Suffolk Sportscars - liquidation
Discussion
Skyedriver said:
'scuse my hignorance but if you cannot copyright a car shape how did Westfield get sued by Caterham?
Theres a lot of (understandable) confusion in this thread about copyright infringement. So to be a bit of an IP pedant:1. The Ineos v Landrover case was not a copyright case but a trademark case. JLR wanted to register the shapes of the vehicles as a three dimensional trademark. That would mean that making copy Landies would have to run the gauntlet of potential trademark infringement. Ineos challenged the registration and won. Trademarks last forever, so if JLR had won, the shape of a Landrover would have ben protected forever.
2. The Caterham and Westfild case was about industrial designs or design rights in the cars, not about copyright and if recall correctly they settled. Design right protects what the object looks like on the outside and is quite short lived compared to the perpetual trademark rights, so too late for JLR to rely on that against Ineos.
3. The law on copyright in car designs is complicated and has recently had a spanner thrown in the works (eek!) by a change in the UK law that made making a copy object an infringement of the copyright in the design. Previously that was not the case, and I did wonder whether that change is what had prompted the flurry of cease and desist letters. Interestingly (to IP geeks anyway) copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. I am guessing the designer of the SS100 isn't around anymore, but the copyright in his work lives on.
As you were
Astacus said:
Theres a lot of (understandable) confusion in this thread about copyright infringement. So to be a bit of an IP pedant:
1. The Ineos v Landrover case was not a copyright case but a trademark case. JLR wanted to register the shapes of the vehicles as a three dimensional trademark. That would mean that making copy Landies would have to run the gauntlet of potential trademark infringement. Ineos challenged the registration and won. Trademarks last forever, so if JLR had won, the shape of a Landrover would have ben protected forever.
2. The Caterham and Westfild case was about industrial designs or design rights in the cars, not about copyright and if recall correctly they settled. Design right protects what the object looks like on the outside and is quite short lived compared to the perpetual trademark rights, so too late for JLR to rely on that against Ineos.
3. The law on copyright in car designs is complicated and has recently had a spanner thrown in the works (eek!) by a change in the UK law that made making a copy object an infringement of the copyright in the design. Previously that was not the case, and I did wonder whether that change is what had prompted the flurry of cease and desist letters. Interestingly (to IP geeks anyway) copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. I am guessing the designer of the SS100 isn't around anymore, but the copyright in his work lives on.
As you were
Thanks for this - you've saved my fingers as I was about to post to similar effect but read to the end of the thread before doing so. I concur with your clear and helpful analysis. 1. The Ineos v Landrover case was not a copyright case but a trademark case. JLR wanted to register the shapes of the vehicles as a three dimensional trademark. That would mean that making copy Landies would have to run the gauntlet of potential trademark infringement. Ineos challenged the registration and won. Trademarks last forever, so if JLR had won, the shape of a Landrover would have ben protected forever.
2. The Caterham and Westfild case was about industrial designs or design rights in the cars, not about copyright and if recall correctly they settled. Design right protects what the object looks like on the outside and is quite short lived compared to the perpetual trademark rights, so too late for JLR to rely on that against Ineos.
3. The law on copyright in car designs is complicated and has recently had a spanner thrown in the works (eek!) by a change in the UK law that made making a copy object an infringement of the copyright in the design. Previously that was not the case, and I did wonder whether that change is what had prompted the flurry of cease and desist letters. Interestingly (to IP geeks anyway) copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. I am guessing the designer of the SS100 isn't around anymore, but the copyright in his work lives on.
As you were
I add that a party cannot, as some say, "copyright" something. Copyright comes into existence automatically on the creation of certain categories of works, and copyrights, unlike some other forms of IP, do not require to be registered in order to be enforceable. As Astacus points out, in the context of cars, other forms of IP will often be involved, notably industrial design rights, trademarks, and sometimes (in the case of tech advances) patents.
NB: IP law varies from country to country, although there are various attempts at international harmonisation, to support international commerce.
Thanks you two. We need you watchdogs to help keep us from going astray. We can't all know everything, albeit there are one or two people I have met who seem to think they do. Does what you are saying mean that, in effect, Jaguar, for example, can still continue their court proceedings against the makers of replica C, D, XKSS and SS100 models?
Breadvan72 said:
Thanks for this - you've saved my fingers as I was about to post to similar effect but read to the end of the thread before doing so. I concur with your clear and helpful analysis.
I add that a party cannot, as some say, "copyright" something. Copyright comes into existence automatically on the creation of certain categories of works, and copyrights, unlike some other forms of IP, do not require to be registered in order to be enforceable. As Astacus points out, in the context of cars, other forms of IP will often be involved, notably industrial design rights, trademarks, and sometimes (in the case of tech advances) patents.
NB: IP law varies from country to country, although there are various attempts at international harmonisation, to support international commerce.
So do you think JLR would have any realistic case against replica manufacturers of Jaguar models that have been out of production for more than half a century ?I add that a party cannot, as some say, "copyright" something. Copyright comes into existence automatically on the creation of certain categories of works, and copyrights, unlike some other forms of IP, do not require to be registered in order to be enforceable. As Astacus points out, in the context of cars, other forms of IP will often be involved, notably industrial design rights, trademarks, and sometimes (in the case of tech advances) patents.
NB: IP law varies from country to country, although there are various attempts at international harmonisation, to support international commerce.
mph said:
Breadvan72 said:
Thanks for this - you've saved my fingers as I was about to post to similar effect but read to the end of the thread before doing so. I concur with your clear and helpful analysis.
I add that a party cannot, as some say, "copyright" something. Copyright comes into existence automatically on the creation of certain categories of works, and copyrights, unlike some other forms of IP, do not require to be registered in order to be enforceable. As Astacus points out, in the context of cars, other forms of IP will often be involved, notably industrial design rights, trademarks, and sometimes (in the case of tech advances) patents.
NB: IP law varies from country to country, although there are various attempts at international harmonisation, to support international commerce.
So do you think JLR would have any realistic case against replica manufacturers of Jaguar models that have been out of production for more than half a century ?I add that a party cannot, as some say, "copyright" something. Copyright comes into existence automatically on the creation of certain categories of works, and copyrights, unlike some other forms of IP, do not require to be registered in order to be enforceable. As Astacus points out, in the context of cars, other forms of IP will often be involved, notably industrial design rights, trademarks, and sometimes (in the case of tech advances) patents.
NB: IP law varies from country to country, although there are various attempts at international harmonisation, to support international commerce.
I guess that depends on the facts of the case etc, but if I am correct about what has brought about the new grounds for action, and as long as the copyright is still live, then they may well have.
Taking the C-type as an example, William Haynes died in 1989 (wiki), so copyright in his works would subsist until 2059, Malcolm sayer died in 1970 (wiki) so his go out to 2040. As employees, the copyrights belong to JLR of course.
Copyright can be a powerful tool to protect your work and legacy. Copyright in the Sherlock Holmes stories only ran out in 2000. Agatha Christies will run till 2046
mph said:
So do you think JLR would have any realistic case against replica manufacturers of Jaguar models that have been out of production for more than half a century?
As Astacus says, the answer to that question would depend on the facts of any given case. The answer to many if not most legal questions is "it depends ..", because it is hard to codify a set of rules to cover all contingencies. The law is in general better understood as a series of principles rather than a vast book of rules. Copyright factoid: Parliament has legislated for Great Ormond Street Hospital to receive royalties from Peter Pan forever, IIRC.
It would be rather lovely if the same thing could be done for St Mary's Hospital with Paddington Bear, but that would require the agreement of Michael Bond's estate, plus legislation.
It would be rather lovely if the same thing could be done for St Mary's Hospital with Paddington Bear, but that would require the agreement of Michael Bond's estate, plus legislation.
It is my information that Jaguar only relatively recently got around to copyrighting the shape of nearly all of the cars from the 50s through the 70s, and of course people have been building cars for years and years. Indeed, when I built the Kettle C-type the Heritage Trust gave me as much help as they could. The one car they have always tried to stop copying is the XJ13. But now there is the LM69 based on the XJ13 and while they did send out the "cease and desist" letter they are still being built with no apparent action from Jaguar.
aeropilot said:
Leftfootwonder said:
It's a fair point. Could be to do with Jaguar offering their own 'Classic' department now.
Would be my take on it as well.JLR probably weren't bothered until they spotted a future business in their own 'back catalogue'.
lowdrag said:
It is my information that Jaguar only relatively recently got around to copyrighting the shape of nearly all of the cars from the 50s through the 70....
You have been mis-informed. Please read the thread. It is impossible to "copyright" something, especially something that was made many years ago. Copyright is created automatically when certain categories of work are created, and endures during the existence of its creator and for a certain period thereafter. hyphen said:
JLR are financially struggling and looking for revenue opportunities, I imagine Suffolk Sport cars may have been offered a licensing deal where they pay a percentage per car sold .
I doubt it. Suffolk sell maybe 10 cars per year, that's hardly going to help Jaguar very much.mph said:
aeropilot said:
Like anyone is going to ever copy that thing 
The Chinese already have.
k, and there's nothing any one can do about it.Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff