RE: Mercedes has Gullwing replica crushed
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
The original was released 57 years ago. I have sympathy for your view but I feel there has to be some sensible limit on how long a design is protected by copyright law before it moves into the public domain.
Oh, there is a limit, all right, but you are not going to like it. The EU copyright duration is 70 years after the death of the creator. I don't know how old the designer of the Gullwing shell was when he did the car, or when he died, but I'll bet you it was a fair while later than the car was released, and then you have to add 70 years from the date of his death. Edited by Lowtimer on Friday 23 March 15:29
zebedee said:
365daytonafan said:
bobberz said:
B0llocks! The hundreds of thousands of Shelby Cobra replicas out there haven't hurt the value of the real ones, which still go for $500,000-$1,000,000+.
Do you really believe that someone who is in the position to buy a 300SL would mistake a fibreglass replica for a real aluminium one?
While it doesn't affect the value of the car there is nother worse than being asked is your car replica when it's original. Happened a few times with the Daytona, and it smarts everytime.Do you really believe that someone who is in the position to buy a 300SL would mistake a fibreglass replica for a real aluminium one?
"No, actually it's a real one, worth a lot of money. Did I mention how delighted I am not to be an amputee?"
"You didn't. Now that I know your car is real, I appreciate it a lot."
"Great. Watch as I click my heels and clap my hands! Four limbs! Bye!"
Well, I'm persuaded. In fact I don't think I'll be irritated by anything for a really long time.
Appreciate it may have infringed copywright but doesnt exactly do M-B PR much good does it? As you say - its the zeal that they smashed it into little pieces - anyway - where are the photos to prove it - methinks they do explain too much and its sitting in some M-B flunkies garage...
Jonny TVR said:
why didnt they just stick it in a crusher?
Probably because beneath the skin it's totally unlike a real one (different chassis, different engine etc) so they were probably fine with sending that on (and had no legal standing to do so even if they did), it was purely the shape that they had taken umbrage to.My opinion is that it must've been a small kit car company that made this, I find it hard to believe they'd jump up and down on someone's dreams - especially since I remember reading about some chap in Hungary or somewhere who built his own McLaren Mercedes replica, and he commented on how Merc tried to buy it off him...
Alex Gurr said:
It makes me wonder what they will do with the C&G built W125 replicas?
I think I can probably guess. Aren't they and the Audi replicas due to race at the Revival this year?Thing is what would Mercedes rather? Original W125s raced and potentially destroyed in racing or replicas keeping the spirit alive with no risk to the originals?
I am not liking this. Normally I am not a fan of replicas but as has been said this car is nearly 60 years old now. The Gullwing is one of my favourite cars ever but with prices currently going ballistic the chances of ever owning one are somewhat slim. As an example a steel bodied car recently sold in the States for about 1.2 million which was a record. As for the very few alloy bodied cars then you are looking for in excess of 2 million.
The thing is Mercedes still support the cars and a full parts back catalogue is still available at a price.
In my dreams I have wanted to buy an Ali Body from these guys http://www.gullwing-america.com/ and then have it fitted with a Zonda spec AMG V12, what a car that would be.
I wonder what Mercedes America will do to companies like Gullwing America as I presume the licence they have on the car is worldwide???
The thing is Mercedes still support the cars and a full parts back catalogue is still available at a price.
In my dreams I have wanted to buy an Ali Body from these guys http://www.gullwing-america.com/ and then have it fitted with a Zonda spec AMG V12, what a car that would be.
I wonder what Mercedes America will do to companies like Gullwing America as I presume the licence they have on the car is worldwide???
Streetrod said:
I wonder what Mercedes America will do to companies like Gullwing America as I presume the licence they have on the car is worldwide???
a) do you know that they have a licence?b) if they do, why do you presume that it is a worldwide licence? There is no basis for such an assumption. It is quite usual for rights holders to seek to keep territories with different regulatory regimes separate for licensing purposes, as we see all the time with books, software, DVDs, and so on.
Bear in mind also that intellectual property law in the USA is different from intellectual property law in the EU. You would not actually have a common licence for the two separate legal regimes.
Lowtimer said:
a) do you know that they have a licence?
b) if they do, why do you presume that it is a worldwide licence? There is no basis for such an assumption. It is quite usual for rights holders to seek to keep territories with different regulatory regimes separate for licensing purposes, as we see all the time with books, software, DVDs, and so on.
Bear in mind also that intellectual property law in the USA is different from intellectual property law in the EU. You would not actually have a common licence for the two separate legal regimes.
As I said it was a presumtion, I do not know for a fact. I was just asking the questionb) if they do, why do you presume that it is a worldwide licence? There is no basis for such an assumption. It is quite usual for rights holders to seek to keep territories with different regulatory regimes separate for licensing purposes, as we see all the time with books, software, DVDs, and so on.
Bear in mind also that intellectual property law in the USA is different from intellectual property law in the EU. You would not actually have a common licence for the two separate legal regimes.
In my view (as an intellectual property lawyer) this case is pretty exclusive to Germany. Similar things could happen in France and Italy and do in relation to fashion items, I am not sure whether cars have ever been involved in either country.
Germany has a law of unfair competition that basically allows famous goods, things like Rolexes to remain protected even when their statutory protection expires. I suspect his is what wasused to get the car body crushed. I see reference to a trade mark. If so it is not registered in the UK as far as I can see, so is probably a Germany only TM. No mention of it is made on the MB web page dealing with the gullwing (which strangely for a property so hot you have registered its shape as a TM and used the unfair competition law to crush a replica is an archived page).
Shape trade marks are very hard to register in the UK and at the European TM registry. Maybe they are easier to get in Germany, though lots of technical trade mark issues occur to me, which I won't bore you with. There is nothing relevant registered in Daimler's name at the UK trade mark registry, just words and umpteen variations of the star.
Copyright in Germany can be quite a different beast to copyright in the UK too. I would be surprised if copyright remained or even ever existed in Germany. Copyright in manufactured objects(as opposed to purely artistic objects) is a complicated subject but generally did not exist in 1955. In this country any rights Mercedes ever had in the design will be long since expired, so there could be no action against such a car in this country.
I guess the owner just did not know what he was facing in Germany. When IP rights are so different in different countries, it is a bit rich for MB to be making such a fuss of it. The body was not made illegally if it was made outside Germany (as is implied). It was legally made but became illegal by a quirk of German law when it hit German soil. I agree with all the post saying no loss. None at all I would say. AC carry on making Cobras even though replicas are on the market and half the price; some people want the real thing and will not put up with a copy however good it is.
Germany has a law of unfair competition that basically allows famous goods, things like Rolexes to remain protected even when their statutory protection expires. I suspect his is what wasused to get the car body crushed. I see reference to a trade mark. If so it is not registered in the UK as far as I can see, so is probably a Germany only TM. No mention of it is made on the MB web page dealing with the gullwing (which strangely for a property so hot you have registered its shape as a TM and used the unfair competition law to crush a replica is an archived page).
Shape trade marks are very hard to register in the UK and at the European TM registry. Maybe they are easier to get in Germany, though lots of technical trade mark issues occur to me, which I won't bore you with. There is nothing relevant registered in Daimler's name at the UK trade mark registry, just words and umpteen variations of the star.
Copyright in Germany can be quite a different beast to copyright in the UK too. I would be surprised if copyright remained or even ever existed in Germany. Copyright in manufactured objects(as opposed to purely artistic objects) is a complicated subject but generally did not exist in 1955. In this country any rights Mercedes ever had in the design will be long since expired, so there could be no action against such a car in this country.
I guess the owner just did not know what he was facing in Germany. When IP rights are so different in different countries, it is a bit rich for MB to be making such a fuss of it. The body was not made illegally if it was made outside Germany (as is implied). It was legally made but became illegal by a quirk of German law when it hit German soil. I agree with all the post saying no loss. None at all I would say. AC carry on making Cobras even though replicas are on the market and half the price; some people want the real thing and will not put up with a copy however good it is.
This is absolutely disgusting. How dare they destroy someone's car. They didn't build it or put the money into building it. It doesn't matter if it's a copy of the original car, it's a tribute. If they don't want to lose money or devalue existing cars, then forbid the copies from being sold.
JH2,
As I understand it, they are not just relying on a trademark argument, they are also using a copyright argument based on the artistic work of the creation of the shape, i.e. a sculpture argument, in effect.
I agree with all those who say it is poor public relations and of dubious commercial wisdom to go in with heavy feet here. i think Daimler have played it wrong from the start.
I am all in favour of maintaining control of your intellectual property, but it is what you do with that control that counts. If I were the relevant Daimler executive I would insist on licencing, but issue licenses on a non-exclusive basis at nominal cost to reputable and skilled folk who come along and show they are capable of doing a job of suitably high quality. That would keep out the riff-raff who might produce nasty travesties of the shape, or make the things made out of old bean cans, cardboard and filler, but would allow the true back street specialists to create things of beauty and genuine value without having to pay through the nose, or risk having their work crushed.
http://www.carvegasus.com/mercedes-benz-destroys-3...
As I understand it, they are not just relying on a trademark argument, they are also using a copyright argument based on the artistic work of the creation of the shape, i.e. a sculpture argument, in effect.
I agree with all those who say it is poor public relations and of dubious commercial wisdom to go in with heavy feet here. i think Daimler have played it wrong from the start.
I am all in favour of maintaining control of your intellectual property, but it is what you do with that control that counts. If I were the relevant Daimler executive I would insist on licencing, but issue licenses on a non-exclusive basis at nominal cost to reputable and skilled folk who come along and show they are capable of doing a job of suitably high quality. That would keep out the riff-raff who might produce nasty travesties of the shape, or make the things made out of old bean cans, cardboard and filler, but would allow the true back street specialists to create things of beauty and genuine value without having to pay through the nose, or risk having their work crushed.
predding said:
Appreciate it may have infringed copywright but doesnt exactly do M-B PR much good does it? As you say - its the zeal that they smashed it into little pieces - anyway - where are the photos to prove it - methinks they do explain too much and its sitting in some M-B flunkies garage...
Pics of the crushed composite panels here, unfortunately:http://www.carvegasus.com/mercedes-benz-destroys-3...
Edited by Lowtimer on Friday 23 March 17:58
Edited by Lowtimer on Friday 23 March 18:02
predding said:
Appreciate it may have infringed copywright but doesnt exactly do M-B PR much good does it? As you say - its the zeal that they smashed it into little pieces - anyway - where are the photos to prove it - methinks they do explain too much and its sitting in some M-B flunkies garage...
I agree! it has done nothing for MB PR. The way they go about it and describe it is sick! I was looking at an SL to replace the six, but I think I will look elsewhere.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff