Oops
https://jalopnik.com/youtuber-building-an-eleanor-mustang-replica-has-car-ta-1843863689
Oh nooooooo!
A couple cars were kicked out of BJ auction this Jan 2020 because they did not have the paperwork that said they were licensed . I think it is 30K and you get a certificate of authenticity and some emblems that it magically became a Elinor regardless of build quality .
One more "Eleanor" down.....yay...
I saw this earlier. I wonder why he had to give up the entire car?
Deathsled: help us with a legal perspective on this, if you would. 👍🏻
Disclaimer: While not an attorney, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last year.
This Youtuber is considered a business, and as such, has to ask permission for, and most likely pay a royalty or license fee to the copyright holder. Without that, depending on the strength of the copyright and the state in which the offender lives in, they risk the confiscation and destruction of the products as a whole so that the copyright holder can further protect their interests.
Now, with that said, perhaps this Youtuber should just rebody with stock 1967/68 Mustang body panels. he can then still build a semi unique automobile, all while continuing to thrive on his Youtube channel.
Bill
What if he just said that he was building a Mustang Fastback that will Resemble the Eleanor Mustang and painted it a different color? There are many companies selling the Body Kits on Ebay, has she gone after THEM as well?
Bill hit it on the nailhead. He used the name instead of calling it by something other than Eleanor. Oops. Of course the idiots at the 9th circuit court were responsible for the wonky ruling.
How to buid a copy of a copy-car and get sued for copying a copy !!! Whaoo !
The car he was building could not have been seized over copyright violations without litigation and a court order. If you noticed he said the car is "now the property of" so he sold it to them and they are going to build another tribute to one of the worst films ever made.
Ferrari recently stopped a company building fake 250 GTO's - It just goes to show you that the market for fake clothing, watches, jewelry, and cars is very strong. People need attention I guess and fake luxury items are there ticket to prominence.
427huntet is correct. Can't seize property civilly (for the most part unless the government seizes property used in commission of a crime and so on hence case captions like U.S. versus one 1972 Buick and even that has to be litigated) this was the cost of defense move. I believe copyright infringement, if proven, can result in treble damages as a statutory remedy. The guy probably either sold the body to the putative plaintiff or signed it away in exchange for a release or covenant not to use in either case.
Quote from: deathsled on June 03, 2020, 12:38:43 PM
427huntet is correct. Can't seize property civilly (for the most part unless the government seizes property used in commission of a crime and so on hence case captions like U.S. versus one 1972 Buick and even that has to be litigated) this was the cost of defense move. I believe copyright infringement, if proven, can result in treble damages as a statutory remedy. The guy probably either sold the body to the putative plaintiff or signed it away in exchange for a release or covenant not to use in either case.
Thanks, Deathsled!
BTW - you've indirectly become our law reference of choice. ;)
Quote from: deathsled on June 03, 2020, 12:38:43 PM
427huntet is correct. Can't seize property civilly (for the most part unless the government seizes property used in commission of a crime and so on hence case captions like U.S. versus one 1972 Buick and even that has to be litigated) this was the cost of defense move. I believe copyright infringement, if proven, can result in treble damages as a statutory remedy. The guy probably either sold the body to the putative plaintiff or signed it away in exchange for a release or covenant not to use in either case.
^^So they (the plaintiff) gets possession the car and now they can/could put their stamp of approval on it and now sell it as one of theirs?
I was under the impression that I could copy anything I see for my own personal use. The problem would come if I sold it or profited from their copyright/trademark/patent. I was going to add intellectual property but didn't think intellect would look right in an Eleanor thread.
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on June 03, 2020, 03:10:30 PM
I was under the impression that I could copy anything I see for my own personal use. The problem would come if I sold it or profited from their copyright/trademark/patent. I was going to add intellectual property but didn't think intellect would look right in an Eleanor thread.
Basically copyrighted materials can not be replicated legally, the intent of the person replicating the material is not a defense and will not prevent litigation.
Quote from: 427hunter on June 03, 2020, 11:40:55 AM
Ferrari recently stopped a company building fake 250 GTO's - It just goes to show you that the market for fake clothing, watches, jewelry, and cars is very strong. People need attention I guess and fake luxury items are there ticket to prominence.
Ferrari has people to deal with these situations , one shop had a "fire" :)
Copyrights and trademarks are not, in of themselves, protection under the law. They must be defended, otherwise, they become weakened. That's why Ford went on a rampage a few years back to protect their brand, logos and product designs.
Quote from: JD on June 03, 2020, 02:53:44 PM
Quote from: deathsled on June 03, 2020, 12:38:43 PM
427huntet is correct. Can't seize property civilly (for the most part unless the government seizes property used in commission of a crime and so on hence case captions like U.S. versus one 1972 Buick and even that has to be litigated) this was the cost of defense move. I believe copyright infringement, if proven, can result in treble damages as a statutory remedy. The guy probably either sold the body to the putative plaintiff or signed it away in exchange for a release or covenant not to use in either case.
^^So they (the plaintiff) gets possession the car and now they can/could put their stamp of approval on it and now sell it as one of theirs?
It will depend on the wording of the release. I believe the car was turned over either given or sold for an undisclosed sum to avoid the costs of litigation. Avoiding litigation (and lawyers) wherever possible saves you a ton of money in the long run particularly where you are the defendant and there is no insurance carrier providing you with a duty to defend.
A copyright lawyer will have a better take on what transpired than I.
Quote from: Shelby_r_b on June 03, 2020, 02:47:54 PM
Quote from: deathsled on June 03, 2020, 12:38:43 PM
427huntet is correct. Can't seize property civilly (for the most part unless the government seizes property used in commission of a crime and so on hence case captions like U.S. versus one 1972 Buick and even that has to be litigated) this was the cost of defense move. I believe copyright infringement, if proven, can result in treble damages as a statutory remedy. The guy probably either sold the body to the putative plaintiff or signed it away in exchange for a release or covenant not to use in either case.
Thanks, Deathsled!
BTW - you've indirectly become our law reference of choice. ;)
Happy to do it so long as I am accurate. Always good to get second opinions or at least use caselaw to define the parameters of the legal issue. Stare decisis is a powerful tool
So this was a seizure of an "Eleanor"? I get seizures when I see them hyped and sold at auctions for insane money. 8)
dont mess with women who sued shelby and won LOL
lmao, more unfortunate is when you talk to the new owners and they believe that they have the "real deal"
Quote from: Don Johnston on June 03, 2020, 11:57:51 PM
So this was a seizure of an "Eleanor"? I get seizures when I see them hyped and sold at auctions for insane money. 8)