable classics is enhanced.
All good things for Mercedes themselves, and the reason why they're quite right in stamping on fakes.
I am 100% certain, that because you 'chose' to buy a Gullwing and not a Cobra, the Cobra market has not bee unduly effected by your particular purchase or logic behind your choice. For you, it is clearly of pressing importance that everyone else knows that your car is an original. For me, I choose what I like and do not base my choices in life on what others may think of either me, or my choices.If I see what looks like a Cobra on someone's drive or in a showroom as I drive past, I don't think "Wow, one of the most legendary cars ever built, right here in my neighbourhood". It might possibly be, but I'll assume it isn't and almost certainly be correct.
But if I was to see what looks like a Gullwing, I would think exactly that. Because there aren't a glut of Gullwing replicas sullying the magic of the car.
So if I were to be thinking about spending £500k on a classic car (haha), the Gullwing would have that advantage over the Cobra, through no fault of the wonderful Cobra itself. So the market gains a buyer, values of the Gullwings in the market are bolstered, their owners are happy, and the reputation of Mercedes as a marque worthy of carrying super-valuable classics is enhanced.
All good things for Mercedes themselves, and the reason why they're quite right in stamping on fakes.
For nearly everyone in the super-expensive car game, it is important that any question of originality is off-the-table.
The pose-factor is the driving force behind a huge number of purchases. Personal passion etc. also very important, but these cars don't get to be worth 100 times their new value by just being pretty.
They're status symbols and their values are a bubble; partly a function of their perceived and actual rarity. Replicas pop the bubble.
BarnatosGhost said:
The pose-factor is the driving force behind a huge number of purchases.
For you I imagine it could be, but this is absolutely not the case for most rare and desirable classic purchases. Does Chris Evans have a collection of stunning cars because he is completely shallow, or do you possibly think that it's because he is a huge car fanatic with the means to buy some very nice examples?Do most people buy fine art because they want the adoration of others, or is it because they enjoy the art and perhaps value it as an investment?
Edited by Mr2Mike on Friday 30th March 13:37
I have read the various arguments about the effect of copies on the originals market. Clearly there is a divided opinion.
Second guessing other peoples purchases seems to be a bit pointless to me. If you want something and can afford it good luck to you.
I currently own more than twelve cars: Daily drivers,(2) Classics (5) and assorted specials and Kit cars (5). My money, my choice.
What I do think is questionable, indeed probably misleading is branding cars which are NOT that brand with a brand name recognised by others.
Which part of describing a car as a Ferrari or Mercedes that has literally no connection with those companies is not misleading?
If you deliberately set out to fool people that a car is from a certain maker when it is not, I think that is clearly questionable.
As I understand it some collectors have actually succeeded in getting their copies registered in the UK as Ferrari's etc. I cannot see how that can be right.
Creating a car which is redolent of the original manufacturers efforts and has the style and feeling of a certain area seems entirely reasonable and worthwhile.
I have owned BRA three wheelers and Pembertons, in the past which clearly looked like Morgans, and were clearly designed to be redolent of that car, and indeed were frequently mistaken for Morgans, but I would never BADGE the cars as Morgans.
I have owned two original Morgans.
Why would I want to have a clone badged as one?
Each to their own and live and let live is my Mantra.
But deliberately registering a car as a Brand it is most certainly not?
Not for me.
Second guessing other peoples purchases seems to be a bit pointless to me. If you want something and can afford it good luck to you.
I currently own more than twelve cars: Daily drivers,(2) Classics (5) and assorted specials and Kit cars (5). My money, my choice.
What I do think is questionable, indeed probably misleading is branding cars which are NOT that brand with a brand name recognised by others.
Which part of describing a car as a Ferrari or Mercedes that has literally no connection with those companies is not misleading?
If you deliberately set out to fool people that a car is from a certain maker when it is not, I think that is clearly questionable.
As I understand it some collectors have actually succeeded in getting their copies registered in the UK as Ferrari's etc. I cannot see how that can be right.
Creating a car which is redolent of the original manufacturers efforts and has the style and feeling of a certain area seems entirely reasonable and worthwhile.
I have owned BRA three wheelers and Pembertons, in the past which clearly looked like Morgans, and were clearly designed to be redolent of that car, and indeed were frequently mistaken for Morgans, but I would never BADGE the cars as Morgans.
I have owned two original Morgans.
Why would I want to have a clone badged as one?
Each to their own and live and let live is my Mantra.
But deliberately registering a car as a Brand it is most certainly not?
Not for me.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff