EU copyright ruling on C type shape

I could be wrong but all of this reads to me like JLR saying ’ if anyone is going to build “continuation” cars, it’s going to be us’.

I’m not an expert on replica cars here but is the bone of contention that if I build one for myself as an enthusiast I’m OK or is it that if I build several for sale JLR looks at me as a manufacturer and there fore infringing on their copyrighted material.
Still you would think that if a manufacturer has not produced something in 70 years there would be a statute in place ( as in we no longer produce these).
On a different note I did capture these at a local car show.

Read the 'Annex 25, 29, 30, etc. documents Nick posted for info, but mostly, read http://bit.ly/38UwvJj . Everything is in there in gruesome detail…

You can see that from the start in 2015 Karl was pitching his excellent professional car design background and plans to manufacture and build laser-accurate C-Types commercially on a small scale.

He was fishing with live bait but a Great White caught the scent and Karl didn’t let go of the rod when it came time to fight another day. He still hasn’t and now it’s personal. To the fish it’s just another meal.

There’s a chance HMS Certiorari may sail to the rescue, but it’s a high stakes game. Most of the crowd of little boats in the cheering flotilla haven’t landed anything bigger than a can of tuna. Everyone is hoping Karl can stay afloat but the boat itself may be holed below the waterline.

Anyone got a scuba tank and a rifle?

2 Likes

Just watched ”Jaws” again last night.

:slight_smile:

Cheers!

Read the 'Annex 25, 29, 30, etc. documents Nick posted for info. In fact, I have just finished several hours of reading the court documentation, which considers every aspect of the Magnusson’s argument in detail and found decisively against them in almost every single aspect.

Honestly, the more you read the weaker it all gets. I feel used.

From memory it goes something like this:

Cars can’t be copyrighted
If they can, the C can’t be copyrighted in Swedish law
If it can it, was not designed by Sayer alone so it’s not copyrighted by him
Heynes scribbled a sketch so it wasn’t Sayer, who was on contract
Whoever did design it didn’t have copyright in 1951 because that didn’t apply
If the staff didn’t have copyright they couldn’t assign it to Jaguar
Even if Jaguar had it, they lost it because they stopped making them since 1954
Since Jaguar didn’t have it, or lost it, they didn’t transfer it to BL in 72
Even if they did, they weren’t transferred to Austin Rover Group
Even if they did, they didn’t pass to Jaguar Cars in 1982 with everything else.
Since Jaguar Cars didn’t have copyright JLR have no copyright
Even if they did, they lost it by not suing replicas made from about 1970 onwards
Even if they didn’t lose it, Karl and Anne-Christine didn’t infringe it
Even if they did infringe it, Jaguar gave them permission
Even if they didn’t give them specific permission, they let them carry on
Karl and Anne-Christine, both car designers, founded Creare in 2009 as a hobby
They bought parts through it for private fun, intending to make 3 replicas
Karl, as Manager of Creare went to see Kevin Riches and Stuart Kilvington for fun
Even if it was for business they knew he meant to produce several cars
Even if they didn’t know that, they didn’t stop him
Even if they had no role in giving permission, they didn’t warn him of any issues
Even if there was a copyright issue, they didn’t infringe
Even if they did infringe, they didn’t launch or publicise their work
Even if they did produce invites for a launch event, not many came
Even if they came, there was nothing to buy
Even if they did do something wrong, they shouldn’t pay any penalty
Even if the car’s bodywork can easily be removed they weren’t prepared to do that and keep just the car.
etc. etc.

Honestly, it was fairly horrific to read how different the facts were from the appeal. Not that it makes the Magnussons bad people, AT ALL. Naive perhaps, but I can believe they thought they were in the clear and it must be horrible to find out your best guess was miles out :frowning:

The court rejected almost every single point they made, some of which even I could see were a bit optimistic. If you set up in 2009, do a fantastic job as a pair of car industry professionals to build replicas and start giving capabilities presentations to potential customers, including photos of your first car and two more chassis, it’s a bit much to insist the whole thing was just a private hobby for two old pensioners.

For Elizabeth to say that anyone who suspects it is not a hobby car just needs to see the registration paperwork, is like me saying anyone who doubts I have Parkinsons just needs to talk to the milkman. He’s not a doctor and it’s not his job to fact-check what I tell him, so of course he’d believe me. Sadly, the court didn’t, hence the penalty.

Even more sadly, having read most of the info, my totally uneducated guess is they will lose the appeal. I hope I’m wrong.

4 Likes

I haven’t read all available and it’s a while since I’ve had anything to do with intellectual property law. Here goes (and some will know this):

  • Copyright is bestowed on creation, you don’t apply for it and there is no innovative merit test (like a patent). It just is yours, the intention being that if it is of any value then the author or creator should solely have the benefit for a very long period. To this end someone in the Jaguar camp came up with drawings and a specification that had merit! In Australia (and UK, I expect as we were gifted English law during the 1800’s), the copyright will not expire until 2040 - 70 years after Sayer’s death, if he’s understood to be the author. To this end the author has to be a “natural person”.

  • Copyright can be transferred and licenced. I would expect that all intellectual property would have survived the various acquisitions and restructures in Jaguar history - it’s der rigueur for due diligence. Would also expect that as Sayer (or others) would have signed their rights to intellectual property over to Jaguar as their employer (or customer) or perhaps be acknowledged as joint authors. The common law at the time might see it this way in any case, I expect.

  • I haven’t had a good look but Sweden and UK have been signatories to multiple copyright conventions - honouring works in both (and other) countries.

  • The moral point about not suing others is not a legal point and does not preclude movement against others later.

  • The infringement of copyright also relates to the “derivative work” or “derivative art” - something has been made using the drawings and specifications - the holder of the copyright holds the authority in dissemination of their work. This usually done by way of a licence. The author has rights to remedy for the abuse of rights.

Now the design would be registered as Registered Design with further protections. Expect that it was not at the time. Note that there was a Registered Designs Act gazetted in the UK in 1949.

  • To suggest that “not many came” or there was “nothing to buy” isn’t relevant as the infringement of rights occurred on creation of the car.

  • The remedy for copyright infringement is money damages - which can be the quantity of profit made from the infringement (or other arrangements).

  • Perhaps licence arrangements will be next for manufacturers? Henry Pearman and others will be watching closely.

Paul.

1 Like

I wonder where the guys down in the South Island stand who supplied some of the parts to help Jaguar with the manufacture of the continuation XKSS ?

Yeah , Again, Aston Martin has their own Heritage dept. , BUT THEY MAKE EVERYTHING in house. You will pay and pay ALOT but you get the part.
Where Jaguar fell short decades ago as they LEFT the old cars behind, they rely on outside vendors.
Then only produce when the need is big enough.
I feel once again, this is a last gasp for cash and Jaguar will be a two car/truck base test bed for Land Rover till Jaguar is not needed any longer.
Jaguar forever but all this is exactly what GM did, We know what happens next.
gtjoey1314

I thought I did. Until this morning I thought the Magnussons were ‘on a hiding to nothing’ as they say where I come from. Now I’m not so sure.

When I spent a few hours going through the court’s deliberations and judgement, I was in ‘regulatory affairs’ mode - the sub-type of medical information that is deadly boring and dry as dust to read, but effectively ‘infallible’ unless there has been scandalous manipulation of evidence or errors of fact - both extremely rare in that discipline. Better deadly boring than just plain deadly. This wasn’t any old court either - it was a judgement by the branch specializing in patents and copyright cases. I assumed their point by point deliberations and conclusions could be taken to the bank and the case was as good as lost.

Now I’ve spent even longer going through the appeal dossier and I’m thinking it’s perhaps 50/50 or maybe even that they will win.

Regulatory affairs dossiers are stuffed full of hard numbers, plots and tables. There are confidence limits on some of the data, but with correct design and stats you get a good handle on the probability of various outcomes. There’s no room for 2+2 = 5 but there may be some flexibility between 3.8-4.2 (see what I did there?) .

If what is stated in the 95-page appeal of the inItial judgement is true, it looks like I was seriously off the mark in attributing equal rigour to lawyering as to new drug applications. Apparently there is far more subjectivity when ‘judging’ than when ‘number-crunching’. Seems I may have been the naive one and I have no idea whose version of events will prevail or which side has more to lose.

2 Likes

Thats ok , I still love you…:slight_smile:
Hope it works out but going after 70 year olds, is the companies bread and butter, after that the dough is running out…Get it Bahaaaaaa

These the Tempero guys?

I think it might be.

Dunno about Tempero. Are they South Island based? Their current/recent cars are much closer to originals than previously but don’t believe they are factory accurate.

On the other hand I know Dave Brown in Invercargill does toolroom copies and supplied parts to JLR. So did Jerry Booen in Norfolk. Between them they built the JLR D, C and XKSS used for their driving experience events.

Yes, Rod Tempero is just outside Oamaru. He makes stunning recreations, website here.
https://www.rodtempero.com/

Dave Brown is further south in Invercargill, mostly (I think) C’s and D’s, plus an awesome GT40 replica. He doesn’t have a website, or any web presence - word of mouth. Article here:

Finally there’s Coventry Classics in Gore, half an hour north of Invercargill, mostly C’s plus (so far) 1 lightweight E. Their website is down atm, but Facebook link here:

Not sure which of these contributed to JLR XKSS’s…

So can someone say whether present commercial replica builders will be affected ?

There was/is a local (Sydney/Central Coast guy who also built exact C-type replicas, his name slips my mind atm

I sold him a MK7, and that is how he registered them, he had a list of about 50 MK7 parts he would use, he had forming bucks and quality tradesmen, sold them for big bucks

Hi Tony…no one knows what will happen next…I would imagin it depends on the outcome of the appeal…I would assume that current replica manufacturers are watching very closely…do they approach JLR and ask for licensing agreement or kerp their head down…they obviously need to get their self a plan prepared…Steve

It’s Gavin King - Concourse Sports Cars. He’s at Tuggerah. Good guy, wins the Jaguar Drivers Club Concourse regularly. Paul.

Good morning,
this was now a year ago. Is there an update somewhere, perhaps?

I know that Shelby lost the lawsuit for the Cobra against Superformance in 2002(?). Ironically Superformance now builds Cobras for Shelby!

No update yet appeal still ongoing…Steve

I’m wondering if this ruling reflects favorably for those building vintage C-Type and D-Type replicas.

1 Like