5 ms·

This could serve as a great example of illustrating the difference between theft and copyright infringement. Theft would be stealing somebody's Lamborghini. Co

This could serve as a great example of illustrating the difference between theft and copyright infringement. Theft would be stealing somebody's Lamborghini. Copyright infringement is building your own. The standard argument against copyright infringement is that Lamborghini lost a sale by him building his own. However, how likely is it that he would have bought a Lamborghini if he could not build one?

antiismist 18y ago
I'm not sure that this is a great example, because it muddies the difference between trademarks, copyrights, and patents (i.e. there may be issues with all three here, and maybe the biggest issue is on the trademark side).
- micks56 18y ago
  I agree. Copyright protects original works of authorship. A car is not an original work of authorship. A picture of the car is... And I agree about trademark being the biggest issue, perhaps coupled with infringement on design patents held by Lamborghini. No matter what this guy has an extremely strong personal use defense. He has zero effect on the market and is not distributing.
  - hugh 18y ago
    A car is not an original work of authorship. A picture of the car is... Why not? A car is a sculpture which just happens to be banged out of sheet metal instead of carved out of marble. Admittedly it's hard to think of a Toyota as a sculpture, but a Lamborghini is definitely one. And a damn lot better looking than most of the sculptures you'll see in galleries.
    - micks56 18y ago
      Good point. I stand corrected. Lamborghini and Toyota would have valid copyrights in their design, even if the Toyota is relatively boring. Personal use defenses still stand however...
- electromagnetic 18y ago
  Actually it doesn't have a single thing to do with copyright as it isn't a creative work, it's solely under a patent. As long as he doesn't go around calling it a "Lamborghini Countach" he isn't breaking any trademark laws. Finally a patent only extends to cover something that is in itself patentable. Nintendo is taking forever to get patents on it's DS game cartridges because they're based off of an SD card. If its not found to be useful or inventive then it's not patentable. Inherently most vehicles are non-patentable as they all serve an identical purpose and relatively few are at all inventive. Quite simply a patent can be invalidated by someone simply inventing it themselves, which turns something from 'original' to 'obvious' and thus non-patentable. Vehicle patents are very complicated to enforce, namely because if anyone ever tries to enforce one they can actually end up getting it invalidated (which in patent law, abolition happens more than enforcement). Lamborghini might not be able to enforce a single patent because a court might find it an obvious improvement over Henry Ford's original patent or is outright patent infringement of Fords. It's a serious lose-lose business.
  - ken 18y ago
    > Inherently most vehicles are non-patentable as they all serve an identical purpose and relatively few are at all inventive. I would guess Lamborghini is one of the few that does. Look up "design patent" in wikipedia: "a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item". If the shape and components of a top sports car don't meet this description, it's hard to imagine what would. In fact, it's not too hard to find automobile patents, e.g., http://www.google.com/patents?id=XR87AAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=XR87AAAAEBAJ (DeLorean) or http://www.google.com/patents?id=TvZ7AAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=TvZ7AAAAEBAJ (Lotus?) -- but these patents seem to have a 14-year term, so even if Lamborghini did patent this shape, the patent (at least in the USA) has probably expired by now.
    - ken 18y ago
      Followup: looks like the Countach is http://www.google.com/patents?id=y9EpAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=y9EpAAAAEBAJ -- patent number D324007, granted Feb 18, 1992 to Chrysler for a period of 14 years.
daniel-cussen 18y ago
I'd venture to guess it's not copyright infringement provided he doesn't sell it.
bena 18y ago
Not really. He still had to go through the process of creating something. He still needed to buy and assemble materials. He didn't just borrow someone's Lambo and throw it in a matter replicator. In copyright infringement cases, people are making exact duplicates without having to work to produce those duplicates. When someone makes a copy of a picture/song/program, they get all of the benefit without having to reward or acknowledge the effort that went into producing the original. This guy is more like a cover band than Napster.
- Retric 18y ago
  In most cases you still need to pay money to the songs author to legally be a cover band. The way things are setup he probably broke the law in such a way that he can get away with it. (AKA, they are not going to sue because it's good press and they might sell logos / parts to other people doing this.)
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  Just a quick note: The amount of work or effort which went into producing a work is not legally relevant to its status under copyright. This, for instance, is why mere lists of facts are not copyrightable. In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Tel... ) the "sweat of the brow" doctrine was soundly dismissed.
ciscoriordan 18y ago
Also there's a big difference between somebody spending a few moments with DVD Shrink and this guy spending 17 years on his Lamborghini clone.
- hugh 18y ago
  Exactly. If instead of just copying a DVD, you hired actors, cameras, lighting and props and made a short-by-shot remake of your favourite movie, and then promised not to make any further copies of it, you'd be analogous to this guy. Or, I'm reminded of that guy in that Borges story who spends his whole life trying to rewrite Don Quixote from scratch.

antiismist 18y ago

I'm not sure that this is a great example, because it muddies the difference between trademarks, copyrights, and patents (i.e. there may be issues with all three here, and maybe the biggest issue is on the trademark side).

micks56 18y ago
I agree. Copyright protects original works of authorship. A car is not an original work of authorship. A picture of the car is... And I agree about trademark being the biggest issue, perhaps coupled with infringement on design patents held by Lamborghini. No matter what this guy has an extremely strong personal use defense. He has zero effect on the market and is not distributing.
- hugh 18y ago
  A car is not an original work of authorship. A picture of the car is... Why not? A car is a sculpture which just happens to be banged out of sheet metal instead of carved out of marble. Admittedly it's hard to think of a Toyota as a sculpture, but a Lamborghini is definitely one. And a damn lot better looking than most of the sculptures you'll see in galleries.
  - micks56 18y ago
    Good point. I stand corrected. Lamborghini and Toyota would have valid copyrights in their design, even if the Toyota is relatively boring. Personal use defenses still stand however...
electromagnetic 18y ago
Actually it doesn't have a single thing to do with copyright as it isn't a creative work, it's solely under a patent. As long as he doesn't go around calling it a "Lamborghini Countach" he isn't breaking any trademark laws. Finally a patent only extends to cover something that is in itself patentable. Nintendo is taking forever to get patents on it's DS game cartridges because they're based off of an SD card. If its not found to be useful or inventive then it's not patentable. Inherently most vehicles are non-patentable as they all serve an identical purpose and relatively few are at all inventive. Quite simply a patent can be invalidated by someone simply inventing it themselves, which turns something from 'original' to 'obvious' and thus non-patentable. Vehicle patents are very complicated to enforce, namely because if anyone ever tries to enforce one they can actually end up getting it invalidated (which in patent law, abolition happens more than enforcement). Lamborghini might not be able to enforce a single patent because a court might find it an obvious improvement over Henry Ford's original patent or is outright patent infringement of Fords. It's a serious lose-lose business.
- ken 18y ago
  > Inherently most vehicles are non-patentable as they all serve an identical purpose and relatively few are at all inventive. I would guess Lamborghini is one of the few that does. Look up "design patent" in wikipedia: "a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item". If the shape and components of a top sports car don't meet this description, it's hard to imagine what would. In fact, it's not too hard to find automobile patents, e.g., http://www.google.com/patents?id=XR87AAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=XR87AAAAEBAJ (DeLorean) or http://www.google.com/patents?id=TvZ7AAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=TvZ7AAAAEBAJ (Lotus?) -- but these patents seem to have a 14-year term, so even if Lamborghini did patent this shape, the patent (at least in the USA) has probably expired by now.
  - ken 18y ago
    Followup: looks like the Countach is http://www.google.com/patents?id=y9EpAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents?id=y9EpAAAAEBAJ -- patent number D324007, granted Feb 18, 1992 to Chrysler for a period of 14 years.

daniel-cussen 18y ago

I'd venture to guess it's not copyright infringement provided he doesn't sell it.

bena 18y ago

Not really. He still had to go through the process of creating something. He still needed to buy and assemble materials. He didn't just borrow someone's Lambo and throw it in a matter replicator. In copyright infringement cases, people are making exact duplicates without having to work to produce those duplicates. When someone makes a copy of a picture/song/program, they get all of the benefit without having to reward or acknowledge the effort that went into producing the original. This guy is more like a cover band than Napster.

Retric 18y ago
In most cases you still need to pay money to the songs author to legally be a cover band. The way things are setup he probably broke the law in such a way that he can get away with it. (AKA, they are not going to sue because it's good press and they might sell logos / parts to other people doing this.)
LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
Just a quick note: The amount of work or effort which went into producing a work is not legally relevant to its status under copyright. This, for instance, is why mere lists of facts are not copyrightable. In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Tel... ) the "sweat of the brow" doctrine was soundly dismissed.

ciscoriordan 18y ago

Also there's a big difference between somebody spending a few moments with DVD Shrink and this guy spending 17 years on his Lamborghini clone.

hugh 18y ago
Exactly. If instead of just copying a DVD, you hired actors, cameras, lighting and props and made a short-by-shot remake of your favourite movie, and then promised not to make any further copies of it, you'd be analogous to this guy. Or, I'm reminded of that guy in that Borges story who spends his whole life trying to rewrite Don Quixote from scratch.